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

Below I reproduce my response in both text and video.

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

Text of Speech

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R. Coleman: Okanagan Falls.

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

R. Coleman: Okanagan Springs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Hon. Member: I loved those 16 years.

A. Weaver: Some of them actually loved them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’ve got some PharmaCare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Did I just hear that correctly?

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

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video of Speech

Today I had the honour of participating in an announcement at the University of Victoria outlining a major new investment in student housing via the BC Student Housing Loan Program. Two new buildings will be built on the campus to house 782 students (a net increase of 630 student homes). In addition, a new dining hall and multipurpose space will be incorporated into the new space.

I’m thrilled to see this student housing project move forward at the University of Victoria. Not only will this new project provide critically needed on-campus housing, but the new buildings will also be constructed to the Passive House standard. Both UVic and the Province are demonstrating leadership in innovative low-carbon housing solutions, and I look forward to similar projects rolling out throughout British Columbia in the months ahead.

Today’s announcement is not only good for students, but also for individuals and families trying to rent across Greater Victoria. We have one of the lowest rental vacancy rates in the province, and because of a lack of on-campus housing, students are competing with everyone else in Victoria for the same scarce rental units. By better meeting the needs of students with on-campus housing, this project will help ease the pressure in the rental market.

Below is the text of the brief speech I gave at the event.

Text of Speech

I’m delighted to be here today to welcome the news that UVic will see the construction of 782 new homes for students (of which 620 are net new).

UVic students have been in desperate need of more affordable, on-campus housing for years now.

Ever since I was first elected as an MLA in 2013 I’ve been calling on government to take steps to create more student housing at UVic, as well as other universities across BC.

I’m thrilled that the BC NDP government is listening and making increased student housing a reality.

Today’s announcement is not only good for students, but also for individuals and families trying to rent across Greater Victoria.

As I’m sure everyone here knows, we have one of the lowest rental vacancy rates in the province.

And because of a lack of on-campus housing, students are competing with everyone else in Victoria for the same scarce rental units.

By better meeting the needs of students with on-campus housing, this project will help ease some of that pressure in the rental market.

It will free up rental units in the rest of the city for everyone else who is looking for a place to call home.

I find this project particularly exciting not only because it will provide critically-needed on-campus housing, but also because the new buildings will be constructed to the Passive House standard.

The Passive House standard is a world-leading standard for energy efficiency. This is exactly the type of innovative approach that we need to take in dealing with the climate crisis.

In every new building, in each new piece of infrastructure, we have an opportunity to reduce our emissions and build the type of communities we want.

UVic and the province are demonstrating leadership in developing innovative low-carbon housing solutions. In fact, every capital project government is involved in should be seen through the lens of low carbon innovation.

I offer my sincere thanks and congratulations to both UVic and the government of BC for demonstrating leadership in dealing with our affordability crisis while at the same time recognizing the opportunity for innovation in the low carbon 21^st century economy.

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