Today in the legislature I rose during question period to ask both the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, as well as the Minister of Education, how the upcoming poverty reduction strategy will ensure that all children and youth have equal access to menstrual products.

Coincidentally, today was also the launch of United Way’s Period Promise, a campaign designed to raise donations for, and awareness of, the financial challenge facing women struggling to make ends meet.

As you will see from the exchange (reproduced in video and text below), I was very encouraged by the responses from both Ministers.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: The 2018 child poverty report card found that one in five children in British Columbia are currently growing up in poverty. That’s over 172,000 children, many of whom are in deep poverty, up to $13,000 below the poverty line.

We also know that these children are very likely to be Indigenous, immigrants or racialized minorities. These children often go to school hungry. Their families are worried about basic necessities, such as shelter and groceries.

Now, consider the approximately 86,000 impoverished children and youth who require menstrual products on a monthly basis. Consider the fact that most families under the poverty line are single mothers and their children. For many individuals, managing menstruation can require additional products of birth control.

Through you Honourable Speaker to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, how will the upcoming poverty reduction strategy ensure that all children and youth have equal access to menstrual products?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: Thank you to the member for the question.

The cost and availability of menstrual products is a real issue, especially for poor women who often face the choice of purchasing those products or buying other essentials, including food. This should not be the case.

We all expect when we enter a public washroom that toilet paper is readily available and free. Why that isn’t the case for menstrual products is a very good question. One, I suspect, that if men had a menstrual cycle, we wouldn’t be asking today.

The member’s question is particularly timely today. The Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity has kicked off the Period Promise campaign here at the Legislature. People can support that campaign through donations of products or cash at the Finance Minister’s office until March 28, and those will go to a very good purpose.

But more directly to the member’s inquiry, this is a societal question. It requires societal change, and as it impacts women — particularly, poor women — it’s an affordability question. Affordability is a cornerstone of the poverty reduction work in front of our government, and we’re taking that work on.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the very thoughtful answer to the question. My supplemental is this.

Last week the New Westminster school board announced that they will be providing free menstrual products in all of their elementary, middle and high schools beginning this September. This will not only reduce costs faced by financially struggling families; it will improve access to education for girls and non-binary folk who menstruate.

We know that students, if they can’t manage their periods, will remove themselves from extracurricular activities and even miss school. Providing menstrual products gives all children equal access to education. But this program places a financial cost on school districts that are already strapped for funds and facing teacher shortages.

My question is to the Minister of Education. All children deserve equal access to education. What is his ministry doing to provide menstrual products for students in British Columbia?

Answer

Hon. R. Fleming: I would thank the member for the question. It’s obviously a very important issue for students across British Columbia. When students can’t access menstrual products, it can often impede their ability to participate in sports or extracurricular activities, or maybe they even have to miss learning time by having to miss classes.

We see this initiative that New Westminster has undertaken as an important part of promoting an overall student success agenda that the government has in working with our school district partners. I want to take this opportunity to commend the New West district for showing the lead here. It’s a great initiative; there’s no question about that.

It has also garnered some interest from school districts. I expect to be meeting with our education partners about this particular issue — the school trustee association, among them. I would say in the meantime that we do have some existing funding streams that can be assessed to do what New Westminster has done in other parts of the province. The CommunityLINK fund is one of those that may be an area where they can pay for menstrual products.

I want to say, too, on a personal note that I thank the United Way and, in my community, the Victoria Labour Council for the Period Promise campaign. I was pleased to go out personally and make some donations last week when they were doing a fundraising. Those activities are ongoing during this campaign. It’s very promising, and it has led to a very productive discussion in the school district.

I think this is an issue that fits with our government’s overall affordability agenda, and we’re happy to engage in that discussion with school districts.

Today in the legislature I introduced Bill M206, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019.

This bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants with the ability to end their fixed-term lease if staying in the rental unit is a threat to their safety or security. It broadens the somewhat constraining family violence provisions introduced by the B.C. Liberal government in 2015 and gives, for example, a tenant exposed to sexualized violence by a roommate or a neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move to a safer home.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the introduction of the bill along with the accompanying press release.

Video of Introduction

Text of Introduction

A. Weaver: I move a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be now read a first time. This bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants with the ability to end their fixed-term lease if staying in the rental unit is a threat to their safety or security. It broadens the somewhat constraining family violence provisions introduced by the B.C. Liberal government in 2015 and gives, for example, a tenant exposed to sexualized violence by a roommate or a neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move to a safer home.

A new term “occupant violence” is defined in the bill and makes it explicit that the regulations listing which professionals and practitioners are authorized to provide a confirmation statement about family violence have the same powers in cases involving occupant violence.

The written third-party verification can be provided by police, listed medical practitioners, counsellors, First Nations support workers, victim support workers, among others. Having regulations that extend verification powers beyond law enforcement is vital, as not all survivors will be able or willing to involve the police.

In cases of domestic violence, risk of injury or death can actually increase if a violent partner learns their spouse has contacted police or is planning on leaving. Having a range of professionals able to vouch for victims will allow them to choose the safest option for their situations.

The previous B.C. Liberal government did a superb job with the development of these regulations. “Sexual abuse” is explicitly listed under occupant violence. “Sexual abuse” is used rather than “sexual assault” for violence because it aligns with and is already defined in existing laws, such as the Adult Guardianship Act and because it is a broader term that includes sexual assault and sexualized violence.

By using the word “including” before the list of crimes covered by occupant violence, the law is kept inclusive of a range of situations that could fit the broader intent, rather than explicitly specifying which situations would be covered.

No one should be forced to live in close proximity to their perpetrator. This bill supports survivors.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

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 M2016, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019, 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.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus tables Residential Tenancy Amendment Act to expand protections, supporting survivors
For immediate release
March 7, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. ‚— The B.C. Green Caucus has introduced an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act that, if passed, would provide tenants with the ability to end their fix term lease if staying in their rental unit is a threat to their safety or security.

“No one should be forced to live in close proximity to their perpetrator – this bill supports survivors,” said MLA Andrew Weaver, who introduced the bill on the eve of International Women’s Day. “We are building upon the good work of the BC Liberals’ in 2015, when they added the family violence provision with support from the BC NDP. This bill, drafted in consultation with the legislative drafters and stakeholders like West Coast LEAF and Ending Violence Association of BC, expands on existing provisions to insure that all victims have the same rights. It gives, for example, someone who is sexually assaulted by their roommate or neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move somewhere safe.”

West Coast LEAF says the scope of crime against tenants is difficult to gauge given these types of crimes are underreported, but the changes are needed.

“While family violence continues to account for a significant portion of all reported crimes in Canada – approximately 25% – other forms of violence remain prevalent in B.C. and disproportionately impact marginalized communities including sex workers, Indigenous women, and LGBTQIA2S+ individuals,” said Elba Bendo, director of Law Reform, West Coast LEAF. “The proposed amendments are a welcome step towards ensuring that survivors of all forms of violence are able to relocate to keep themselves and their families safe.”

Ending Violence Association of BC executive director Tracy Porteous estimates there are approximately 60,000 incidents of sexual and domestic violence in British Columbia each year.

“That equates to over 1,000 incidents per week,” said Porteous. “Most often, this violence takes place in a home and once that happens, the ‘home’ may not be a safe place any longer. The previous Act allowed for women affected by family violence to be released from the confines of their lease, so they could be free to seek safety, however that provision did not extend to survivors of sexual assault or survivors of other acts of violence. We would like to applaud the B.C. Green Party for introducing this proposed amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act today that will constitute a step forward toward making B.C. a safer place for all citizens. We think a plan that leaves no one behind is the best plan, and we thank Andrew Weaver for his leadership in this regard.”

“B.C. Green Caucus believes updating current legislation or drafting new bills to advance protections for women and other vulnerable groups is simply good governance,” said MLA Weaver, “whether it’s workplace protections like the 2017 bill preventing employers from requiring select employees to wear high-heeled shoes in the workplace, or in 2016 when I brought for the Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies Act.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

—

Today was Budget Day in the BC Legislature. This is the second full budget announced by the BC NDP minority government. The government’s 2019 budget provides clear evidence that the B.C. Greens’ participation in this landmark minority government has been a success in advancing its values and policy priorities.

When I rise tomorrow to speak to the budget, I will provide a more extensive analysis. Below is the media statement we released outlining our initial reaction.

Media Statement

B.C. Green influence evident in 2019 budget priorities
For immediate release
February 19, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – The government’s 2019 budget provides clear evidence that the B.C. Greens’ participation in this landmark minority government has been a success in advancing its values and policy priorities.

“We are pleased the B.C. Green Caucus’ impact on this budget is so evident,” said MLA Andrew Weaver. “By funding core B.C. Green initiatives, including CleanBC, professional reliance reform, and increasing affordability for students, government demonstrates the value of our voice in a minority government.

“I have been pushing government to prioritize the wellbeing of British Columbians, their economy and their environment since I was elected almost six years ago. CleanBC is not just an investment for today, but for our future as well. The investment of almost $1 billion over the fiscal plan goes a long way to putting us on track to meet our targets.”

Advancing the policies in the Confidence and Supply Agreement has been a unique challenge, but the 2019 budget takes meaningful steps forward on numerous caucus priorities. The B.C. Green Caucus values being able to work collaboratively with government.

Other B.C. Green priorities that have been funded in this budget: support for family caregivers, Pharmacare, education, childcare, and investments in youth mental health.

The announcement of the B.C. Child Opportunity Benefit is also a positive step forward, providing support for the health and wellbeing of B.C. families.

“The B.C. Child Opportunity Benefit will positively impact B.C. families and aligns with our values of intergenerational equity and proactively promotes the health and wellbeing before they find themselves left behind.”

There are also welcome advances in the relationship between government and Indigenous nations with the agreement on revenue sharing advanced in this budget.

However, the B.C. Green caucus would have invested significantly more in environmental stewardship to ensure future generations have the same opportunities and security that we do.

“Funding for habitat and species protections is underwhelming. Our province’s wildlife is facing increasing threats, and to ignore the plight of endangered species like steelhead is more than shortsighted; it is dangerous to the economy, environment and our province’s cultural identify.

“Preparing for the future will continue to be a challenge. We know that climate change threatens every aspect of life in our province. Government must recognize this threat and allocate funding to address the unavoidable increase in natural disasters. From wildfires to flooding, we must aggressively fund our emergency response network and plan on emergency funding needs in the year to come.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Today in the legislature I rose to give my response to the Speech from the Throne. As I noted yesterday, while I am pleased that the Throne Speech recognized the important work that has been achieved on the priority initiatives outlined in the Confidence and Supply Agreement between the B.C. Greens and the BC NDP, I am concerned by the apparent lack of broader vision.

Below I reproduce my response in both text and video.

It turns out I was one of only five speakers who spoke in response to the Speech from the Throne. After I spoke, the BC NDP were supposed to put up a speaker but that speaker failed to show up. After some kerfuffle, Steve Thomson from the BC Liberals rose and delivered an address. The BC NDP failed to put up a speaker after Steve Thomson finished and the Throne Speech immediately went to a vote. This is unfortunate as neither of my colleagues Adam Olsen or Sonia Furstenau were therefore able to deliver their speeches which were scheduled for tomorrow.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Thank you, and welcome to the new position as Assistant Deputy Speaker. It gives me great honour to speak as not the first but the second person, under your oversight.

I thank the member for Kamloops–North Thompson for his remarks. I must say, somewhat cynical in the remarks, but I understand that. I do share some of his concerns about the throne speech, and I’ll come to that in more detail later.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Peace River North suggests that I’m cynical, too, but I beg to differ with the member.

I am the designated speaker. I know members opposite are looking forward….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: You hear them groaning in delight, but the member for Vancouver–West End is quite excited by the words to come.

Let me start, please, with thanking my staff in the Legislative Assembly for helping us, in the B.C. Green caucus, do the work that we do day in, day out. Without their support, we would not be able to be prepared for issues like this, speeches like this.

I’m very grateful to the work of the staff, both in the Legislature and the constit office as well — and, more generally, the people in this building, whether it be the guards, in the cafeteria, the people who clean, the people who take…. Or even Libby, who’s now upstairs somewhere ushering people into the gallery.

You know, it must be tough for these people to work here knowing that there’s a cloud over this place. Let it be said that we are very grateful for the hard work that they do, and we’ll all move beyond this. So thank you to the people who work here.

And to the public service in general. None of these bills that we’re going to debate in the upcoming session would be possible were it not for the hard work by the public service. Let me tell you, it is my experience that British Columbia has the best and brightest from all across Canada in our public service. I say that because it’s one of our key strategic strengths. It is the quality of life in British Columbia that we can offer people, which is why we can attract and retain some of the best and brightest.

It’s also one of the reasons why we have an affordability issue. People choose to live in B.C. because it is a lovely place to live. Great economy. Great weather, except for the last couple of days. Wonderful people. Friendly, relaxed atmosphere. And never a dull moment in the B.C. Legislature either. Lots to do here in British Columbia.

Finally, to the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I thank them for entrusting me as their representative in this place. I have countless meetings with constituents, and I do appreciate the ongoing feedback that they give. Thank you to them.

Now to the throne speech. Let me start by saying that I’m pleased that the throne speech did recognize the important work that’s been achieved on a number of priority initiatives outlined in our confidence and supply agreement with the B.C. NDP. That agreement, written a couple of years ago, basically put in writing our shared values, values that, collectively, we wish to focus on as a condition of our support in this minority government. Values with respect to affordability. Values with respect to putting people first — education, child care and so forth.

In particular, in this throne speech, one of the things that I think is critical, at least from my perspective, is that it highlighted the importance of CleanBC, a framework that will guide British Columbia as we respond to the challenge and yet realize it is but an opportunity. That is, the challenge of climate change is actually an economic opportunity.

Let’s be clear. CleanBC is not a climate plan. CleanBC is an economic vision. It’s a vision for the economy of British Columbia grounded in innovation, grounded in clean energy and grounded in positioning British Columbia as a leader in the new economy. It’s the B.C. Green vision. It’s a vision that we recognize is what is needed to position British Columbia as leaders in the new economy.

We will never compete with our traditional resource sectors if we continue to do more of the same. We can’t compete with Indonesia. We can’t compete with Thailand in terms of just digging dirt out of the ground. The reason why, of course, is that they don’t internalize some of the externalities that are so precious to us: environmental externalities, social externalities, standard of living externalities.

It costs more to dig dirt out of the ground in B.C. than it does in other jurisdictions, so we won’t compete head-to-head unless we continue down the path of race-for-the-bottom economics, which I’ll come to shortly — a card that the B.C. NDP have taken from the Liberal play deck but actually taken to a whole new level. We’ll come to that moving forward.

The way we compete is by recognizing that we have to be smarter and more efficient. You can’t grow the economy just by doing more of the same. You grow it through efficiency. What does efficiency mean? It means that when we dig the dirt out of the ground, we do so in a manner that is cleaner and more efficient. As such, we can actually export not only the dirt and the minerals that arrive but also the technology and knowledge that has been acquired in the development of efficiency measures.

I’ve referenced many times, in various speeches, an innovative company by the name of MineSense that developed sensing technology in bucket face that can actually take rock at the rock face and actually determine at the face whether it’s economical to ship that rock to the crushers or whether it should be put aside for fill later.

That is being smarter. That is being more efficient, because not only can MineSense then mine mines in B.C. and compete internationally, but there’s technology that is B.C.-based — internationally leading technology — that we can export. Not only export, we can actually send our people there to other jurisdictions to showcase some of these technologies.

And, it saves money. It saves money because less water is used in the crushing process, which is cleaner. It saves money by not having to worry so much about the backfill. So these are the kinds of technologies that we need to position ourselves.

Forestry. Probably the single most important industry, historically, in British Columbia. Forestry — hardly a mention in the throne speech about forestry. A few words, but hardly a mention. Yet our opportunities for innovation in the forest sector, whether it be through value-added, with people like Structurlam, an incredible CrossLam and gluelam manufacturing company based in Okanagan Springs and Penticton. My friend from Penticton is not here. Amazing company. B.C.-based technology….

R. Coleman: Okanagan Falls.

A. Weaver: Okanagan Falls. What did I say?

R. Coleman: Okanagan Springs.

A. Weaver: I’m thinking beer. The member for Langley East correctly pointed out that I said Okanagan Springs as opposed to Okanagan Falls. Clearly, my craft beer senses were…. I was getting thirsty, I think.

Anyway, a company that has built CrossLam and gluelam, that led to the highest wood-constructed building in the world — UBC’s 18-storey student residence. Our beautiful Harbour Air — CrossLam and gluelam projects.

This is where we have opportunities for innovation. We talk about building schools and hospitals — lots of that in the throne speech — but we’re not talking about building schools and hospitals that showcase innovation and allow us to position ourselves as a leader in the new economy.

Each school and hospital that’s built is an opportunity for innovation. We can build a bunch of brick walls and hammer some drywall together, or we can recognize that by spending a little more now — it may not even be more, in fact; many would argue it’s the same cost or even slightly less — we can save in the long term through operating cost reductions in terms of heat and so forth.

So I really think that we need to recognize that CleanBC is a plan, an economic vision, for British Columbia, one that is grounded in our strengths as opposed to chasing the weaknesses of others.

You know, this year’s throne speech also referenced some very important investments in child care, education — addressing affordability — and improving transportation services. These clearly are important issues for British Columbia.

Likewise, we know that wild salmon have an immense cultural, economic and ecological value for British Columbia. I’m glad to see again that this was recognized in the throne speech. We can thank…. A lot of good work on this area came from my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, whose advocacy for wild salmon led to the establishment of the Wild Salmon Advisory Council last year.

With the work of that council now complete, I expect — and I’m sure my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands will insist — that government will get to work and actually start implementing the recommendations, starting right up front with movements towards habitat protection and restoration of critical streams — salmon-bearing streams —across British Columbia.

We often focus on overfishing, we often focus on fish farms — important things to focus on — but what we tend not to focus on is habitat destruction of the streams to which these salmon return. And that is critical in British Columbia.

With that said, with the good in the throne speech, I do tend to agree with my friend from Kamloops–North Thompson that the throne speech looked a little bit like each minister was given a memo and asked to provide a couple of sentences about what they would like in the throne speech, and a rather disjointed potpourri of issues and items and things are slapped together in the throne speech, missing, critically, a broader overall vision as to where this government would head.

Now again, I do have some troubles with that, because I listened with interest in question period today as the Transportation Minister went back to the tired narrative of saying “you didn’t do it for five years.” At some point, government needs to recognize that they’re government now; they are not in opposition. And when you’re government, it does not do you any service to blame someone for not doing something five years ago.

You’ve had two years. We’ve been talking about ride-hailing for two years. You actually promised that it would happen last year. It hasn’t. You’ve actually promised it would be one of the things you would do immediately when government got elected. It hasn’t. This is what we look for from government. We look for leadership, we look for a vision, and we look for no longer passing the buck and blaming.

Just as the B.C. NDP were tired of the B.C. Liberals turning around and referring back to the decadent era of the 1990s, I’m a little tired, honestly, of hearing about the last 16 years of the B.C. Liberals. Let’s move on. I think some of the B.C. Liberals never get tired of hearing about the last 16 years.

An Hon. Member: I loved those 16 years.

A. Weaver: Some of them actually loved them.

I really want to talk not about the last 16 years or, heaven forbid, the 1990s. Like, the 1990s? I was in Montreal in the 1990s — not relevant to me.

An Hon. Member: Most people left B.C.

A. Weaver: Most people left B.C. I was one of these people who left B.C. in the early 1990s.

Let’s get on with what we’re going to do now. What is the vision that is actually driving the narrative of the throne speech? That, sadly, I think, is missing. A throne speech that tries to be all things to all people all the time ends up leading to contradictory legislation. It focuses on short-term policy instead of long-term outcomes.

We start ending up doing things like campaigning hip and knee replacement lineups. We know that that’s important, but we also know that the people over the age of 65 are typically those who need hip and knee replacements, except me. I’m under 65, and I need one.

Nevertheless, if you’re looking for short-term wins, so-called quick wins, that you can campaign on and say, “Look, vote me back in. I’ve done something that makes a real difference in your life,” you campaign and you start talking about hip and knee replacement lineups. What about the structural issues in our society?

What about thinks like the new economy? What about thinks like transportation? What about a broad, poverty reduction strategy that we’re still waiting for? These require much more careful, detailed analyses and thought, frankly. We should have seen much more of that articulated in this throne speech.

We basically had a throne speech that reminded me of one of the last B.C. Liberal throne speeches, which was quite full of self-congratulatory messages, quite light on details about what will be done — but smatterings of very populist things like cell phones. What are we going do with cell phones in B.C., given that we have no jurisdiction in the area?

Transparency in the bills. Well, I would suggest if you go on your Telus account or Rogers account, all the transparency you want is there. The thing is that troubles me is I spend 400 bucks a month on cell phones, and that is a lot of money. I think that’s a lot of money for the average person. That’s because I have my own personal cell phone as well as the Leg cell phone and never the twain shall mix, keeping public and private stuff separate.

CleanBC was highlighted in the budget. This is good. I’m glad that it is. But it made me worry when immediately, as if the last breath of CleanBC went out and the next breath starting talking about LNG…. I’m looking forward to the LNG-enabling legislation that we may be getting. I’m looking forward to see whether or not the members opposite will believe that they should support this increasing level of generational sellout. Because I tell you, we’ve made it very clear for more than a year now that the B.C. Greens will not support any enabling legislation for this generational sellout.

What is going on with LNG, in case people haven’t realized, is the B.C. Liberals recognize that in a global market, it’s really tough to compete with the royalty structure we had in place. So the so-called deep-well credits were extended to, in essence, long-drilling credits, horizontal credits, so that in essence, all natural gas exploration was subject to very, very enticing credits, tax credits for the proponents. Petronas accrued an awful lot of tax credits with it, because it had a lot of investment in upstream fields. They brought those into the LNG Canada partnership.

So the B.C. Liberals recognize that we’re not going to make any money from the royalties. We make a lot from leases, but not so much from the royalties. So what they plan do is they plan to make money down the road through the LNG income tax. The idea is when companies were making money, B.C. would start making money too.

Now, the NDP have signalled out that this is…. They want to get rid of that. They want to get rid of the LNG Income Tax Act, but I suspect they’re going to need to keep a little tax credit portion in there. That will be interesting to see, how that plays out.

To give you a sense of the kind of head-shaking moment when the B.C. Liberals gave away the natural gas, they at least required LNG proponents to use electricity in the compression of natural gas if, and only if, they’re going to get the industrial rate of about 5.4 cents kilowatt hour. In classic B.C. NDP economics, they decided that that’s too rich.

They exempted that So now natural gas can be burnt to produce electricity to compress natural gas. Well, here’s the joke on that one. They’ve given away the resource upstream because of the royalty structure and the credit structure. Now LNG Canada has access to natural gas, which is our resource, the people of British Columbia’s resource, that they can burn essentially for free to compress natural gas. That couldn’t have happened under the B.C. Liberals. This is part of the generational sellout of the B.C. NDP on this.

It’s really quite mind-boggling that they would think that actually on the one hand, they could talk about CleanBC and in the next breath, on the other hand, start talking about LNG. Let’s be very clear. CleanBC is an exciting economic vision that only takes us to 75 percent of our reduction targets. There’s a six megatonne gap. Guess what. Four of that six megatonnes would be from LNG Canada if that were to go ahead.

It’ll be interesting to see as we move forward with this — to watch government work with the official opposition to see if they can deliver this. We’ll be watching here with great interest as we have a race-for-the-bottom chase, to see who’s going to actually give our resources away the most. Will it be the Liberals? Will it be the B.C. NDP? Or will it be the Liberals supporting the NDP?

You know, one of the other things in the economic opportunity associated with CleanBC, of course, is recognition in that plan that economics, the economic opportunity, and ecological stewardship go hand in hand. Never is that more obvious than with things like wildlife preservation.

We know, for example, with the willy-nilly approach we have to natural habitat destruction in this province, we end up creating problems for ungulate populations from north to south and east to west because we’re putting in roads, logging roads. We’re disturbing the land. These ungulates can’t find a safe place. They can’t get away from the predators.

We spray glyphosate. Like, on what planet do we do this to suppress the deciduous undergrowth in certain areas of logged pine forest? And we’re surprised that ungulate populations are suffering. This undergrowth is both food for the ungulates, but also it’s easy for them to escape through the deciduous undergrowth that’s growing.

We seem to think it’s economy here or climate change there or ungulate saving over here. We don’t view, in this province, things as a whole. We don’t ask and stand back: what is our vision for prosperity for this province that protects that which makes our province great — which is our environment — that accesses our resources which we’ve been blessed with in a manner that’s sustainable, that actually is not race-for-the-bottom economics but builds prosperity locally and ensures that we’re not only harvesting resources, but we’re building value-added and shipping technology and the resources and the value-added to other jurisdictions?

We seem to think, in British Columbia, that somehow we’re magically going to stop shipping raw logs away to other jurisdictions. Well, not with our timber licence system. We’re not going to change anything. If I’m up in Fort Nelson or some jurisdiction and I’m a big multinational and I own the licences for timber lots, I harvest them when I feel like or not feel like.

If I harvest them — there’s no appurtenancy anymore in B.C. — it’s to my advantage to avoid softwood lumber or to not have to internalize those externalities and ship those logs to U.S. mills or to Asian mills for value-added. That’s wrong. But there’s a role for government here.

When we look at Vancouver Island mills, we ask the question: why have these not retooled? Why is it that we’re the only jurisdiction that continues to harvest its last bit of old-growth forest? Community after community after community in British Columbia is seeking to have old growths on Vancouver Island protected. But our mills can only process old growth, and the second growth or the hemlock or the other species get shipped raw elsewhere because we haven’t retooled.

There is a role, actually, for government to provide incentive to allow mills to retool so that they can process the wood that we’re shipping elsewhere. They should do that, but there is no vision. There’s no vision in this throne speech to do that.

It’s just a laundry list of various things. ICBC. We have self-congratulatory issues on ICBC. I would suggest that we need to take a step back and ask — to use the words of the Attorney General, this dumpster fire — is it salvageable? Where is the big-picture thinking of this? What about the potential of allowing competition? Should we not be having that discussion here? What about no-fault insurance? Should we not been having that discussion? It seems like we want to have a private insurance, but we don’t. We want to have a Crown corporation, but we don’t.

Again, it’s messed up, because instead of thinking about what’s good public policy, we end up thinking about what’s in it for our stakeholders. LNG. Cell phone costs are covered. Payday loans. Really important — payday loans. But again, it’s a shopping list. It’s an item that’s great. Let’s pass the legislation. Move on. You’ll probably get no discussions here. It’s hardly a substantive issue in the throne speech on which to hang your hat on. Ferry fares. Okay, we’re keeping them fixed again. Fine; fine.

But why aren’t we talking about shipbuilding in British Columbia? Why is that in Richmond we have one of the world’s leading producers of electric store systems for ferries shipping those systems to Poland, to Norway where they build the ships and use these ferries? Why is it that we feel that it’s not…? Why is it that our shipbuilding industry is hurting here? Why is it that we’re not recognizing the opportunity for innovation in our shipbuilding sector in places like Nanaimo or places like Victoria or elsewhere, where we recognize that there are really only three classes of vessels that we need in British Columbia — small, medium and large?

We know that there are about 30 vessels in the B.C. coastal fleet, and we know the lifetime of a vessel is about 30 years. It’s a no-brainer that we should be having a self-sustaining shipbuilding industry in B.C. where we bring in and service out the ferries. As we bring them in, we build one. We know one is coming off. That’s called a self-sustained economy. That’s an economy grounded in innovation, and it’s missing it, because there’s no vision — no broad vision in the throne speech.

You know, gaming revenue. So the fact we’re even getting excited about gaming revenue is basically getting excited about a plight that affects some of our poorest people. When we start to build social programs based on gaming revenue, what we’re really saying is those people who can least afford it….”Thank you very much for this tax on the poor. We’re going to take it, and we’re going to use it to give services to the poor.”To me, this is very troubling.

Daycare. I’m very pleased, of course, very pleased with the announcement in the government about the daycare. However, again, we’d like to see a more integrated component of daycare with the school system, with K-12, because daycare really shouldn’t be viewed just as care but also education. One of the things that does excite me are some of the partnerships that have been going on with school districts across British Columbia.

We’ve got some PharmaCare.

The train corridor. Okay, that’s kind of a vision. But it’s not a vision B.C. is going to pay for. If it’s going to happen, it’s going to be U.S.-led. Working with Washington State on innovation. Okay, that’s great. If you’re going to work with Washington and Oregon to build a tech hub area, you gotta have something that you’re taking into the negotiations, not just: “We are here too. Let’s be part of this.”

What is the plan? What is the vision for B.C.? What is our vision? Broadband for northern communities. Great. But what’s the vision there? Just put some broadband in? Is there some vision? Why are we talking about LNG? Why isn’t government actively going out, trying to get industries like Tesla, like BMW, like others to build their manufacturing facilities in Terrace, in places up in the north that are on the rail line between Prince Rupert and Chicago, the gateway to Asia and the gateway to eastern U.S. This is how we build prosperity. It’s by diversifying economy away from our traditional narrative of only being hewers of wood and drawers of water. That was the opportunity missed in this throne speech.

As I said, sure. Most of the items in the throne speech are good, important. But they’re not illustrative of a comprehensive vision or strategy for how the government can and will tackle the enormous challenges we’re facing in terms of growing income inequality and, frankly, some of the environmental threats that face us.

I feel a little bit like I’m on the Titanic trying to urge our captain to change course so we avoid the icebergs — the same icebergs that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson suggested were melting at a very slow pace. I would suggest to him that they’re melting faster than he thought, anyway, so we can avoid the icebergs ahead. Instead of charting a safe passage, the captain turns to me and starts telling me about the dinner specials in the dining room. He offers me a free ticket to tonight’s show. That is not what we want in a throne speech.

Short-term perks are fun and shiny, but I’m gravely worried about the future of the health and safety and security of British Columbians.

With CleanBC, we had a map for how we could avoid some of the threats on the horizon while at the same time building a prosperous economic future. But it needs to be followed through urgently and in its entirety, and I look to the budget to ensure that in fact we see that happening.

To come back to my analogy with respect to the Titanic, the Speech from the Throne makes me worried that the captain is going to take the CleanBC map and say, “Great. We’re saved,” and get busy changing light bulbs, without touching the steering wheel. Even worse, now the captain is looking straight at the LNG iceberg and hitting “accelerate.” Again, it’s not that the pieces are inherently bad in the throne speech. The problem is how they’re scattered, with no structure to them. We’ll not tackle the problems we all care about if we fixate on symptoms, and not the actual system that created them.

For example, the issue of the fentanyl crisis in British Columbia. Without a doubt, every single member in this House is concerned about the preponderance of deaths — lately, often men between the ages of 30 and 60 — at home. These are not your typical homeless street people. These are people who are partying on a weekend. We’re seeing numbers, growing numbers, of deaths in this area.

Our response, collectively, is to go after the harm reduction, issue naloxone kits to everybody and stop people from dying. Great. Harm reduction — wonderful. But we know that when you just only focus on harm reduction, there are times when you’re resuscitating the same person multiple times a day. We don’t stand back and ask the following question: “Why is it that these people are here in the first place, and what is the pathway to recovery?” An approach, taking this throne speech, would be like: “We’re going to give you naloxone kits.”

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast suggests that it’s not right. I would suggest to him: show me in the throne speech where we have a discussion of the systemic issues that have led to the problems we have today.

I would suggest, as a working hypothesis, that we’ve cut kids’ support services, at their critical years of development in the K-to-7 system, when they needed it most. We’ve cut the child psychologists; we’ve cut the speech pathologists; we’ve cut the assistants. We’re now dealing with the social consequence of those cuts, a generation later, and we still don’t have a pathway to recovery. We don’t have that in place.

We’ve had a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions in operation for two years — for two years — and I’m still waiting to see an overall vision and direction for that ministry to actually tell us how that pathway for recovery is going to go. It’s not just opening a clinic here or opening a clinic there. It’s: “What is your plan and your strategy to actually get us out of this problem into the future?” Two years is a long time. You can’t blame the previous government anymore. It’s time to actually show us what you’re made of.

You know, because of the government’s lack of vision in the throne speech, let me see if I can’t offer something up that might be something that we could hang our hats on. As we know, the B.C. Green caucus, the three of us, got into this business of politics because we felt, each of us, that many of the decisions we are making here are really fixated on short-term goals. We’re not thinking about the long-term consequences of our decisions. We’re thinking about re-election.

How many people in this place have been here for greater than 15 years? An awful lot, frankly. Stay tuned as I bring in term-limiting legislation in a couple of weeks, because this place needs some change. We should not be having people sitting in this place for 30 years or 20 years. What value-added are you bringing to here when all the life that you’ve known is this building? It becomes a sense of entitlement. You think that you know how things work. This place only stays relevant if it is rejuvenated. It only stays relevant if we get new ideas coming in. It only stays relevant if we start bringing in these new ideas from across the province and if they’re listened to.

Unfortunately, many of these are not actually happening. I look at government now, and I look at the past government. The power brokers in this government have been here since the 1990s, in some cases, and many of the power brokers in the opposition have also been here in the 1990s. The rest of us might as well go home, because it’s the 1990s Liberals arguing with the 1990s B.C. NDP. Who’s losing out? It’s British Columbians. It’s time for us to actually clean this place up. I’m looking forward to working with my caucus colleagues and others here to do just that as we see a rejuvenation in this place.

We got into this, as I said, because of our concern about the fact that we’re overlooking some of the longer-term problems that we somehow think, by wishing they weren’t so, would go away — issues like income inequality, a growing income inequality. We have many, many examples in human history of what happens when income equality….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Did I just hear that correctly?

A. Weaver: Did I hear that correctly? One member, whose name shall not be mentioned, just noted it was 4:20. I suggested that….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I’ll just leave it at that.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I won’t get too high and lofty over that one.

Anyway, coming back to the issue of some of these defining issues that are much broader, we just assume that if we ignore them, they’ll go away. We assume that income equality, which has been growing over time, somehow will take care of itself.

As I pointed out, in human history, we have ample examples of what happens as income inequality grows. In each and every case, the end is clear. It ends in revolution and collapse. That is a pathway that is not inconceivable.

We’re starting to see the rise of populist movements across the world, whether it be the rise of the Arab Spring. We see the yellow vests movement in Paris, which was about income inequality. You know, some denier-types seem to think it’s about carbon tax. No, it was an income inequality issue.

We see Brexit. We see the rise of Trump. We see the rise of Ford and campaigning with no platform apart from buck-a-beer. This is what we start to see, and this troubles me, if we don’t get a handle on the growing problems.

Coming to government, government promised to put people first. I don’t know how many years I listened to government berate the Liberals for not increasing the housing allowance. We’re waiting. Where are the housing allowance increases? Where are the housing allowance increases from the government that argued we needed housing allowance increases? They’re not there. So really, again, we need to have a little more thoughtful look at some of these bigger problems.

Climate change. You know, we’re at a pivotal point in human history where we can ignore this problem or we could recognize it’s an incredible economic opportunity. We’ve got the foundations of that in CleanBC. But that plan needs to permeate each and every ministry.

I get worried when the architect of that, the Deputy Minister of Environment, Bobbi Plecas, an outstanding civil servant who put her heart and soul into the CleanBC plan — a plan where she had to deal with business stakeholders, NGOs, Green MLAs, government MLAs…. She did a yeoperson’s job, but now she’s no longer the Deputy Minister of Environment.

That worries me, because that shows a change of priorities — that the government is shifting the best and brightest from a ministry that actually led to a foundational economic vision into some other ministry. This is troubling, and people need to know that this is what is going on. Anybody who thinks this government is committed to climate action, needs to know that, in fact, it’s just superficial and surface-layer deep, and if it was not for the B.C. Green caucus, none of this would have happened.

I can say that unequivocally, because you cannot on the one hand….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I see the Minister of Agriculture saying: “Wow.” You cannot on the one hand stand up and champion LNG and for any second think you have any credibility on a climate plan.

The climate plan will take us 75 percent there. Fine. We’re still not 100 percent. Where’s the government’s vision to get 100 percent? It’s not in the throne speech. Where is the government’s vision to implement CleanBC? It’s not in the throne speech. It’s really a government that looks to a box-fixing exercise, and that needs to change as we move forward.

You know, elected officials in here well be held, by history, unkindly, will be looked upon unkindly by history for the actions that we take today. Future generations will look back on this time and look at the people in this room and ask them what they did and why they didn’t do what they did.

They’ll ask one of two questions. They’ll either ask the question: “How did you have the moral fortitude to actually move with this and deal with this and recognize the opportunity that is there and take advantage of it?” Or they’re going to say: “How could you have done this? How could you have ignored the scientific evidence?”

Way too many people in this room — way too many people in this room will fall in the latter category and very few in the former. Sadly, most of those in the former are not in the decision-making capability in this government or in cabinet by itself.

They’re sitting in the back benches, down on the end here. You’ve got your climate caucus down on the end, backbench government MLAs speaking passionately about climate.

I don’t hear it from the caucus, from down in the executive branch. I don’t see it coming from executive branch. I hear good words coming from my colleagues down at this end of the aisle.

We, as the B.C. Green caucus, over the past year and a half have worked tirelessly with government to….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Again, the smug arrogance coming from the member for Saanich South here, I would suggest, is inappropriate. If she would like to discuss this further, I’d be happy to. But let me say: what about some of the promises you’ve made about Site C? This is a member who stood up and told people not to vote for the B.C. Greens because she needed to get elected because she would stop Site C.

Take a look in the mirror, member for Saanich South, and then we can talk a little bit more about hypocrisy and say whatever it takes to get elected.

We have a problem here. We have a government that says one thing and does another. We have fish farms. Again, government said they would take fish farms out. “No, we’re going to talk about it and study it and have a plan for the future.” Haven’t done it. Let’s be realistic. Government says it’s going to do things, but it doesn’t actually do it, and it studies a lot. Government needs to actually get the vision down there and start addressing this vision.

Of these three areas that we’ve worked tirelessly on and will continue to do over the next two years, one is the issue of trust in government. The other is health and well-being, and the third is innovation. I’ll touch upon each of those three.

Let’s start off with trust in government. There is a cloud over this place. Allegations are filling the hallways of this building like never before. We’ve got the Speaker’s report, a 76-page report. We’ve got the government talking about money laundering. I’m sick and tired of listening to the government talk about money laundering. When are you going to do something about it? You have a landing page collecting lots of data, on the B.C. NDP website, and telling people to “sign this petition if you’re against it.”

Fine. You’ve got your data now. What are you going to do about it? We’ve sat for two years, and we’ve talked about the issue of money laundering. Hasn’t been dealt with. I suspect that the political machinations of the powers that be like the idea that this is niggling in the background and makes the B.C. Liberals look bad on an ongoing basis. But you’re elected to govern. And when you’re elected to govern, you take leadership. And we need to see leadership on that money laundering because it has been sorely lacking.

Lobbying reform. This is something that we campaigned on that we got legislation through and passed. We’re pleased to see some of this, but there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done in this area of trusted government.

Standing order reform and electoral reform. There is a lot that needs to be done still.

Let’s come to UNDRIP. Again, good words in the throne speech — good words about UNDRIP — but that was supposed to happen this spring. Now we’re told it’s probably going to be in the fall.

On the one hand, we talk about UNDRIP, and then we talk about the Wet’suwet’en. And we recognize, right off the bat, that we know for a fact that the B.C. NDP decided not to get involved. Instead of showing leadership in government-to-government negotiations, they thought it was LNG Canada’s problem and they should try to deal with the Unist’ot’en Camp and the Wet’suwet’en people. It’s for them to do it. And so LNG Canada does the only thing they know to do, which is to seek a court injunction, and away we go.

That is an absence of leadership. This is a government that missed an opportunity for truth and reconciliation to actually stand with the Wet’suwet’en, to have a discussion on a government-to-government basis, not putting the company to do their dirty work for them. So again, we’ve got a failed history of colonialization in this province that continues to this very day.

Coming back to the well-being of British Columbians, I see a shopping list in the throne speech that misses some of the key things like climate change. You know, we have an IPCC report. I’m so sick of IPCC reports, frankly. But another one says we’ve got 12 years before we’re committed to breaking 1.5 degree. Frankly, I think that’s wrong. We’ve already broken 1.5 degree. The reason why it’s wrong is it didn’t account for the permafrost-carbon feedback, not because they didn’t know how to, but because it wasn’t in the mandate. We know the world has warmed by 1 degree already. We know that we have a committed warming of about 0.6 degree because of existing levels of greenhouse gases. That takes us to 1.8.

We know that the permafrost-carbon feedback gives us another 0.2 to 0.3. We know the world is going to warm between 1.8 and 1.9 degree regardless of what we do today. So this notion that somehow this is a problem down the road and maybe we can get to it, is simply false. It’s simply false, and history will not be kind to those who stand by and watch this happen.

There are a lot of important policies that have happened so far. These wouldn’t have happened were it not for the B.C. Greens here. I know we’re not very good at telling our story. We’ve not been very good at telling British Columbians the effect we’ve had in this Legislature, that the professional reliance reforms are a B.C. Green initiative. The environmental assessment review was a B.C. Green initiative. CleanBC was a B.C. Green initiative. The Fair Wages Commission was a B.C. Green initiative. The innovation commission was a B.C. Green initiative. The emerging economy task force was a B.C. Green initiative. The salmon council was a B.C. Green initiative. Lobbying reform, a B.C. Green initiative.

If we had our way, we would have had ride-hailing in here four years ago, but we’ve got a government that seems to find any excuse it can to delay and to delay, and now today we have allegations coming through in question period that, in fact, there’s a cloud over that as well.

How on earth are we ever going to rebuild trust in this institution if we don’t start to actually declare when there are potential perceived issues and if we don’t actually start putting people first instead of our vested interests first? It will never, ever change, and shame on government, actually, shame on the government for not knowing that this could be found out and recognized, as it was done in question period today. I commend the opposition for their research on that, because that explains a lot to me.

It explains a lot because I sat on the first standing committee on Crown Corporations, and I couldn’t understand the objections that were being raised about class 4 versus class 5 licences. I couldn’t understand the objections that were raised about safety. Has anyone seen the video, the video of the taxi driver who was being pushed up a hill, where a dude was sitting on the hood of the car with his feet on the taxi in front and they were pushing the cab up the hill? Like, safety? It’s a two-way street.

The government needs to really ante up on the ride-hailing, because British Columbians are sick and tired of the excuses. There are no more excuses. Lyft and Uber have been committed to British Columbia. Lyft now owns centre ice in Rogers Arena. You watch the Canucks, you see Lyft. They want to come here.

If it were not for my colleague, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, that legislation that was brought in before Christmas would have guaranteed that no ride-hailing would happen in British Columbia. His amendment to allow the Passenger Transportation Board to have greater leeway in terms of the decision-making was critical, because we know, in talking to Lyft and Uber, they both would have walked if that amendment had not passed.

That was a B.C. Green amendment, despite the government, because government really doesn’t want ride-hailing. I agree with the members opposite. Government really doesn’t want ride-hailing. They have yet to demonstrate a commitment to ride-hailing, other than saying it’s coming later this year. There’s no excuse for it to come later this year, unless government decides that some friends and relatives who need a leg up or a year’s lead to try to get their thing going. There’s no other justification for it, and this is just not right.

I come back to the jobs. I take exception with the fact that members opposite said that they didn’t mention jobs until line whatever. I, frankly, wish they would stop talking about jobs and start talking about careers. People don’t want jobs; they want careers. They don’t want to just go up to Site C and build a dam and then be unemployed. They want to know that they have stable long-term employment opportunities in our beautiful province and that they can live close to where they are.

There is no vision for careers in the throne speech. Frankly, there’s been no vision for careers in the opposition’s comments today. There’s only been a few, and hopefully, they’ll flesh those out as we move forward.

You know, we have right now ongoing in British Columbia a problem that was not even mentioned in the throne speech. We all know about the issue of the residential school era and the so-called Sixties Scoop. We know about those times. What is going on in British Columbia right now makes that pale in comparison in terms of the way MFCD is scooping children on First Nations reserves for, at times, nothing. Mothers having their babies taken away in hospital. The threat of phoning MCFD being used in family arguments to settle scores.

We have a systemic problem in MCFD in terms of the child welfare system and dealing with our Indigenous communities and not allowing their children in these communities to be brought up by the community. We scoop ’em up and think that somehow government is going to do a better job by taking a baby from a nursing mother in hospital and shoving them in some foster home somewhere.

This is a problem. This is what the government was elected to do, to look to look after people, to put people first, not just union jobs on CBA agreements, but people first. That is what we need to get back to, because we forget why we’re here. We sometimes forget why we’re here.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Again, the member for Saanich South…. I will be delighted when the member for Saanich South actually does what she said she would do and starts dealing with the fish farms in the wild sockeye’s migratory paths, because she hasn’t. She’s done the talk — door-knocking, done the talk — but when push comes to shove, hasn’t delivered. And it’s like that on so many files. Talk the talk, but when it’s come to government, not delivering. That’s what we need to get back to.

Housing. You know, our housing has become a playground for the rich, a bank account for international players to park money. One of the things that we supported in the speculation tax was the satellite family notion. It has created all sorts of problems with dubious claims — people should be on title or shouldn’t be on title. This is going to be a problem. I wonder to what extent government is actually monitoring the market, because there’s a very real potential the market is going to go out of control.

The government, in its wisdom, decided that it knew best as to the approach to actually introduce this speculation and vacancy tax. Now, I don’t want to rehash that but with that to say is that it is critical — it is absolutely critical — with such a significant intervention tool in the market that the government is monitoring on a daily and weekly basis what’s going on. Because I can tell you, the prices of houses are dropping. And most people can absorb a ten percent cut. I don’t think there are a lot of people in Vancouver worried about a Point Grey house going down by ten percent.

However, if ten percent turns to 20, turns to 25, then you start to get a problem, and then you start to have an escalation and you start to have houses going under, people walking from mortgages and so forth. So I certainly hope the government is looking at this speculation tax. Frankly, I think it should already be thinking about repealing it. Why do I say that? Because the market is already tempered through uncertainty. Let’s see if they are willing to actually take a look at that.

There are issues that, again, I didn’t see mentioned within the broader area about putting people first — issues with respect to the LGBTQ+ community. You know, health and safety and equality. We’ve got the issues of the sexualized violence policies that are on university campuses. Has there been any follow-up? We’ve certainly heard myriad stories about work that still needs to be done.

We would like to see continuing work, not only to deal with the issues of exploitation…. We have some ideas that we’ll bring forward in a number of private member’s bills this session. But there are very serious safety issues still prevalent within a number of our more marginalized communities, marginalized only in as much as they are a minority and there are people who still exhibit a prejudice against such communities. We will be bringing in some legislation in that regard.

In the area of innovation, coming back to the issue of innovation. British Columbians, by their very nature, are innovators. It is who we are. Some of the best and brightest companies out there are B.C.-based or have started from B.C. I mentioned MineSense. I haven’t mentioned Carbon Engineering or General Fusion. There’s Saltworks. There’s a ton of these companies. What we need to see is… In the throne speech, what we were looking to see and hoping to see was a vision that actually recognized that we have an economy, a diverse economy that should be the foundation of us moving forward, a stable economy that would allow us to actually ensure that companies are connected with post-secondary institutions.

Government seems to be void of an understanding that, in fact, there are companies out there…. It looks like I’ve got a chorus just behind me to heckle me now. Government seems to have missed the opportunity that comes through partnership with industry and post-secondary institutions.

We have opportunities in Squamish with the clean energy program out of UBC, which was an incredible opportunity for government to take the bull by the horns and to work with UBC, the Squamish Nation, the consortium in the Squamish area to get innovation and to get those anchor tenants in there to build that clean energy centre, which is actually a foundation for the economy of tomorrow.

We should be creating spaces in post-secondary institutions — spaces for post-docs, for students, for co-op positions. We should be creating spaces that would allow partnerships with industry, with our innovators. But we don’t. We think education is here and industry is over here and not recognize that, in fact, they’re coupled together and they work closely together.

Our cooperative education policies need to be updated to ensure that students graduate with more hands-on experience. Right now the demand for co-op is unsurmountable. Yet it’s difficult to actually find the positions, and it’s difficult to seek the government to support, to actually provide the value-added opportunities that we need to do. We should be looking at improving efficiency, developing technologies and actually focusing on the value-added.

And government has a role to play also in terms of innovation through the services that it provides and offers. There is, in government, a very incredible innovative group that actually does do a lot of data innovation and things like that. However, government misses opportunities through innovation itself. I look at the CBA agreement. Let’s be clear. The CBA agreements are nothing more than project labour agreements. They’re not community benefit agreements. Let’s stop pretending that they are. They’re project labour agreements.

I understand that project labour agreements are needed for stability in some projects. However, government, yet again, missed an opportunity. It missed an opportunity through the procurement phase to actually send a signal to the market as to the type of direction it would like to see the market go. Instead, government decides it’s going to pick its 17 building trade unions, winners and losers, and say: “What we’re going to do is we’re going to call it a CBA — it’s not a CBA; it’s a project labour agreement — and those 17 unions are the players, and no one else can play.” How is that innovative? That’s not. It’s going back to fight the trade union wars of the early 20th century. Those wars were won. Let’s move on. People are sick and tired of those wars. Let’s move on and recognize that government has a role to signal to the market. Government should signal to the market, and it’s missed that opportunity as it’s moved forward.

You know, we’ve had a bunch of other issues that I could go on and on about. I guess the issue here about ride-hailing is one that hurts. In the throne speech it says this: “This year, ride-hailing will enter the market.” It doesn’t work that way, government. Ride-hailing enters the market if ride-hailing companies want to participate in the market. They don’t enter the market because you say they will. You have to create the regulatory environment that allows them to participate.

Right now, if it were not for my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, Uber and Lyft would have walked. They would have walked from this province before Christmas. And they’re still close to walking, because we have discussions at the table that are simply not relevant to ride-hailing, a complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals of what the ride-hailing model is — the surge pricing model, the critical aspect of the surge pricing model that allows them to work in partnership with the taxi fleet, which creates a base supply of transportation, whereas the ride-hailing provides surge demand to allow more people on the road when you need it and get them off the road when you don’t.

These are opportunities that need to be properly centre stage through regulation. No more talking about it. Look, if I could write a bill as a private member’s bill three years ago — opposition had an entire package ready for when government shifted; they were just waiting to get through the election — how is it that the government has taken two years to continue to talk about this?

Finally, I do want to come back and say that I am pleased. You know, while I’ve been rather critical of some of the lost opportunities, lack of vision and the kind of shopping list approach that the government has taken in the throne speech, I will say that there is an opportunity before us, and that is through the CleanBC. It’s not just about a ZEV standard. That’s necessary. What’s critical is the electrification of our mining sector, electrification of forestry, electrification of our economy-wide.

But, again, just to point out how I…. On the one hand, government says one thing and on the other, it does another. Right now it’s reviewing the IPP contracts. Now, we recognize that those were extortionate when they were first given out. However, there are many of these small power producers that are going to go under because government is actually not going to renew their purchase agreements. We’ve already had virtually every small energy company in B.C. leave the province because of the reckless decision of government on Site C, despite the guarantees of a couple of MLAs to their constituents that they must vote NDP because a vote for the NDP will eliminate Site C. and that egregious trampling on Indigenous rights and fiscal recklessness in terms of building, in an unsafe environment, a megaproject that’s not needed, which also killed the clean energy sector.

This is a real worry. What’s government going to do? We talk about energy use. What’s it going to do to actually get companies back here? The Canadian Wind Energy Association. They’ve left B.C. They’re in Alberta right now. TimberWest.

I believe it was five First Nations and EDP Renewables who wanted to invest $700 million — not of your money, hon. Speaker, not of my money, but of industry money on Vancouver Island to build a wind capacity in partnership with Indigenous communities on private land. But, no, it’s gone, walked — $700 million gone because of Site C, $700 million of industry money. Instead, it’s going to be $10 billion of ratepayer money.

We know that Site C is going to cause the doubling of hydro rates in B.C. over the next five years. It’s the only way it can happen. We know that cost overruns are going to be egregious. We know the north bank is unstable. We suspect that when they start drilling the diversion route, there will be collapses. Good luck drilling a diversion route through the fractured shale layer. This is yet another example of government not thinking this through.

With that said, there are huge challenges ahead. We will continue to approach our role in this government as one in opposition. We will continue to provide the advice that we think is warranted on bills that we think are relevant. We will continue to offer solutions. We will bring in private members’ bills. We will offer British Columbians an opportunity that could actually bring truth and integrity and honesty back to this place because, frankly, right now, there’s far too much saying and not enough doing: “Do as I say and not as I do.” And that needs to change in this Legislature.

With that, I thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to the comments of others on this throne speech.

Video of Speech

Today on the legislature we debated Bill 50: Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018 at second reading. This bill re-establishes the British Columbia Human Rights Commission after it was disbanded by the BC Liberals in 2002. BC is in the only province in the country without a human rights commission.

Before 2002 BC had a Human Rights Commissioner which worked as the gatekeeper to the tribunal and did investigations directly. Instead of going back to that model, this Bill creates a ‘direct access’ model, which works well in other jurisdictions like Ontario. The Tribunal will continue to be responsible for all aspects of human rights applications (processing, mediation and adjudication), while the commission will look at broader patterns of systemic human rights issues, policy development and public education

This bill closely follows the 25 recommendations in the report compiled by Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Multiculturalism Ravi Kahlon on establishing a new BC human rights commission. The report outlines recommendations in five categories, including the commission’s creation, purpose, functions, powers and early priorities.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in this second reading debate on Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act. As I’ve mentioned, this bill re-establishes the British Columbia Human Rights Commission after it was disbanded by the B.C. Liberals in 2002. It does this by amending the human rights code to establish an independent Human Rights Commission office.

As I mentioned, this is another example of pendulum swings that have plagued our first-past-the-post system here in the province of British Columbia. When governments come in, we see broad policy sweeps — very costly at times — as, for example, the labour code and others where policies comes in and are taken back as governments switch with the different ideologies.

I’m looking forward to these kind of changes — more draconian pendulum swings no longer really taking place here in British Columbia — with a successful referendum on proportional representation. One of the things we know is that policies like this…. You don’t establish something, then tear it down and then re-establish it and tear it down.

That tends to get mitigated, and we wouldn’t have to be debating this today were we to have a government that was required to listen to broader elements of our society than, perhaps, was required in 2002, when there were but two NDP MLAs sitting in opposition and every other MLA was a member of the B.C. Liberal Party, despite just getting slightly over 50 percent of the vote.

The new office is going to be similar to other independent offices, like, for example, the Representative for Children and Youth. Obviously, I’m delighted that this is being introduced into this House. Both the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens campaigned on bringing back a human rights commission to actually look at human rights issues proactively instead of just reactively, as is done now.

This bill is finally bringing B.C. in line with other jurisdictions in the country. We are the only province that has not had a human rights commission these past 16 years. It’s yet another noteworthy aspect of British Columbia that we are not so proud of, not having a human rights commission for the last 16 years.

The new bill and the new provisions in the bill that will be enacted will not take us back to the pre-2002 model but will instead set up a similar model to what exists presently in Ontario. In that respect, it’s less of a pendulum swing than we might have otherwise have expected.

The bill follows the 25 recommendations that were outlined in the report brought forward by the Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Multiculturalism. This report was based on eight weeks of public consultation on this subject. Of course, as well the UN Paris principles had been used as a guide for drafting of this bill.

This bill is needed for a number of reasons. It’s needed to fight systemic injustices across our province, to protect against patterns of discrimination proactively and to be able to champion education campaigns on human rights and inequality across the province, particularly in areas where there are systemic issues.

It’s important to allow the commissioner the power to create guidelines in education programs for other institutions in our province to use as well. This bill is, therefore, putting back the Human Rights Tribunal into the rightful place as the arbitrator of specific complaints regarding human right contraventions.

There’s many things in British Columbia affecting British Columbians that that need an office like this with a mandate like this to look into. The number one issue referred to the current Human Rights Tribunal is disability non-accommodation. I would anticipate that this this is an area that the new commissioner will work on proactively, as well, to explore systemic issues of disability and non-accommodation.

To give a bit of history in this, we’ve gone back and forth in B.C., as I mentioned, on having a human rights commissioner and commission. We had one, for example, that the Socred government eliminated in 1983. Then we didn’t have one, and then the B.C. NDP government of the 1990s brought it back in. And the B.C. Liberals, in 2002, brought it out, and now it’s coming back in again — a beautiful example of the pendulum swing that has mired B.C. politics for such a long time, where we’ve had dynasties of single-party domination, which, after many years, forget to actually remind itself that it is there to represent the people and not its vested interests or its donors.

Hopefully, this is the last time the pendulum will swing and that it will settle in the middle, along the lines of what every other province in our country has — a human rights commission that not only reacts to human rights issues that are brought to it but is proactive in terms of dealing with systemic issues of human rights contravention in our province.

We like to think that there are none, but we all know cases where there are. In 2002 — giving some more history here — the human rights commission was eliminated for political reasons, I would argue. It was forced to cut its budget, cut its staff, and to add insult to injury, the commissioner and the acting chief commissioner were fired in the morning before legislation to get rid of the commission was introduced.

Fired in the morning before the legislation was introduced to eliminate the commission. Somewhat spiteful, if you ask me, and not a type of signal, really, that we should be sending the province of British Columbia. It was widely condemned, this decision, by the human rights groups across the province.

One of the only MLAs that raised the voices of the human rights groups that were affronted by the B.C. Liberals removing this commission was Jenny Kwan, one of but two NDP MLAs serving in the B.C. Legislature in 2002.

She said that by abolishing the commission, B.C. will fail to meet the criteria of the Paris principles, which require that human rights agencies have “independence guaranteed by statute or constitution, autonomy from government, diverse membership, a broad mandate based on universal human rights standards, adequate powers of investigation and sufficient resources.”

Government shutdown the previous human rights commission to save $3.1 million, but at what cost? At what cost to broader society did this saving of $3.1 million lead? Perhaps the government knew that further cuts were coming when it did it. It was consistent with the government of the day, in essence, disadvantaging those who were already disadvantaged. Not raising rates — disability rates, welfare rates, housing assistance rates — for a decade. It was consistent with a kind of mean-spirited approach to government that prevailed at that time.

B.C. has not had a body that could look at systemic patterns of discrimination and recommended changes for almost two decades. That, of course, is all changing now with this legislation. The systemic discrimination facing Indigenous communities, women, people of colour, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities. It’s real, severe and completely unacceptable. The uphill battle faced by British Columbians who are at the intersection of more than one of these communities is even steeper.

Government had a hand in creating these discriminatory systems, so we need to dismantle them and rebuild a more fair and just province. This is what Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, takes us on a journey and pathway towards creating.

I and my colleagues in the B.C. Green caucus are very supportive of this legislation and are delighted with the changes proposed — long overdue, long called for. I thank government for introducing them, and we’re proud to stand in support at second reading.

Video of Speech