Today in the legislature I introduced a bill that would limit the number of terms a person could be elected as an MLA: Bill M236 —Election Amendment Act 2. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that those seeking elected office recognize that serving the people of British Columbia should be interpreted as a sense of civic duty, not a career path.

Below I provide the full text and video of my introduction of the Bill.

Text of Introduction

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Election Amendment Act 2, 2017, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I am pleased to introduce the bill entitled Election Amendment Act 2. This bill is designed to set term limits on elected officials of the B.C. Legislature. If enacted, this bill would limit MLAs to 12 years, or three terms. In addition, an individual could not be nominated for re-election if they had already served eight years as Premier.

The introduction of term limits would ensure that those seeking elected office recognize that serving the people of British Columbia should be interpreted as a sense of civic duty, not a career path.

The general public have become cynical about politics and career politicians. Voter turnout is on the decline. By introducing term limits, certain elected officials will be freed up to think about the long term consequences of their decisions rather than just their re-election goals. It will ensure a continued rejuvenation of this Legislature.

I feel that we are still fighting the Cold War in this chamber. We’ve got politicians who’ve been here, on both sides of the House, since the 1990s. When the same players continue their never-ending dance of dysfunction, British Columbians all lose. The type of behaviour that we witnessed this morning in question period is a testament to that.

Madame Speaker: Member, just to the content of the bill.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M236, Election Amendment Act 2, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Video of Introduction

Weaver Responds to Government’s Ridesharing Announcement
March 7th, 2017
For immediate release

VICTORIA B.C. – After tabling the Rideshare Enabling Act twice in the B.C. Legislature, MLA Andrew Weaver is glad to see the provincial government also advancing the issue.

“This government initiative is long overdue and a critical issue for the 21st century economy,” says Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party.

Until today, the B.C. Greens have been the only party advocating for the responsible adoption of ridesharing in B.C., with Weaver introducing his Ridesharing Enabling Act in April 2016 and again in February 2017. Weaver held consultations with stakeholders to create the ridesharing framework bill.

“I have been working on this issue for two years, not out of electoral calculation, but rather as a matter of principle. The principle is – as I have stated repeatedly – that if we are to put innovation at the centre of our new economy, we must embrace the best ideas wherever we find them and improve upon them with made-in-BC expertise,” says Weaver.

“You cannot be considered a leader in technology if you are unwilling to embrace embrace technology already in widespread use.”

Earlier this year, more than 20 local tech CEOs penned a public letter to the B.C. Liberal government articulating the very same reasoning.
“My support for ridesharing lies in the fact that it makes good economic sense. And, hand in hand with that, it is also good environmental policy. Ridesharing, in all its forms, means fewer cars, less dependence on oil and gas, and a much smaller carbon footprint.”
“At the same time, I sympathize with the taxi drivers, many of whom have paid very high prices for their licenses. The government has a duty to ensure that existing industries are adequately consulted, and the announcement from the Taxi Driver’s Association suggests they failed to do so.”

It is important to note that Weaver and the B.C. Green Party’s support of ridesharing doesn’t indicate support for one specific ridesharing company.

“All companies doing business in B.C. are expected to be good corporate citizens and a B.C. Green government will hold them to a very high standard,” says Weaver. “In the government’s announcement today they said they ‘expect’ companies to behave when they do business in B.C. – that’s not good enough. A Green government would require them to do so.”

– 30 –

Media contact
Mat Wright, Press Secretary
+1 250-216-3382 | mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Today in the legislature I introduced Bill M234 — Wildlife Amendment Act, 2017.

This bill combined two previous bills that I had introduced in the legislature. The BC Liberals did not wish to bring either of these to second reading. The first Bill was to designed to reduce the preferential treatment of non-resident hunters by eliminating the minister’s discretion to make separate rules for resident and foreign hunters when it comes to obtaining LEH permits. This bill requires all hunters to enter a lottery for their LEH tags, as is done in other jurisdictions.

The second Bill I had already introduced was designed to ensure that all edible portions of animals hunted in British Columbia are taken to the hunter’s domicile. In addition, the proposed changes remove grizzly bears from the list of animals exempt from meat harvesting regulations. These put in place a major logistical barrier to foreign trophy hunting.

Two new additions were included in the updated bill. I am grateful to the feedback I received on my earlier bills that led to these modifications. First, if passed this bill would require that edible portions be packed out prior to, or in conjuction with, any other body parts of the game carcass. This is consistent with the notion is that hunting is primarily for food and the the trophy should be viewed as a by-catch.

The second addition would disallow those convicted of fisheries or wildlife offences from becoming fishing or hunting guides in the province of British Columbia.

Below I reproduce the text and video on my introduction along with the accompanying press release .

Text of the Introduction

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Wildlife Amendment Act, 2017, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill that, if enacted, would make a number of changes to the Wildlife Act.

This bill restricts the practices of non-resident trophy hunters who come to B.C. to kill large game by making three specific amendments to the Wildlife Act. The proposed changes remove grizzly bears from the list of animals exempt from meat harvesting regulations, ensures all edible portions of animals killed in B.C. are taken directly to a hunter’s residence, and requires the meat to be taken out first, before the hide or head.

This bill also stops government from letting non-resident hunters buy preferential access to limited-entry hunting permits and bans people convicted of fisheries or wildlife offences from becoming fishing or hunting guides in the province of British Columbia.

For local sustenance hunters, the vast majority of hunters in B.C. that is, this bill merely echoes what they are already doing — harvesting wild game to bring the meat home to feed their families. For non-resident trophy hunters coming to B.C. to hunt an animal only for its hide, skull or antler, this bill puts in place a significant logistical challenge.

Bill M234, Wildlife Amendment Act, 2017, introduced and read a first time.

A. Weaver: At this time, I move, pursuant to standing order 78a, that this bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills for immediate review.

Madame Speaker: I will point out that that’s a departure in practice.

All those in favour? Nay is heard. Division has been called.

A. Weaver: May I have this referred to second reading — a motion to do so?

Bill M234, Wildlife Amendment Act, ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Video of the Introduction

Media Release

Weaver tables Wildlife Amendment Act to Committee Stage – Liberals vote Nay
For immediate release
March 6th, 2017

VICTORIA B.C. – Today in the legislature MLA Andrew Weaver tabled the Wildlife Amendment Act directly to committee stage, leading to an immediate vote in the House. Weaver and the B.C. NDP voted in favour of moving the bill directly to committee stage for review. The B.C. Liberals voted against it.

“This bill works to ensure that sustainable, respectful sustenance hunting in British Columbia is grounded in a science-based conservation policy and that the interests of residents hunters are put ahead of foreign trophy hunters.

“It is clear these are values the B.C. Liberals do not share – as illustrated by their vote against further consulting on this bill today. But, I am glad to see that the B.C. NDP support my initiatives on this file,” says Weaver.

The bill would restrict the practices of non-resident trophy hunters who come to B.C. to hunt large game by making three specific amendments to the Wildlife Act. The proposed changes remove grizzly bears from the list of animals exempt from meat harvesting regulations, ensures all edible portions of animals killed in B.C. are taken directly to the hunter’s residence, and requires the meat to be taken out first – before the hide or head. For non-resident trophy hunters coming to B.C. to hunt an animal solely for its hide, skull, or antlers this puts in place a prohibitive logistical challenge.

The bill also stops the government from letting non-resident hunters buy preferential access to limited-entry-hunt permits. And lastly, it bans people convicted of fisheries or wildlife offenses in B.C. and other jurisdictions from becoming fishing or hunting guides.

– 30 –

Media contact
Mat Wright, Press Secretary
+1 250-216-3382 | mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Weaver welcomes Elections BC investigation into political contributions
March 6th, 2017
For immediate release

VICTORIA B.C. – Today Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party, welcomed the news that Elections BC is investigating potential contraventions of the Election Act.

“I’m thrilled that Elections BC will be investigating the information regarding indirect political contributions and other potential contraventions of the Election Act that were recently made public through the media,” says Weaver, also the MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

“However, this issue is so serious and of such consequence to British Columbians that I am also asking the RCMP to determine whether there are grounds for a criminal investigation. I will be sending the RCMP a letter this afternoon.”

Media reports over the weekend allege that many donations to the Liberals are made fraudulently or in violation of the Election Act and that the Liberals are encouraging this behaviour by holding cash for access events. The Liberals raised more than $12 million last year, more than any provincial political party in power. The B.C. NDP, which also accepts both corporate and union donations, have also allegedly pressured lobbyists for donations. The NDP have not released fundraising figures for 2016 but raised $3 million in 2015.

“It is crucial that all investigations be done in a thorough and timely manner, and that the results be released before the May 9th election. British Columbians have a right to know, before they cast their ballot, whether the B.C. Liberal Party or the B.C. NDP have broken the law.”

The B.C. Green Party stopped accepting corporate and union donations in September.

“This situation shows clearly the need for wholesale political finance reform in B.C,” says Weaver. “It’s time for British Columbians to take back B.C.”

– 30 –

Media contact
Mat Wright, Press Secretary
+1 250-216-3382 | mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

On Thursday last week we debated Bill 7: Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017 at second reading. Every member of the legislature that rose to speak to the bill was in support of it.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my contributions to the debate.

Text of My Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 7, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017. Like every member that has spoken before me in the House, I too, obviously, will be voting in support of this bill. It’s a bill filled with good news. But let’s explore some of the details a bit further. This bill provides a framework, which is important, for the licensing and/or registration of commercial breeders of cats and dogs.

Hon. Speaker, as you will know, earlier today I had a remarkable young woman in the Legislature, up there. This young woman was deeply and profoundly concerned about the health and well-being and ability of people to have miniature goats in their backyard. One of the questions, obviously, that I’ll be raising in committee stage is: does this legislation apply to the breeding of miniature goats, for example?

The details of this bill — like what I’ve come to see far too often in my four years — are not actually in the bill but are left for regulation down the road, by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. And like every other bill we’re being asked to support here, we’re essentially saying: “Trust us to do what is right.” It really leaves one to wonder whether the government has actually done the necessary groundwork to know how this bill will play out through regulations, rather than just putting in a feel-good bill in the lead-up to an election.

I could actually see this. I can imagine TV commercials, as we enter the NHL playoffs, where we have cute little puppies, with people hugging them and saying: “The B.C. government is here for you. We’re here for you and the puppies.”

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I’ve given them an election suggestion. So you heard it here first, in the B.C. Legislature. The B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens, of course, could do the same thing and say: “We supported this bill,” as we hug our puppies, in the lead-up to the election.

Truly, this is an important bill. But we’ve had four years in this Legislature to deal with substantive issues like this, and it has taken till pre-election time to actually bring this forward.

While many of the details are actually left to regulation, we do know, for example, that an external agency will be designated by future regulation, and that external agency will administer the system. Lots of vague language there. The agency’s inspectors will be responsible for inspecting and enforcing relevant standards of care. A lot of vague statements there too. Inspectors will be able to apply for a warrant to enter a residence if the owner’s consent is not provided. That’s obviously good.

Breeders found to be engaging in irresponsible practice may be subject to “an administrative action,” including having their licence or registration suspended or cancelled. Operators will be able to request a review or reconsideration of the administrative actions taken against them.

This bill has the support of the SPCA. We know that, as well, after they consulted, and the government consulted, with a variety of stakeholders.

One of the things that I would have liked to have seen in a bill like this — much as I would like to have seen in the Wildlife Act, for example — is where government actually has specific language that states that you are not going to be granted a licence if you have committed an offence against a similar type or piece of legislation in another province.

Now, why I say that is that in the case of wildlife, we have stories coming forth of guide outfitters who, in other provinces, have actually been fined for offences through not appropriately abiding by the rules of the province. Yet in B.C., the Wild West of B.C., it doesn’t matter who you are, we’ll give you a guide-outfitting licence. That is irresponsible, which is why I would have liked to see something a little stronger here in terms of who gets licences.

The essence of the bill falls into two sections: section 4 and section 5. These, actually, are designed, in the first case, to impose prohibitions and duties on operators who must be licensed or registered to engage in a regulated activity. For example, it requires a licence. A regulated operator is to make available to an inspector their licence or a certificate of registration and display the licence or certificate and provide information to the public.

Also, an operator may not charge a fee for providing information to the public or a person who may acquire an animal from an operator. The problem here again…. It has been alluded to by two of my colleagues, the member for Cowichan Valley and the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. The member for Cowichan Valley is well-known within this Legislature for looking at legislation under a microscope, peeling through the details with a fine-toothed comb, searching for jiggery-pokery in any form or any fashion.

It’s interesting what he was able to find here. It’s not his. He gives credit to the person who brought it to him, but he received some important information, and that is something I would like to explore. I’m sure the member for Cowichan Valley will as well at committee stage. It’s to the effect that we’re introducing red tape, regulation, for the people already following the law. Those who don’t follow the law are likely not going to be coming, knocking on doors and saying: “Give us a permit. We’re going to actually display that permit so that everyone can tell that we’re not actually following the law.” The underground aspect of those kind of puppy factories that we’re introducing legislation for….

It’s not clear to me that this is actually being dealt with, or the extent to which there are some proactive measures taken by the government to seek out such people. Do they simply have to wait until somebody makes a complaint and then follow the legislation subsequent to receiving such a complaint?

As I mentioned, section 5 is the other meaty part of this bill. That sets out the procedures for applying for a licence or registration and provides inspection power for enforcing the licensing or registration scheme. It also provides a designated agency to establish a minister and enforce a licensing or registration scheme and for training and oversight of employees as licensing officers, reviewing officers and licensing inspectors.

Again, you know, when you read the bill, there’s nothing really of any substance to criticize. There are a few concerns that my friend and colleague from Cowichan Valley has noted, but this is really a bill about protecting animals. I’ve heard each and every person here speak to this. What I noted in their speeches is every person talked about the love of their dog that they had when they were a child. But let me tell you: I didn’t have a dog as a child. I didn’t have a dog as a child because I was allergic to dogs, and my mother was allergic to dogs. So I can’t speak with passion to the love of my dog. However, when I left home, my parents….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I did watch Old Yeller. The member for Peace River South pointed out that Old Yeller evokes passion in anyone who watches it. It was a very disturbing movie to me when I was a child to see Old Yeller get hydrophobia and start to turn against the young boy who once was his soulmate, his partner. That was troubling. Perhaps Old Yeller had actually got that from a puppy farm. We’re so lucky today that that will be regulated by this particular government. This government is actually stepping in to do what Old Yeller’s little boy couldn’t do, which is protect the future of their puppy from the puppy farm and the diseases they get.

My parents did have a lovely dog, and we have several of them. They were non-allergic dogs, so they were able to have them when I was older. They were delightful pets. They were passed down from family to family because others got old and they couldn’t take care of the dogs.

I remember my parents’ dog’s first name. It was Lisitsa. Lisitsa is a Ukrainian name. I believe it means fox. I could be wrong, but I believe it meant fox. It was a lovely name for a very vibrant dog that kept my parents company. We had a subsequent dog. It was Lisa. It was another dog, very similar. It, too, was loved by my parents. Even thought it was hypoallergenic, I couldn’t enjoy the pleasures of dogs. So while I understand, having watched Old Yeller, the importance of this bill, I could never actually feel it personally like the member for North Vancouver–Seymour or the member for Cowichan Valley — all these heartfelt stories. The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan with his husky.

I missed out in childhood. Maybe I should be seeking therapy over that, after listening to these speeches here today.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Some of of the members opposite feel the same way.

Anyway, the reason I bring that up, of course, is this is a very important bill. I’ll be speaking in support of it. I have. I will be following up in committee stage. It is important that we treat our pets properly.

But there are so many other issues facing the people of British Columbia. Why is this government not bringing in legislation to deal with affordability issues? Why is this government not dealing with a very problematic aspect of our society, which is the liability of pet owners for the behavior of their pets?

On the order paper, you’ll see some bills there. I spoke last session about the Animal Liability Act and changes. This time I’ll speak about the Community Charter so that we can actually ensure that not only the breeders of pets but also the owners of pets are held accountable for their treatment and ownership of the pets that they have under their care.

This is important. The government is missing that. It’s not dealing with this. It’s going with the election ad during hockey games, holding puppies and saying: “We are here for you, British Columbians. We are here to support your puppies.” I mean, really. There are so many other issues we should be debating. We should be talking about health care. We should be talking about education. There are so many bills. What about poverty? What about social welfare rates? Why aren’t we seeing legislation here? Why are we focusing on a number of bills that are brought forward?

The last session of this government being in office. We’re dealing with the Budget Measures Implementation Act and a lovely bill to protect puppies. We all agree it’s a lovely bill. There are a couple of other bills that we’re getting, but there’s nothing. This is a government that is so lost, so out of touch with the issues facing British Columbians that they’re pulling bills off the shelf that they’ve had to fill the time rather than actually standing up and dealing with the prevailing issues in British Columbia.

The fact that…. This time four years ago we had been promised 100,000 jobs, a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $1 trillion increase in GDP, elimination of the PST, thriving schools and hospitals, three LNG plants and all of us wealthy in their lead-up to the last election. Where is it? It’s not here. Why aren’t we talking about that?

Are we going to see them taking out ads in the hockey games, hugging puppies and saying: “We’re here for you, British Columbians; we’re here for your puppies”? Or are they going to stand up and say: “We’re sorry we misled you for the last four years by promising you nonsense, despite the fact that the lone B.C. Green MLA in this Legislature said it wasn’t going to happen in 2012, said it wasn’t going to happen in 2013, said it wasn’t going to happen in 2014, said it wasn’t going to happen in 2015”?

Around that time, the minister of hot air and gas pointed out that I was going to eat my words, and he was looking forward to that time. He knew more than I did because he meets with these people. Two years later here we are. Where is it? It’s misleading.

What are we doing? We’re debating here the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act. Well done, B.C. government. Well done dealing with those issues that are affecting everyday life for British Columbians here. Let’s talk about puppies. Give me a break. Obviously, I support this bill, but there are so many other bills that we should be talking about. That is what we should be spending time here, and that’s why I’m going to sit down now, because I hope we get to those other issues and to talk about them as we come forward.

Video of My Speech