The BC Minister of Transportation today tabled Bill 55: Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018. As noted in the government press release, Bill 55 finally paves the way for ride-hailing companies to operate in British Columbia in 2019.

As readers will know, I have been attempting to bring ridehailing to British Columbia for almost three years. In April 2016,  February 2017 (prior to the provincial election) and October 2017, I introduced Private Member’s bills which would have allowed this to occur. While I am pleased that government has finally brought this enabling legislation forward, there is still work to do to ensure that ridesharing becomes a reality in British Columbia in 2019.

Below I reproduce the media release the BC Green Caucus issued in response to the tabling of this legislation. My colleague Adam Olsen (our transportation critic) will be representing the BC Green Party on the proposed legislative committee.

Media Release

Weaver: Legislation a step forward, but parties will have to work together to make ride-hailing a reality
For immediate release
November 19, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, says the provincial government’s legislation to introduce ride-hailing today is a long overdue step forward on the issue. Weaver says the all-party committee that will advise on regulations is a promising development because parties will have to collaborate to make ride-hailing a reality.

“While it’s a step forward to actually have legislation in front of us, more work needs to be done to ensure British Columbians have access to ride-hailing in 2019,” said Weaver.

“The fact that an issue with such high levels of public demand has taken so long to see progress is a failure of our political system. It’s obvious that neither of the other parties has been able to find the political will to action this issue in a timely manner. The legislative committee is a promising path forward because it will require all parties to share the responsibility of delivering for British Columbians.

“It’s important that the legislation and regulations strike the right balance so that the province meets its responsibility to ensure public safety and a fair playing field for business while also providing British Columbians with access to the full range of modern transportation options. We have questions about the timeline; although it’s encouraging that ride-hailing companies will be able to apply for licenses by Fall 2019, what British Columbians really want to know is when they will be able to access their services.

“At first glance a key difference between what government has put on the table today and the recommendations of the Hara Report is to require driver training and Class 5 licenses rather than Class 4 licenses. Other jurisdictions, such as Quebec, have seen success with driver training as part of their ride-hailing regulation.

“We look forward to discussing all of these issues in the house as well as canvassing some of them specifically in the legislative committee. We will continue do everything we can to deliver ride-hailing for British Columbians in 2019.”

Weaver has introduced legislation to enable ride-hailing three times. The third time, in Fall 2017, resulted in the subject of the bill being referred to an all-party committee, which held public consultations and delivered a report in February 2018.

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

In the legislature today the Minister of Finance introduced a motion to send a number of amendments to committee stage for Bill 45 – 2018: Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act. These amendments match the three amendments that I put on the order papers although they were drafted by independent legislative drafters. The reason why government needed to do this was to ensure that my amendments were not ruled out of order by the Clerk. Amendments can be ruled out of order if they incur a cost on government.

Below I reproduce (in text and video) my brief remarks in response to the Minister’s motion. I was inappropriately cut off by the Speaker. The motion was a debatable motion and I should have been given 30 minutes to address it. The speaker was reacting to Mike Farnworth, the BC NDP House Leader, who stood up and was gesticulating to me and the speaker that the the motion wasn’t debatable. He was wrong. But you can’t challenge a speaker’s ruling.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Just a few words briefly on this motion. I’m pleased, obviously, to rise and take my place in the debate on this. The motion to move the amendments to the speculation and vacancy tax act.

For procedural reasons, government had to table these amendments. You’ll see some amendments I put in on the order paper as well. But the amendments that government is tabling reflect the agreement that we were able to reach with government on this tax a few weeks ago. I’m pleased to be supporting moving them to committee today. These amendments do three things — the three things as promised. Again, on the order paper, you will see three amendments that I put in that are virtually identical. But for procedural reasons, government is introducing these amendments.

The first is that mayors from affected municipalities will be consulted annually by the Minister of Finance on how the tax is affecting their communities, with metrics that are being developed. Over the past number of months, I’ve consistently raised the need for local governments to have a more significant role in determining what happens in their communities. The annual review of the tax with mayors will give communities a clear channel to making the case, based on evidence, for how the tax should apply to their communities and whether they should be excluded.

The minister will also be required to report the results of the annual review to cabinet to make a decision on whether the tax should continue to be applied in each of the specified areas. While I would have preferred for local governments to have the ability to opt out automatically, this is a compromise position that I feel I can support and my colleagues can support as well.

The second amendment requires that revenue raised by the tax will be used for housing initiatives within the region it came from. This is also important — that local communities directly benefit from the tax raised so that it is not viewed as a tax grab by government that rolls the moneys into provincial coffers to be lost thereafter. There needs to be a clear impact on the communities because the justification for the speculation tax is, of course, that there’s an externality, a social cost, that we’re asking people in British Columbia and elsewhere to internalize through the application of the speculation and vacancy tax.

The third amendment equalizes rates for Canadians and British Columbians. It brings the rate for Canadians down from 1 percent to 0.5 percent. Now, this is a very big change. Back in the spring, when this tax first came out, it was 2 percent for other Canadians.

Here after many, many months of working with government to come to razor-focus this tax to exactly this intent and purposes, it’s very reassuring to see that the rate has come down to 0.5 percent.

I believe fundamentally that from a fairness perspective, we should not be penalizing Canadians by making them pay higher rates just because they happen to live in another province. We are one country. I feel that as one country, we need to treat our citizens equally across that country.

In addition to these amendments, government has made a number of small changes in the legislation that go a long way to limiting the unfair impacts of this tax on Canadian homeowners who aren’t speculators.

Since it was first introduced in the budget, I’ve been hearing scores of cases that I’ve been bringing to government over the past eight months from people who are not speculators and who should not be facing the tax, as well as other examples where the speculation tax shouldn’t apply.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

A. Weaver: My understanding, hon. Speaker, is on a motion, I am able to deliver a full 30 minutes.

Deputy Speaker: Member, this is purely a procedural motion. This allows the amendments to be placed before the House for debate. Not at this time.

A. Weaver: Is this not a debatable motion, hon. Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: Not at this time. This is a motion to refer.

Motion approved.

Video of Speech

Today in the legislature I rose during Question Period to ask the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development what his ministry was doing to curtail glyphosate spraying in BC forests. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup™. It’s used to kill off broadleaf plant species that might inhibit the growth of seedlings that are replanted after a forest is logged. There are a number of significant negative impacts that arise from the current practice of widespread glyphosate spraying.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Every year in B.C., 16,000 hectares of forests are sprayed with an herbicide known as glyphosate. It’s sprayed over forests that have recently been logged and replanted to kill broadleaf plant species that might inhibit the growth of lodgepole pine seedlings. The result is reduced plant diversity, leading to monocropped forests that are vulnerable to more frequent and destructive wildfires and beetle infestations.

The World Health Organization has warned that glyphosate is likely carcinogenic. It also has genotoxic, cytotoxic and endocrine-disrupting properties. For decades, researchers have been reporting reduced numbers of rodents, moose, insects and birds in forests that have been sprayed.

To the Minister of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, if our forests exist for the monetary value once felled, glyphosate is an efficient tool. If we consider the value of our wildlife ecosystems and human health, it is a veritable threat. What are the values that inform our ongoing use of glyphosate in B.C. forests?

Supplementary Question

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you very much to the Leader of the Third Party for the question on glyphosate. It’s a topic that I’ve been following closely since 1990. It’s of great interest to people around B.C.

Glyphosate is broadleaf herbicide. Many members in the House might recognize it as the active ingredient in Roundup. I want to say that our government is committed to protecting the important biodiversity of forests while ensuring a continued vibrant forestry sector.

The herbicide glyphosate is approved by Health Canada for use in forest management and is used to improve survival and growth of trees. In B.C., any users must follow the Integrated Pest Management Act and take steps to minimize impacts on the environment, including fish-bearing streams, a very important consideration.

B.C.’s reforestation practices are continually updated based on new scientific research and information, and recently, the ministry started to allow increased levels of aspen and broadleaves in managed stands throughout B.C., which will lead to a further decline in the use of herbicides.

I know the member quoted a figure of 16,000 hectares where glyphosate was applied. That was a number from 2015. I’m happy to report, in 2017, that number went down to 10,000 hectares — so a decrease of almost 40 percent.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Numerous jurisdictions have banned or restricted the use of glyphosate. These include the Netherlands, Germany, France, Portugal, El Salvador, Argentina and Denmark, to name but a few.

 Meanwhile, in British Columbia, we continue to spray tens of thousands, or at least 10,000 hectares, of forests annually with glyphosate. We are contributing to the severity of wildfires, harming wildlife and watching the chemical work its way through our food supply, all without any sound justification.

We should be thinking about the precautionary principle here, not waiting until it’s too late. As Rachel Carson once wrote: “The right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged. It is the public that is being asked to assume the risks.”

To the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, we are risking a lot for questionable benefit. How can the minister continue to justify the ongoing use of glyphosates in our provincial forests?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to acknowledge that we’re looking for ways to do better in the forests, especially around the application of herbicides, and so other forestry innovations, such as the use of superior orchard seed, improved nursery techniques, fast-growing seedlings and well-timed planting is also reducing the amount of herbicide being required.

We continue to investigate other silviculture strategies that take into account climate change and managing for resilient forest ecosystems. I’m very excited about the work of re-establishing forests after they’ve been disturbed by wildfires and recreating a forest mosaic so that deciduous as well as conifer stands are part of that mosaic,  leading to more resilient forest eco-types.

We’ve also been doing work on the impacts of glyphosate on wildlife, specifically with moose. That’s a huge concern to many people in rural areas — moose populations. We want to make sure we’re responding to scientific evidence, and so we have a program where we’ve initiated a two-year study to look at the impacts of herbicide spraying on feed and moose forage and nutritional quality of moose forage.

We anticipate the preliminary results to be available in 2019, and we look forward to implementing that research, based on scientific evidence.

Today in the legislature I rose during Question Period to ask the Premier what his government is doing to encourage private investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and EV manufacturing in British Columbia.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: We’ve talked about the last 16 years. We’ve talked about the 1990s. Let’s talk about the future now. In the second quarter of 2018, British Columbians bought 2,564 electric vehicles, more than three times the amount bought in the previous year. Across our province, dealerships can’t keep EVs on their lots. Backlogs and waiting lists vary from three months to a year, even up to 18 months, and the clean growth strategy to be released later this fall will bring in an aggressive ZEV standard to B.C.

Charging infrastructure remains a barrier for widespread EV adoption, and B.C. Hydro, which has installed a few fast-chargers recently, has done so by giving away the electricity for free. This has led to large lineups as locals get electricity for free while those who need it and those who want to pay for it have to wait in line, hoping to get a charge at some point down the road.

B.C. manufacturing companies like Electra Meccanica, Envirotech Electric Vehicles and Environex Inc. are looking to set up here in British Columbia — manufacturing facilities that want to grow our economy and meet global demand.

My question is to the Premier. What is his government doing to encourage private investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and EV manufacturing in B.C.?

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for the question. It’s nice to have forward-looking questions on how we’re going to build a better, stronger British Columbia, how we’re going to meet our objectives with respect to climate action, and I appreciate the question.

First of all, British Columbia does lead the country in charging stations, some 1,500. And now you can travel from Golden…. The member from Golden can travel all the way to Tofino in his electric vehicle and not have to stop and charge. As the member quite rightly says, though, we do have some challenges.

That’s why the B.C. Utilities Commission has opened up a review on their own initiative to ensure that we find a way to get electricity into electric vehicles in a way that’s cost-effective, a way that’s fair to the travelling public and allows us to build even more capacity going forward.

Lastly, I would say, with respect to electric vehicle uptake in the economy, we had to increase…. The Minister of Finance found an additional $10 million to put into the clean energy vehicle program in September because it was already oversubscribed from February. That speaks to demand in the economy. That speaks to a responsive government that’s listening to people and putting in place programs and services that will help them and help all of us meet our climate change objectives.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: As the Premier mentioned, obviously there are nearly 1,500 EV charging stations in British Columbia. Almost all of them give away electricity for free. Some are private; most are not. The free model is rapidly becoming unsustainable as more and more British Columbians move towards EVs.

To sell someone electricity in this province, you must be registered as a public utility unless you get some very-difficult-to-get exemption. Oregon, California, Washington, Ontario, New York and a number of other U.S. states have already exempted EV charging from energy regulation. Resale of electricity is permitted, like a gas station, without prior approval, and prices are set by the market. Of course, safety, consumer protection and other considerations are indeed regulated.

My question, then, to the minister is this. The type of approach that encourages private investment in vehicle-charging infrastructure in British Columbia is exactly the direction we want to go. Will the Premier commit his government to updating B.C.’s regulatory environment for EV charging stations immediately after receiving the recommendations from the B.C. Utilities Commission report he referred to?

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his interest and passion on this subject. I also want to say that we are utilizing the B.C. Utilities Commission, unlike the previous government that sidelined this very useful regulatory body. We’re using the B.C. Utilities Commission to determine the best way forward.

The member is quite correct. He’s looked into this diligently. We do have some challenges with respect to giving away energy in some places and overcharging in others. A regulatory framework that meets the needs of the travelling public and allows us to meet our climate objectives over time is the right way forward.

I look forward — as all members, I’m sure, do — to the Utilities Commission reporting back in the fall — or in the next number of weeks, I expect — on their proposals going forward.

But I also want to touch on another component of the question that the member asked and that is how can we incent and attract the development of, the creation of construction and the implementation of a program that has a clean, green, innovative tinge to it. That would be left to the member for Surrey-Whalley, the Minister of Jobs, Training and Technology, who appointed the first innovation commissioner in B.C.’s history so that we can have an economy that works for everybody and looks forward, not backward, like the people on the other side.

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 41: Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act, 2018 at second reading. This bill repeals the Public Flexibility and Choice Act, brought in by the BC Liberals in 2002. The original version of the bill included language stripping class size and composition rights from teachers’ collective bargaining.

That version led to the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation going on strike, and created a decade-and-a-half long dispute ending with the legislative change being deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Once the original version of the bill received royal assent the School Act amendments came into force. This is why they are no longer seen in the present version.

The powers granted to postsecondary institutions that remain in the original version have never been used. Nevertheless, in light of the recent Supreme Court of Canada BCTF decision, if a postsecondary institution were to invoke the Public Flexibility and Choice Act, it is likely it would be deemed unconstitutional, as it is very similar language to what has already been deemed unconstitutional.

Below are the text and video of my second reading speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act.

As the minister mentioned, this act repeals the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that was brought in under the previous government in 2002.

Within the language of that bill brought in in 2002, restrictions were removed, in particular the clause:

Despite any other Act or a collective agreement, an institution has the right to

(a) establish the size of its classes, the number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member in a semester, a term or an academic year,

(b) assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning,

(c) determine its hours of operation and the number and duration of terms or semesters during which instruction is offered to students,

(d) allocate professional development time and vacation time to facilitate its organization of instruction, and

(e) provide support for faculty members, including, but not limited to, teaching assistants, senior students, contractors and support staff members.

This legislation, brought to 2002, was fortunately never actually challenged and never actually used, because universities and colleges recognize that the governance style within these academic post-secondary institutions is more of a collegial form of governance, one in which an academic environment is governed by the senate, where there is input from faculty and staff and students in terms of the academic direction of an institution.

What was very troubling, of course, is that when this act was introduced, it also amended sections of the School Act, which stripped teachers’ bargaining rights — or when the prior act was a similar thing — related to class size and composition.

Remember the infamous Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, which started major labour disputes in our province with health care workers. Again, that was also implemented at the same time. It was rather a classic example of a pendulum that swings, when we have governments shift from one to the other side of the political spectrum.

If ever there was a compelling testimony as to why proportional representation is important, it’s that it limits these kinds of pendulum swings because of the fact that we typically don’t go from one extreme to the other. In this example, we’re going back to legislation coming in, being repealed. Of course, this should never have been brought in, in the first place.

With the B.C. Teachers Federation, of the examples I just raised, that dispute lasted for a decade and a half. How much money, how many hours lost, how much stress put on teachers, how much education was not delivered because of time being put to this because of, frankly, punitive measures that were brought forward by the previous government to the employees within the education sector, whether it be K-to-12 or post-second institutions?

The amendments to the School Act that were brought in with the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act were poorly thought out. It was legislation that caused, as I mentioned, a decade of turmoil, including the longest strike in BCTF’s history, in 2014, when I was on the other side there. It was based, frankly, on ideology that the government of the day doubled down on as it lost decision after decision, until it went to the Supreme Court, which, only for a few minutes, deliberated before they ruled unanimously on the direction that this should take.

I remember, frankly, three years ago standing in this House and speaking about the approach of the previous government toward education. At that time, I said that moving the relationship forward between the BCTF and the government would require trust — mutual trust. It was easy, of course, for me to see why the BCTF and other stakeholders in public education were leery to trust the direction of the previous government.

At the time, I was arguing that the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, was a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Rather than engaging education stakeholders in meaningful dialogue, the government was providing itself with rather sweeping powers to appoint special advisers and issue administrative directives. Needless to say, that was not building trust. It was a classic example of the previous government’s approach.

Instead of working to build trust, the previous administration spent years fighting the BCTF — and countless dollars in doing so — creating labour disputes, court battles and strikes until finally the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the BCTF.

They won their challenge because the legislative changes infringed on B.C. teachers’ freedom of association, guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I use this example because the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act that this bill is repealing here today — that is, Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act — has very similar language, which I read out earlier, very similar language in it, which, in theory, could render key sections in collective agreements with post-secondary educators void.

Coming to a specific example in the previous bill, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act, which is being repealed, it states here, as well: “Despite any other Act or collective agreement, an institution has the right to…assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning,” and to establish class sizes and “the number of students who may be enrolled in or assigned to a class and the total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member….”

The total number of students who may be assigned to a faculty member — this shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how universities operate.

I taught at a university for 25 years before coming here. I had PhD students and master’s students. To think, here, that somehow government was enabling that my institution could tell me how many PhD students I could supervise…. Who’s going to pay them? We have departmental policy that requires us to find money to pay our students. What about if I was no longer active in research, and on and on. It just showed such a fundamental misunderstanding.

But in fact, in 2007, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators noted this, and they stated that this act overruled provisions of their collective agreements that dealt with class size. At the same time, their statement read as follows. This is the statement that they read: “Although we have succeeded in preventing post-secondary employers from using the legislation, today’s decision adds to our case that the legislation should be scrapped all together.” That was with respect to a ruling, one of the many rulings that came in the BCTF’s favour.

The Public Flexibility and Choice Act has still not been used to this day, thank goodness. But if it were to be used, I cringe to think of the disputes it would cause, and the subsequent legal challenges that could arise.

Now, I recognize that this legislation, which is still on the books, is a blight on the previous government, is a blight on the official opposition, which is why it seems that there are no speakers to this at second reading, and that they’ll accept it, and quickly, apart from one just saying, in a matter of moments, that they’ll accept it.

We’re not getting a detailed discussion and rationale on why this was brought in, in the first place. Why was this brought in, in the first place? We have members sitting opposite who’ve been in the B.C. Legislature since 2002, when, in fact, this legislation was brought. Rather than simply giving us a history, rather than telling us why it was brought in and why they’re now supporting it, all they say is we support repealing it, in essence.

I recognize this is a blight. It’s a shameful blight on 16 years of actually not putting education as a priority in this province. This bill before us today is seeking to remove the controversial piece of legislation, which, fortunately, has never been used before, and, frankly, if it were, would almost certainly have triggered legal challenges to the Supreme Court of Canada, where, once again, it would’ve been deemed unconstitutional and a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is the legacy that the new government has to deal with. It is repealing legislation that, yet again, would almost certainly have been unconstitutional. My caucus and I are 100 percent behind this bill, and with that, I thank you for your attention.

Video of Speech