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

Today and yesterday during committee stage for Bill 36: Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3) a debate ensued regarding the process by which college and university boards are populated. I provided some further detail in my second reading speech.

The first three sections of the bill dealt with streamlining the process of board appointees for staff and faculty representatives. Initially, I had some questions about the rationale for these changes and so I sought a briefing from the Ministry. It turned out that the changes brought British Columbia in line with what is already in place in every other province in the country other than Alberta.

The official opposition (BC Liberals) were relentless in their attack on the Minister by suggesting that somehow the proposed amendments were enabling conflict of interest situations to arise. The Minister was somewhat testy in her response to many of the questions and I felt that a more thorough unpacking of the issue was warranted.

Below I provide the text and videos of the exchange which occurred over the span of two days.

You’ll notice in this exchange that I turn the conversation into identifying what I believe is a very real problem with the governance of colleges and universities in British Columbia. That is, I note that British Columbia is unique in Canada wherein all of its college and university boards are dominated by Order in Council (i.e. government) appointments.

The independence of college and university boards is critical. These institutions are places that allow for innovation and creativity to flourish. They’re not places for government to facilitate a top down imposition of its ideology. Unfortunately, under existing legislation the government has the potential to interfere in ways that could undermine their autonomy. That is why I have twice introduced a private members bill aimed at rectifying this situation.

I will continue to pressure government to adopt the proposed governance changes identified in this private members bill.

Text of Exchange (October 3)

A. Weaver: Now, I do appreciate the official opposition questioning and the line of questioning. I would suggest that there seems to be a misunderstanding, a fundamental one, as to how colleges and institutions operate in the province of British Columbia, which I would have expected not to have occurred in light of the fact that they have been in government for 17 years.

Please let me go through a series of questions. We’re clearly not going to make it though today. But the first question is with respect to section 1. I do realize that there’s been some kind of flow-over in sections 1, 2 and 3 when issues with respect to Royal Roads and universities have been discussed. So I ask some lenience, here, of the Chair. I will focus initially on the colleges and institutes.

My first question to the minister is: could she please describe the existing makeup of boards of governors as outlined in the College and Institute Act?

Hon. M. Mark: For the college boards, they’re composed of eight or more persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — one person on the faculty of the institution and elected by the faculty members, two students elected by the students, one person who is part of the support staff and elected by the support staff, the president, and the chair of the education council of the college.

I’ll add that the board of the Justice Institute of B.C. is slightly different. It consists of eight or more persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and the president.

A. Weaver: Now, this is where it gets a little bit…. I was just wondering — just for the sake of clarity and comparison, not dealing with section 3 but here — if the minister could say what the makeup of the board of the University of British Columbia is?

Hon. M. Mark: I feel like I need to say this really quickly so that we can get out of here on time.

The board of governors of the University of British Columbia is composed of 21 members in order to reflect that it has two campuses: the chancellor; the president; a faculty member who works at UBC Okanagan, elected by faculty members who work at UBC Okanagan; two faculty members who work at UBC Vancouver, elected by faculty members who work at UBC Vancouver; 11 persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, two of whom are to be appointed from among persons nominated by the alumni association; a student who studies at UBC Okanagan, elected from students who are members of a student society and study at UBC Okanagan; two students who study at UBC Vancouver, elected by students who are members of a student society and study at UBC Vancouver; one person who works at UBC Okanagan, elected by and from employees who are not faculty and work at UBC Okanagan; and finally, one person who works at UBC Vancouver, elected by and from employees who are not faculty and work at UBC Vancouver.

A. Weaver: Would it be true, then, if I made the statement…? This is a question to the minister. In every case, in every college and institute — Royal Roads — and university in the province of British Columbia, the composition of each board has more order-in-council appointments than it does elected members of the university.

Hon. M. Mark: Yes.

A. Weaver: Could the minister please describe any other province in the country of Canada for which there are more order-in-council appointments at the university level over the elected or other members from the institution?

Hon. M. Mark: I don’t have the detailed information in front of me at this moment, but I can get the information to the member.

A. Weaver: We’ll be resuming this later, and I would hope we can start the questioning with this.

I do note the hour, and I move that we rise and report progress.

Text of Exchange (October 4)

A. Weaver: Yesterday we left off with a question that the minister had suggested she would be able to provide the answer for: the question I had asked as to what other provinces in our country have boards that are comprised of more order-in-council appointments than those elected by or participating in the institutions. I’m hoping she has the answer this morning to share with us.

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member for the question. There are a few examples in other provinces where, like British Columbia, LGIC appointees have a majority over non-appointed members. But across the country, the number of government appointees to university boards generally do not exceed the number of non-appointed members.

For example, the University of Manitoba has 12 appointed members, three of which must be students, and 11 non-appointed members. At Memorial University of Newfoundland, they have a majority of 21 appointed members, four of whom are students, and nine are non-appointed members.

A. Weaver: I appreciate the very few examples that exist. It’s interesting to note in those examples that exist that the appointed members are, indeed, also comprising students. So British Columbia is rather unique in the number. And as the minister pointed out yesterday, in the colleges act, there is a boardroom made up of one elected faculty member, two elected students, one staff elected, one president, one chair of the education council and eight appointments through order-in-council — at least eight.

My question is to the minister. Does she believe that students are in a conflict of interest if they are on a board, in light of the fact that it is the board that determines tuition fee increases? Yes or no?

Hon. M. Mark: The response is no, but there are bylaws and measures in place to address any conflicts of interest. Again, through the board, there are some institutions where students are allowed to participate in the room. There are institutions where they’re not. The test of conflict of interest is always being measured. Again, the law, the act, states to act in the best interests of the institutions.

A. Weaver: Every college in the province and every university in the province has students on its boards. Those students are elected, and those students are governed by conflict-of-interest proceedings and regulations as outlined by the minister. So I very much appreciate that answer.

In the same vein, of the staff and faculty that are on all boards, everyone, as is noted by the minister, is elected. The question I then have is: how are order-in-council appointments made? Who actually makes those appointments?

Hon. M. Mark: Orders-in-council are approved by cabinet at the recommendation of the minister. As the member knows, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of appointments that are made across all ministries throughout government.

A. Weaver: On these boards, some of the institutions…. We’ve had some leeway in these discussions because sections 1 to 3 are virtually identical in scope. They just apply to three different things: College and Institute Act, Royal Roads Act and University Act. The official opposition and I have been a little loose across the references, but it’s all bearing on the same theme.

My question is: how is a chancellor appointed at a university, and how does a board appoint the chancellor?

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question. Under the University Act, “chancellor,” defined under section 11, part 5: “There must be a chancellor of each university, who is to be appointed by the board on nomination by the alumni association and after consultation with the senate or, in the case of the University of British Columbia, after consultation with the council.

A. Weaver: The chancellor is the public face and the representative of an institution. The chancellor, as noted by the minister, is elected by the board. The government appoints the majority in British Columbia on all boards of colleges, Royal Roads and universities.

Does the minister believe that there’s a potential conflict of governance if it is the government that ultimately, through its appointments and dominance in all of the boards actually determines the voice of an institution? This is unique in British Columbia, unlike any other province in our nation — that the government appointees make up dominance of the boards, who then select the chancellor, who is the public institution. This is why we’ve had scandal after scandal in British Columbia, most recently at the University of British Columbia and also UNBC, with respect to appointments.

My question to the minister is this. Is she concerned that the conflict of interest that actually arises in the appointment of the boards in British Columbia is not through the elected people who are on the board but rather by the potential for government to influence the academic governance of a board by stacking the boards with their party elite? Does this concern the minister at all? And the subsequent question: is this an issue that she believes could lead to conflict of interest with government?

Hon. M. Mark: I do agree with the member that elected members are not in a conflict. However, the broader discussion of an appointment of a chancellor is, with all due respect, out of the scope of the discussion today with the amendments that we have on the floor. I am happy to discuss the bigger picture of the amendments that I am aware — which the member opposite has raised — need to be changed.

I’ve heard from other stakeholders what areas might need to be changed under the University Act or under the College and Institute Act, but with respect to what is on the floor today, we are proposing amendments to section 59, part 8 about the eligibility of appointed members to the board that are elected faculty or staff.

A. Weaver: I’m fine with that answer, actually. I’ll come back to that.

I have two more questions.

My question to the minister is this: to what extent do these proposals conflict or agree with similar legislation that exists in every other province across this nation?

Hon. M. Mark: The only other province that has similar legislation is currently Alberta. Through these amendments, the only province that will have those rules in effect will be Alberta. So we will be bringing ourselves in line with every other province in Canada.

A. Weaver: That concludes my line of questioning, and I very much appreciate the response from the minister and her staff.

To summarize what has happened here is that we’ve realized and had a full discussion as to the makeup of these boards, how there are certain elected members, which is comparative to other provinces. In fact, where we differ is we have so many order-in-council appointments here, whereas they have the majority on each and every board.

I appreciate that the minister pointed out that this is not the subject of today. But what I’ve tried to point out through this line of questions is that the amendments that are put forward here are not actually controversial. They’re in place already across the nation in virtually every other province except Alberta.

But Alberta is also quite different from B.C. because in Alberta, they do not have order-in-council appointments dominating the boards. So B.C. really is an outlier in this. We have, if I would suggest— I’d like to discuss this further with the minister, and I look forward to those discussions —— that if there is any conflict of interest in the boards, it’s not with the elected students. It’s not with the elected faculty. It’s not with the elected staff. It’s actually with the order-in-council appointments wherein government can actually have its agenda imposed on an institution by appointing the board, both in terms of the selection of the chancellor, who is the public face, as well as the governance within the programs in the institution.

That is very dangerous in a democratic society where we rely on the free exchange of ideas. British Columbia is unique.

I support this section wholeheartedly, as somebody who spent a lifetime in universities, as somebody who served as a chief negotiator for the faculty association, as somebody who couldn’t do that and be on the board — because there’s no time — as someone who supports the electoral process that puts students, faculty and staff on the boards, as someone who supports the governance of institutions in a free and democratic society but actually has very real problems with what is happening, again, in British Columbia, the Wild West, where order-in-council appointments dominate boards, potentially leading to — and in some cases, demonstrably leading to — decisions being made that are government-related that actually impinge upon the academic freedom of an institution.

With that, I thank the minister and her staff for the attention of the questions that I put forward.

Videos of Exchange

Yesterday in the legislature I rose to speak in support of Bill 36: Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3). This is a non-controversial bill that makes myriad small changes in a number of existing pieces of legislation.

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

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and stand in support of this bill, Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — (No. 3), no less — 2018.

I thank the member for Vancouver–False Creek for the welcome to speak to this.

Now, those who have been riveted to Hansard videos for the last five years will know that I’ve made it a frequent occurrence, speaking to miscellaneous statutes amendment acts. This one actually is quite remarkable in that it is somewhat unlike a lot of the acts we see in that there are a lot of quite meaty changes that are brought in and a diverse array of bills. You know, sometimes we’ve joked in this House about spell-checker and comma acts when they’ve been the whole bill. Important changes are made, but these have meatier changes.

I would like to start by speaking to part 1, the Advanced Education, Skills and Training amendments. Now, I understand where opposition are coming from in their concern about this, and the very first thing I did, as well as my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, who spoke so eloquently earlier on this issue, was raise a flag. The first thing I did was pull out my conspiracy theory hat, thinking that perhaps we were seeing a political payout for union friends here and perhaps this was a way to try to get negotiators on the board of governors.

I actually requested a briefing. I was delighted to have that briefing this morning with ministerial staff who I was able to ask and probe some questions as to where this emerged from.

To give you some context of this, I was the president of the UVic Faculty Association when I was at the University of Victoria, and I was chief negotiator in two bargaining sessions spanning about five years. At that time, when you look at what’s being removed here, you might suggest that perhaps by removing the language, I could potentially put myself in a conflict of interest by being allowed to serve on the board of governors of an institution while at the same time serving as chief negotiator for the faculty. In essence, you would be negotiating with yourself. I understand where the concern was coming from with the opposition.

Now, therein lies the source of what I believe is some further necessary comment. To get there first, I think it’s important to see what has actually been repealed. In the College and Institute Act, the University Act and the Royal Roads University Act, the same bit of language…. I’ll only read the one, because it’s slightly and subtly different in the University Act from the College and Institute Act. This is what’s being removed. Language presently exists, and it was recently added by the previous government….

“A person is not eligible to be or to remain a member of the board if the person is:

(a) an employee of its institution, and

(b) a voting member of the executive body of” — that would be like a president, a vice-president or someone like that — “or an officer of, an instructional, administrative or other staff association of the institution who has the responsibility, or joint responsibility with others, to

(i) negotiate with the board, on behalf of instructional, administrative or other staff association of that institution, the terms and conditions of service of members of that association, or

(ii) adjudicate disputes regarding members of the instructional, administrative or other staff associations of that institution.“

My Spidey senses were raised when I saw that being removed. I thought: “Well, hang on here. Is this some nefarious backroom deal to pay back friends?” Was this one of these “good faith, no surprises” kind of step-asides?

Again, coming back to the briefing, it turns out that what I was able to learn from this briefing was that we are the only province in the country that has language like this, and we are unique in that regard because in essence we already have a requirement. Again, the previous government put in place very fine conflict-of-interest measures, and demanded that with institutions, that exist that would not allow the negotiator like me, for example, to negotiate with myself on the board.

So again, this is not what I had originally thought it would be, as some kind of payback. It wasn’t. It was actually trying to streamline a process that was already being dealt with, which is the issue of conflict of interest. But in fact, it is making it more accessible for some smaller institutions, particularly in rural B.C., where there are some difficulties to actually get qualified members on the board.

What this has laid out as is a broader ability, particularly…. I mean, this is not an issue for the University of British Columbia or the University of Victoria. But it is an issue for some smaller rural colleges subject to this act, and this is clarifying that the existing conflict-of-interest legislation is sufficient and the responsibilities that are governed by board members are sufficient to ensure that you can’t negotiate with yourself, in essence.

So while initially very suspect about this component, I’m pleased to say that I was very satisfied. Again, I’m very grateful to the ministry staff who provided the briefing at such short notice and did so in such an informative manner — and to the government, frankly, for arranging a briefing on this important topic within literally 24 hours. Because as we know, this bill was only brought before us two days ago, and ministry staff were able to get the briefing this morning, shortly after QP.

I wasn’t the widest awake of all days, having been up since four in the morning, preparing questions and other things, because it was rather a lot of things that have been going on here today in the B.C. Legislature. Nevertheless, though, I am grateful that we were able to do this.

I look to part 2, and this is changes to the Milk Industry Act. I suspect the Minister of Agriculture will speak quite passionately as to why these changes are necessary, required and fundamental to good governance here in British Columbia.

But I’d like to say…. Obviously, I support it, but this is important and timely that we start to talk about the dairy industry in British Columbia. Why is it important and timely? Because we’ve seen recent signing of a NAFTA agreement where our supply management component of the dairy industry has taken a little bit of a hit. They’re not happy losing 3½ percent of their supply to potential U.S. milk products.

I will say to British Columbians who are riveted to the television, watching Hansard today, I’m not worried about that. The reason why is that in Canada we don’t put hormones in our milk. In the U.S., they do.

Why would anyone go to a supermarket and choose to have hormone-laden milk from somewhere else when you can get Vancouver Island Dairyland cows or Island Farms cows? You can buy milk made in B.C. that doesn’t have steroids, that’s supporting local farmers.

I’m not worried about this supply management, so I say good on Canada in their negotiations with NAFTA. I think we’ve done well in the auto industry. I think we’ve done well in other aspects of that, in order that we’re ensuring that labour standards in Mexico, for example, are up to the same, or at least better paid, compared to us here, which ensures that the so-called Dutch disease doesn’t occur by shipping manufacturing jobs offshore.

Again, with the small changes to the definition of a dairy plant…. I didn’t go into a detailed briefing as to what those were. Clearly, the civil service would have identified, in consultation with the minister’s office, issues that have arisen in recent years where the definition of dairy plant has been troubling in terms of legislation. Again, small yet important changes have been put in here.

When we move on to part 3, we see a number of amendments to the Mental Health Act, the Offence Act and others. These are all under the purview of the Attorney General’s office. Again, these are relatively minor yet potentially impactful.

The first, of course, the changes to the Mental Health Act, are, in essence, saying that a retired medical practitioner can now serve on a review panel. It doesn’t have to be a current practitioner. Why this is important is that I understand there have been some issues, historically, where perhaps a retired member has been on it, and then panels have made deliberations, and there’s some question as to whether this person was allowed to be on it.

Frankly, it’s hard enough getting a GP in our present system here in British Columbia. It’s hard enough getting access to a medical practitioner. Let’s actually use those and allow those who are no longer practising but actually have the ability to make informed decisions to serve on these panels, to free up our doctors to actually spend the time in the health care system that they so want to do. Again, that’s another small yet important change.

There are slight changes here to the Offence Act, slight changes to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. On that note, I would like to raise — on the Public Guardian and Trustee Act — some issues that I think government needs to further explore.

This is especially relevant to an ongoing case I have in my constituency, where there are examples in British Columbia where you might have a child who’s taken into care in one province, into the foster care system, and then is adopted, legally adopted, by a family member in another province. The system that we have set up in Canada makes this extraordinarily difficult for that family care provider to actually get the services that they need in the province of British Columbia if, in fact, the case or the child originated from a seizure — whatever the word is.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Apprehension. Thank you to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast who has worked in the field. If there’s an apprehension in another province.

This is an important issue. In the one particular case we’re working on right now, this person, this family member has stepped in where the system has failed and given a home to two young children from a family member, two children who were apprehended from another province and now have a safe home here. The irony is if the children were apprehended in that province and put in care in that province, there would be funding for the caregivers in that province. If their children are apprehended in that province and given a safer way forward in another province — in particular, in this case, British Columbia — there are barriers to access of funds.

I’m hoping, as we make small amendments here to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, we might keep a view of what the bigger picture here is and look at other barriers that exist for existing issues here.

Section 9 — and through 16, frankly. Changes, again, are being made with respect to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, roles and powers of chief justices. My colleague would have addressed these issues in further detail.

Then we move on, of course, to the important changes in part 4. These are the Finance amendments. I had the pleasure — the distinct pleasure, no less — of hearing the Finance Minister talk so eloquently and so passionately about these changes that have been added to ensure that there’s consistency amongst myriad acts with respect to recent changes in the Business Corporations Act.

What do I mean by that? In the Business Corporations Act, there is a new requirement or, essentially, a definition in there as to who is authorized to act as an auditor for a company. The need for this has clearly arisen from issues that were brought to government’s attention with respect to auditing and non-qualified auditors serving as an auditor in the cases of the business corporation.

In the act, what is done in the Business Corporations Act is actually mirrored in a series of acts to ensure consistency across legislation in British Columbia. We see changes that mirror the definitions as to who can serve as an auditor occurring in the Cooperative Association Act, the Credit Union Incorporation Act, the Financial Institutions Act, the Societies Act, and the Chartered Professional Accountants Act. We got into the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, the Greater Vancouver Water District Act, the Legal Profession Act, the Notaries Act, the School Act, the Vancouver Foundation Act.

That’s a lot of acts, but now we have consistent definitions or, in fact, regulations as to who can serve as an auditor. You can’t just phone up Uncle Bob and say: “Uncle Bob, can you audit my accounts and give me your stamp of approval?” That’s no longer going to be approved. Although Uncle Bob may be qualified to do so, there are proper and more rigid measures that are now put in place.

We turn finally to part 5 of this act, a number of Municipal Affairs and Housing amendments. These are, again, providing some regulatory powers, changes, some minor language adjustment, some standardization of terminology. All in all, not very controversial — housekeeping — yet important changes of various act under the Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry. And then, of course, we have the concomitant amendments, some related amendments, in the Safety Standards Act at the end.

All in all, this is not, in my view, a controversial bill, although on my initial reading of sections 1 to 3, flags were raised. I understand where opposition is coming from. I had exactly the same concerns. I had the benefit of a briefing from ministry staff. I feel comfortable now, knowing that this is actually bringing us in line with what every other province in the country has done, as well as the fact that this has been already covered under conflict of interest and fiduciary requirement and other existing rules that apply to governance of boards in our colleges sector.

The importance of this change actually goes to rural B.C. where there are some issues in terms of getting qualified board members representing various institutions in some of the colleges that we have. This has been asked for, as well, by other representative organizations that have pointed out some of the difficulties that arise.

With that, there’s not much more, I think, in this bill that needs to be addressed. I do suspect we’ll see other miscellaneous statutes amendment bills coming forward. I do commend government on providing a substantive bill here, of substantive amendments. It’s much easier to actually go into the depth and detail of these with briefings. I hope that the support that we’ve given to this — that I’ve given to this bill and also reflected in the support of my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands — is recognized by government as: we’re happy to support this through second and final reading.

Video of Speech

Today in the legislature I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Jobs, Trades and Technology about the provincial government’s support for the recently announced BC-based digital technology supercluster consortium.

The B.C.-based Digital Technology Supercluster consortium was selected in February as one of five successful national programs to share a portion of $950 million in federal innovation funding. More than $500 million in private sector funding has also been committed to the BC-based supercluster project.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: In February, B.C.’s economy received a huge boost with the news that our digital supercluster won over $150 million in federal funding. The supercluster offers an opportunity to bring together the private sector and our post-secondary institutions and government to solve problems and accelerate innovation in key sectors in our province, like health care, forestry and manufacturing. This will help B.C. be more competitive as we respond to changing global trends.

The supercluster will generate more than $5 billion in GDP growth and tens of thousands of jobs over the next ten years. It already has hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding and private sector commitments, with over 300 partners.

For the province to be able to participate in this groundbreaking initiative, all we need to do is contribute $1.5 million per year for five years. My question to the Minister of Jobs, Trades and Technology is this: will this government seize the opportunity before them, make at least the minimal contribution required and take a seat at the table of the digital supercluster?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I share the Leader of the Third Party’s enthusiasm for the supercluster proposal. The federal government took the initiative by creating a fund and having a nationwide competition. British Columbia put together a consortium, as the member has mentioned, of over 300 companies — institutions, non-profits, start-up companies — led by some of the biggest companies in the province, and was successful. It has huge potential to create jobs, economic activity and research here in the province.

Just this week, the supercluster group appointed Sue Paish, who will be known to many people here, as the CEO of the supercluster. The structure, the governance model, is all being worked out. She just was hired earlier this week. Once that structure is in place, we will certainly consider provincial options to support this exciting initiative.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: The digital supercluster provides a generational opportunity for this government. Familiar words, actually.

Government can bring the biggest issues B.C. faces to the table, harnessing the ingenuity of our private sector and our exceptional post-secondary institutions to find innovative solutions to our most complex and difficult problems: in areas like, for example, health care, where precision health can enable more effective and targeted treatment for patients; or in areas like our natural resources and manufacturing sectors, where partnerships will increase efficiency and productivity, creating more jobs in rural B.C. and helping us get better returns for our products.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. Why wouldn’t government do everything in its power to support this initiative and to make sure that it has a seat at the table — that it seizes the power of this supercluster to tackle the most pressing challenges we face today?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: Indeed, that’s exactly what the government is doing. This opportunity is a very exciting one. There are some challenges, as Sue Paish puts together her team, devises a government structure. There are some issues about the ownership of IP that will come out of the research that’s going to be done, the way in which the funds will be divided among the companies involved.

So there are some challenges. I’m convinced that the group is definitely up to it. We are excited by the opportunities.

As the member mentions, there are huge challenges that we here in British Columbia can solve. In fact, just today, over across the water, at the tech conference, there is a group of 3,000 people meeting, talking about the opportunities presented to all regions of the province, all citizens of the province, by the promise of the digital transformation that we’re undergoing.

The supercluster is part of that, and we intend to do our part in spurring that group on to success.

Yesterday in the Legislature we debated Bill 4: British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act. This bill renames the BC Innovation Council as Innovate BC and expands its mandate.

As noted in the government’s press release issued in conjunction with the tabling of the bill,

Innovate BC will absorb all the programs and services currently delivered by the BC Innovation Council, in addition to expanding its mandate. These changes will ensure that B.C. is more competitive nationally and globally, and can attract additional investment to scale up the provincial tech ecosystem.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my speech in support of this bill.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 4, British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act. As speakers before me have articulated, this act has two major changes. One, of course, is changing the name of the British Columbia Innovation Council Act to Innovate BC Act. This is important, and I’ll come to that in a second.

The second major change, which I think is very important to emphasize, is that the mandate of Innovate BC, the new organization, will be expanded. In particular, the details as outlined in the previous act, the specific objectives of the council per se in the previous act — that section 3 of the act that’s being modified — is going to have an addition now which says that Innovate B.C. will also “offer tools, resources and expert guidance to entrepreneurs and companies in British Columbia, including in respect of building capacity to access new markets and attract investment.”

Now this is important because, while not specifically stated there, what this is recognizing is the recent appointment of Alan Winter as British Columbia’s innovation commissioner. What the innovation commissioner, of course, is going to be the advocate for the B.C.’s new Innovate B.C. agency.

Why it’s important to change the name? There’s a couple of reasons. When a new organization comes in, it’s often the time to switch the directors of a new organization, to give it a sense of new purpose and new vision and new direction. And we’re quite inspired by Mr. Winter and all that he has done for British Columbia, both in his capacity as CEO of Genome B.C. as a small business, of a large business — just a wealth of experience in innovation across a diversity of areas.

The creation of an innovation commission and the position of innovation commissioner is something that was embedded in our confidence and supply agreement with the B.C. NDP, and we’re grateful to be able to work with them to move this forward. In fact, the so-called CASA agreement states that one of our goals, collectively, is to:

“Establish an innovation commission to support innovation and business development in the technology sector and appoint an innovation commissioner with a mandate to be an advocate ambassador on behalf of the B.C. technology sector in Ottawa and abroad. The mandate and funding of the innovation commission will be jointly established by representatives of both the B.C. Green caucus and the B.C. New Democratic government. And the innovation commission will be created in the first provincial budget tabled by the New Democratic government.”

That, indeed, has been met.

What’s important here is that when one looks at the establishment of the innovation commission, one recognizes that it’s actually at an opportune time, because the focus here in British Columbia is moving to mirror exactly what is happening in Ottawa, recognizing that we can compete in innovation like no one else. So the emergence of innovate B.C. and the commissioner comes at a time when Ottawa is putting money into these very same programs.

It is critical that we have one single point of contact in terms of melding these programs together, because historically, in British Columbia, innovation has been spread across six different and separate ministries — much like fish farms are, as we’ve discussed in question period.

Technology is exciting here, in British Columbia. In 2015, when we have the best data, there were over 100,000 jobs in more than 9,900 companies in B.C., with wages that, on average, were 75 percent higher than the B.C. industrial average; with average weekly earnings of almost $1,600 a week. It had the fifth consecutive year of growth in 2015, and about 5 percent of British Columbia’s workforce was in the tech sector. That’s more than mining, oil and gas, and forestry combined.

I’ll say that again for those riveted at home. There was 5 percent of British Columbia’s workforce in the tech sector in 2015. That is more than mining, oil, gas and forestry combined.

Now, it’s very odd that somehow, in British Columbia, we continue to perpetuate the notion that we are but hewers of wood and drawers of water and that our economy is based on oil and gas or our economy is based on the extraction of raw materials and shipping of those raw materials elsewhere.

In fact, a full 7 percent of our GDP comes from the tech sector. We know that the overwhelming component of our GDP comes from the real estate sector, a very high fraction of it, but 7 percent is from the tech sector. Again, I’ll come back to that in a second.

We know that in 2016, more than 106,000 people were working in the tech sector. By 2020, it’s projected to be more than 120,000. I would suggest that that will be an underestimate. We know that investment in B.C. tech will be increased by up to $100 million by 2020 and that recently — and I give both sides of the House credit here — there’s been an increase in talent pool and an increase in funding of actual post-secondary institution places to actually promote continued growth of training of highly-qualified personnel in this area. That was an initiative started by B.C. Liberals, continued by B.C. NDP, and one that we support all the way through.

We recognize as a caucus, as a small caucus here, that playing a key role in the tech sector is absolutely central to our economy. We will never, ever, ever compete with a jurisdiction like Angola or Namibia or Indonesia in terms of extracting raw resources straight from the ground, because we internalize social and environmental costs into the cost of doing business in B.C. that may not be internalized in other jurisdictions that don’t have the same social programs that we have and demand that we have here in B.C. or the same standard of environmental protection that we have and demand that we have in B.C.

For us to compete, we can compete by racing to the bottom. The journey into LNG tells us what that leads to — goose egg. Or, we can compete by being smarter and by building on our strategic advantages.

Today in the Legislature, we had a number of interns visiting from Washington state. Talking with these interns from Washington state, the idea of building on strategic strengths came up.

What was interesting is that I was reminded of a story when I was at the University of Washington. There was a fella there. His name was Ed Sarachik. He was my post-doctoral adviser. We were working in some climate modelling area, and Ed said to me: “You know, Andrew, we’re at the University of Washington. We’ve got an IBM 3090 here.” That dates me. It was a vector-based machine. It’s pretty old now. That was in the late 1980s. “We’re never going to compete with NCAR, Princeton or MIT in terms of the powerful computing that they have access to. But we can be smarter and more efficient and more clever, and we can win through efficiency and being smarter.”

He was right that by focusing strategically on things that we could do well, rather than the brute force, race to the bottom approach, we were able do some neat stuff. That’s exactly the same with the tech sector. We can’t compete through digging dirt out of the ground when we’re internalizing these costs. But we can be more efficient. We can be cleaner, and we can export in a more efficient and cleaner way the resources that have historically been a key component of British Columbia’s economy.

Now, one of my favourite companies is a company called MineSense in British Columbia. It turns out — and I didn’t realize that until with the mining delegation, when a bunch of my former students ended up lobbying me about mining — that one of the key founders of MineSense was another former student from UVic. This kind of blew me way. I’m sure as a former teacher, hon. Speaker, you know that you see these former students popping up everywhere, and you wonder how they got from where they were to where they are now.

I’m blown away by that company. It’s a company that’s developed technology to actually assess up front the quality of minerals to determine whether or not it is cost-effective to truck it a long distance to the crusher and process all of that grade, or just push it to the side to be used as fill later.

That’s innovation. That’s efficiency. That allows us to actually compete by actually mining our high-grade minerals without wasting the time of digging up all of the stuff that’s not economical. We can export the minerals and compete through efficiency. But we can also export the technology and compete through technology.

This is why it’s so critical to have Innovate B.C. and the innovation commissioner. Because in B.C., we have a disparate bunch of programs out there, many of which don’t match with programs that exist federally. In talking to CEOs of a diversity of small start-up companies, they’re frustrated. They’re frustrated by the fact that they’ll go through a process to apply for grants federally, and then they’ll have to go through the same process in a slightly different way to apply for grants provincially.

I was excited in speaking recently with the innovation commissioner, Alan Winter, who recognizes that there’s some duplication there that’s not necessary. By streamlining programs, not only do we let innovators be innovative, as opposed to writing the same thing twice, but we actually are able more efficiently to tap into federal money, which actually is good for our economy here in British Columbia.

Now I have some experience in this regard with something British Columbia has known as the B.C. Knowledge Development Fund, an exceptional fund that’s used to lever money from Ottawa through the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which provides funding for large pieces of equipment for universities. I don’t know what the process is like now. But I do know that when I applied and got a supercomputer a number of years back, again, it was a duplication of a process.

The CFI process was rigorous and onerous and took an enormous amount of work to bring together stakeholders from a diversity of groups and organizations. Then we had to just rematch that process with the B.C. Knowledge Development Fund. It seemed to me that if we follow the Quebec model that there’s some duplication there, and we recognized that one process could satisfy everything.

I’m hoping that the innovation commissioner will see, as we move forward, opportunities here. It’s clear to me that we are so very lucky to have Alan Winter as the innovation commissioner. He recognizes, as members opposite have raised, the importance of actually thinking beyond roads as just being things to take people from A to B, but in terms of broadband, it’s critical to getting information from A to B.

It’s clear to me that he recognizes that our rural communities will be empowered upon receiving access to broadband, not only singular broadband but redundancy, as some bigger communities will get.

This is how we’ll compete. When we bring our tech sector…. Tech doesn’t just mean coding apps for the smartphone. Tech means biomedical sciences. Tech means revised forestry handling tools. Tech means thinking of new engineered wood products. Tech means bringing together the forestry sector with innovators in technology who see that you can make new things like insulation from wood products or roofing beams from wood products.

Tech is about innovation, and innovation goes far beyond what often people think that it only is, which is the smartphone app.

Our biomedical industry, as I mentioned, is one. In the automotive industry, we should be having innovation in that here in British Columbia. We should be leaders in the adoption of EVs.

Quantum computing. In British Columbia, we have, in D-Wave, one of the world’s leading companies in quantum computing. This is tech. This is a way for the future. We’ve got fuel cell technology. That’s another form of tech.

Let’s not think that tech is just about smart people with lab coats who have engineering degrees. Tech also requires people to construct and build and highly trained people in a diversity of trades, whether it be electrical, whether it be mechanical, whether it be the construction using carpentry. You need all skills working together to actually take the idea from the lab bench to fruition.

You know, we look at the issue of clean energy, something that I’m desperately hoping this government will pick up. There is so much potential for innovation in British Columbia, whether it be Rocky Mountain Solar, a project that I hope to get the member for Kootenay East excited about shortly. Rocky Mountain Solar is a solar company that has private land. The transmission lines go right through the private land. They’ve passed the standing offer program. They gone through the standing offer program, but they can’t actually get going. They’ve got a partnership with UBC to actually have a research facility there. They could scale up to 45, 50, 75 megatonnes of capacity.

But again, if we’re stuck thinking the old way, the 20th-century way, companies like Rocky Mountain Solar, who want to invest their capital…. They want to construct and build, which requires carpenters and tradespeople, to build capacity for a solar field there — British Columbia’s first and only grid-scale solar facility. It needs innovation, and it needs a champion and a commission that actually can do that within government by bringing together the various diverse groups there.

You know, I’m excited by the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. In particular….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It’s a mouthful for a poor humble soul like me — Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I thought I’d wake a few up there over that. Not allowed to speak if you’re not in your seat there, member from….

I’m excited because in meeting with the civil service who are working in this area, you can see the passion and the desire to make this work. I’m thrilled with the calibre of the civil service who are getting behind this Innovate B.C. initiative. I’m thrilled about what’s coming up in terms of the tech summit that’s going to be happening in the coming months.

We have a very exciting time, but we’ve got to get a handle on a couple things. The innovation commission, or Innovate B.C., the innovation commissioner, can’t do everything. Government is required to set a culture. Government is required to set an environment that allows them to innovate.

What does that mean? That means we’ve got to get a grip on the affordability crisis facing British Columbians. You can be the best innovative person in the world and have the most wonderful idea in the world, but if you can’t get anyone to work with you because they can’t afford to live here, it ain’t going to take off . It’s going to move to New Brunswick or somewhere else.

We also have to ensure that we have a competitive environment in terms of the tax and the education framework. I have some sympathy with members of the opposition who are raising concerns about the employers health tax. It’s not clear to me that the details have been expanded upon fully yet, but this needs to be explored a little more, for a number of reasons.

We have a very odd taxation system in British Columbia. We have this magical barrier of $500,000, above which you start paying, now, an employers health tax, and you also start paying corporate tax.

Now, the problem with that is there’s a natural ceiling which stops innovation and growth. Why would I, if I’m a company making $450,000 a year, want to move up to be a company that’s now making $550,000 a year? I cross that $500,000 threshold. It’s an artificial threshold, but now I’m paying corporate tax and paying the employers health tax.

We need to take a hard look at how we have our taxation system. Step functions are not as conducive to growth as perhaps small linear changes. Again, that will be the role of the government — to explore that more fully.

This is a short bill. It may seem like a minor change, but the implications are profound, because the implications are sending a signal to the market in British Columbia that we’re here for the 21st century. Innovation is going to be the engine and power of our economy, and we want to send a signal to British Columbia that there is an agency. There is a champion to actually ensure that innovation is able to emerge at the lab bench and move through to production down the road.

Let’s ensure that that happens in British Columbia. Let’s ensure that the stories that we hear time and time again of a company building it to $1 million a year and then selling out to a Silicon Valley company…. Let’s create an environment here in British Columbia, not only in Vancouver but across B.C.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson talks about the tech sector in Kamloops. He’s right. Really exciting things are going on in Kamloops. We’ve got the tech sector in Kelowna — happening there as well. Some concerns about Kelowna in light of some changes to the distance and digital tax credits that were done, dismissed and retroactively applied. Nevertheless, there’s some excitement happening there. But it doesn’t have to stop in Kelowna and Kamloops.

Prince George. If we put broadband redundancy in there, it should be a capital of tech innovation, particularly with the forest and mining sectors. We could go to Terrace. We go to Prince Rupert. All across British Columbia, if we’re able to bring broadband and broadband redundancy in, we’re able to give the innovators in that community a way to actually access high-speed information. I tell you, it’s a lot easier to buy a house in Fort Nelson than it is to buy a house in Richmond.

The beauty and quality of what we offer here in British Columbia is second to none, whether it be in the north, in the east or the south as well.

I’m thrilled to see this emerge — Bill 4. It’s a small change but a mighty change, and I stand in strong support and thank you for your attention on this bill.

Video of Speech