Yesterday evening in the BC Legislature Bill 40: Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019 was debated during committee stage. As readers will know, the BC Green caucus voted against this bill at second reading for reasons that I discussed earlier.

During committee stage I asked the Attorney General a few questions to clarify his rationale for proposing a permanent switch to Pacific Daylight Time instead of Pacific Standard Time.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: My question with respect to this section is…. I understand the bill was proposed after a very extensive consultation process in the midst of the summer, when everyone’s sitting on their patios enjoying the long summer nights. My question to the minister is: why was the option for remaining on standard time not put to the people as well?

I’ve received quite a bit of feedback from my constituents, invariably opposed to going on daylight time but, rather, staying on standard time. I’m wondering why that option was not put forward.

Many people who’ve expressed their concerns to me have done so saying that they don’t like the change. They understand the research in terms of both the health and safety impacts with springing forward and falling back every year. They understand that. They understand the move and desire to keep on the same time zone.

The arguments were not particularly compelling, as my friend from Kootenay East here pointed out, with respect to interjurisdictional matching, in light of the fact that we have three time zones already in our province and in light of the fact Saskatchewan remains on standard time year round. So does the Fort St. John region. Alberta is going through this process that could end up being on standard time or daylight time or Pacific Time. So why was this not put as one of the potential options?

Hon. D. Eby: Remarkably, 223,000 British Columbians in the summer participated in this engagement, a very significant level of participation. There was an open-ended section in the survey where people could provide their feedback to us. Staff advise that 3 percent of those open-ended answers referred to preferring to be on standard time versus the option that was put forward in the survey.

The key motivator around the options that were presented in the survey was, I think, borne out in the consultation: the idea that we would be well placed to be consistent up and down the coast, from the Yukon all the way down to California, if we could.

I accept the member’s contention that it wasn’t put forward in the survey. But even where people did have an opportunity to raise the issue, we did not see a significant number of folks raising concern about this. It was on the order of about 3 percent.

A. Weaver: Well, I don’t feel that that’s a very satisfactory answer. The question was why it was not put on as opposed to in the open space, where people often…. They like to click boxes in these surveys. There was no option presented.

In the second reading speech, I gave a long discussion about some of the issues that will arise. I would suggest to the Attorney General that the information — does he not feel this is true? — provided to people was incomplete.

The information provided to citizens voting or selecting choices, limited choices, did not really talk about some of the failed models — when we went to daylight savings time in the U.K. in 1968. It did not talk about the safety issues that arose as a direct consequence of that, which is why, in 1971, after people complaining, they switched back to standard time. I remind the Attorney General that our latitudes are actually, in many cases, south of what in Victoria…. And we have other latitudes more north than places in Britain, where this was occurring.

In addition, we know the experiment in the U.S. not once but twice was reversed. Again, once, it was put in and reversed after a short period of time during the OPEC crisis as a direct consequence of people once more complaining. It’s going to matter when people in Prince Rupert and children going to school in Prince Rupert realize that they’re waking up with sunrise at 10:30 in the morning or whatever it might be.

It’s quite different, given that the whole reason that standard time was put in, in the first place was a standard time — recognizing that the solar noon, the temporal noon and our body clock should be as closely matched as possible. This kind of idea here seems to be half-baked.

It’s based on California, Washington and Oregon musing about it. California has since mused about going on standard time instead of daylight time. Frankly, Alaska, in the same corridor, is on a different time zone.

So I come back to the point. Does the minister feel he has the information, in light of the fact that incomplete information was provided to the electorate on which to base a decision? Does he think that, in fact, two years from now, we’re going to be reverting back to standard time like every other jurisdiction that’s done this has done so, because people will be complaining the first time a child gets hit by a car on their way to school in the dark?

Hon. D. Eby: I think it’s important to note for the member that in terms of aligning clocks to when we’re awake, the current method of changing time does the best job of that. If you’re choosing a different time zone, there are pluses and minuses. The member mentions dark mornings as a point of concern. Similarly, on the time zone the member is advocating for, there are very early morning sunrises — 3:30, four o’clock in the morning — during the summer, which has its own consequences.

So the important thing to note is that there are choices to make here. I understand that British Columbians, after they experience not doing a changing of the clock for the first time in generations, may not like it, and they may want to do something else. That is certainly a possibility. It’s not out of the question. I’m sure that the government would listen carefully to concerns like that.

But I can tell the member that we had…. Ninety-four percent of participants in the survey supported the direction of the bill.

A. Weaver: Just one final comment to confirm that it is true that sunrise in daylight savings time does occur at 3:39 in the morning in Prince George on the longest day of the year. But issue with the safety issue is the fact that down in these latitudes, we’re going to have people rising in darkness. They’ll be coming home in lightness. They’re going to be going to school in darkness, and therein lies the essence of the concerns, which I don’t think was brought to the public. With that, I’ll reserve any further questions.

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 40: Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019 at second reading. This act, if passed, would allow the government to switch to permanent daylight savings time. As evident in my second reading speech (reproduced in Video and Text below) I spoke (and voted) against this bill.

The reasons why I voted against this bill are fourfold.

First, the survey given to the public last summer followed a flawed process in my view. Only two options were presented and considered:

1. B.C. continues the practice of changing our clocks bi-annually;
2. B.C. adopts year-round observance of Daylight Saving Time.

The option

3. B.C. adopts year-round observance of Standard Time.

was not on the table. This is particularly unfortunate as the survey was also conducted during the summer months while British Columbians were enjoying long sunny evenings without having to worry about concomitant dark mornings. Inadvertently, I would argue, the survey had a built in bias to produce the answer that it did: overwhelming support for moving to year-round observance of Daylight Savings Time.

Second, the move to permanent daylight savings has already been tried, rejected and reversed after complaints in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

Third, switching to permanent daylight savings would mean that children would be heading off to school in the dark. This would lead to safety issues, particularly as you go further north in British Columbia. For example, on December 21, 2019 sunrise would be at 9:02 AM (instead of 8:02AM) in Victoria and 9:27 AM (instead of 8:27)  in Prince George.

Fourth, remaining on Standard Time is important in that it ensures that solar noon, 12:00 noon, and hence our internal body clocks are matched as closely as possible. For example, on December 21 of this year, solar noon (maximum solar altitude) in Victoria will occur at 12:12. If we stayed on Daylight Savings time, solar noon would be at 13:12, an hour later.

Had this legislation proposed keeping us on Standard Time year around, I would  have supported it as I appreciate the health and safety arguments associated with annually “springing forward” and” falling back”. The reality is, existing legislation already allows the province to move in this direction through an Order-In-Council if the Premier and cabinet deem staying on Standard Time to be in the best interests of all British Columbians.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the second reading debate on Bill 40, Interpretation Amendment Act, 2019. This bill proposes to enable government to permanently set the province of British Columbia on daylight saving time, but without prejudicing some of the existing law within local government and acts which enable certain jurisdictions to change between mountain time and standard time.

I’m rising to speak in opposition to this bill for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I would argue that the process which led to the public feedback into this is fundamentally flawed. Two, I don’t think the evidence has actually been explored thoroughly as to why we would shift to daylight, as opposed to standard, time. Let me first say that in politics, it’s often very useful to remember what we’ve done in the past. Too often, societies repeat the same issues that we’ve done time and time again.

We only need go back to the Second World War, when the United States went to daylight time during the extension of the war, to conserve energy, and then went back immediately following the war. We also know that in the U.S. when the OPEC crisis was on, it was decreed that they would stay on daylight saving time during the OPEC crisis. However, 11 months into what was going to be, I believe, a 16-month period, they switched back to standard time, because of the complaints and issues that I’ll raise in a second.

More importantly in 1968, Great Britain went down the path for three full years of actually only having daylight saving time. Then they switched back in 1971 for the reason that I’ll articulate in a few moments — they were seeing, sure, a decrease in the amount of accidents at night but an increase in the amount of accidents in the day — for safety issues, and people complaining about the fact that they no longer were waking up and seeing any sun.

Right now in the province of British Columbia, we actually have three time zones. We have, where we stand here today — we’re standing presently on Pacific Standard Time, which is basically coordinated universal time minus eight hours. That’s on the day we’ll be debating the bill. When the bill was introduced we were on Pacific Daylight Time, which is coordinated universal time minus seven hours.

Fort St. John and the area around there — Dawson Creek, etc. — stay on Mountain Standard Time throughout the year. So there’s always a time difference between Fort St. John and Vancouver in the winter months, but not so much in the summer months, when they are on Mountain Standard Time and we’re on daylight saving time.

To throw a wrench into it, Cranbrook and the areas around there has mountain time, but they still constantly switch between mountain daylight time and mountain standard time. The reason why I raise that is that right off the bat, evidence suggests that any argument that we need to be consistent within neighbouring jurisdictions clearly doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, in that we’re not even consistent in our own jurisdiction.

More importantly, when we look right now, what would happen on December 21 of this year…. Let us suppose we were not…. Well, if we’re on standard time, as we are now, on December 21 — that’s the shortest day of the year — in Victoria, sunrise would be at 8:02 in the morning. If we were on daylight saving time, sunrise would be at 9:02 in the morning. If we’re in Prince George, Pacific Standard Time, sunrise on December 21 of this year would be at 8:27. If we were on Pacific Daylight Time — or Pacific Time, as referred to in this bill — sunrise on December 21 would be at 9:27 in the morning.

Now, this is precisely the reason why these failed experiments, which occurred in the U.K. and in the U.S., to stay on daylight saving time were reversed. People would wake up, particularly in places like Prince George or Victoria. Their kids would go to school. It would be pitch black, not even civil twilight. There would be accidents, and there would be children getting hurt and complaints. One of the reasons why we know that there will be complaints is because the reason why we set standard time is to ensure that the solar clock matches with our internal clock. There’s a reason why we use standard time.

For example, coming back to my illustration on December 21. On December 21 of this year, noon in Victoria will occur at 12:11, coinciding with the maximum solar altitude. There’s a reason for that, because our bodies have adjusted over millennia to understand that in the morning we wake up in the sun, at noon is when the high sun is there and at evening our sleep cycles take us to sleep. If we stayed on daylight time, it would be the high sun at 13:12, an hour later, which is inconsistent with our own internal body clocks.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Member, may I pause for a moment?

M. Stilwell: May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Stilwell: Joining us in the House today is an award-winning Canadian comedian and performer. He doesn’t have as many awards as I have, so hopefully he can step up his game the next time he comes here to visit. But he is the host of CBC’s The Debaters, which has his participants debating top Canadian topics such as: are forks better than spoons? Or: was Darth Vader a bad father?

I often draw inspiration from Steve’s shows as we debate here in the House, and just as he will be gathering some information here today to formulate some of his future stand-up performances, I believe he actually keeps me around as his friend because our political conversations give him a wealth of material to draw from. So for the record, forks are better than spoons. I think all British Columbians need to know that.

Would the House please make my friend Steve Patterson feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: Well, I am very pleased to know that we have The Debaters coordinator there. I’m looking so very forward to this upcoming Saturday’s debate, where we actually have: be it resolved that this House approve going to daylight savings time or staying on standard time. I think there could be some very good comedy framed around that, of which I’m sure members in this House would be delighted to participate.

More importantly, the fundamental reason why this process has been flawed is that you don’t ask British Columbians in the height of summer, when they’re sitting on their patios sipping their pina coladas and their margaritas, saying, “Oh, isn’t it glorious to have this evening sunshine” when they’re not actually thinking at the same time, “What about that loss of morning sunshine?” because it’s sunny all the time…. You don’t ask them: “Do you want to stay on daylight savings or not?”

In essence, that was the question. There was no option there for staying on standard time, the option that I suspect we’ll see the European Union go, the option that actually makes sense from our internal clocks and actually the option that makes sense in terms of the solar altitude being overhead at noon in as many jurisdictions as possible.

It is no surprise that government had so many people signing up, because they were given one option in the summer, when they’re enjoying their late evenings. Who wouldn’t want to have lots of late evenings? The information was not provided to the people of British Columbia about many of the negative aspects of doing it — the effects on our internal clocks, the published research on seasonal affective disorder, the fact that we know, historically, there have been safety issues with children going to school, the fact that, historically, this failed experiment has been done in the U.K. for three years and twice in America already. Each time, because of complaints, it’s reverted back to the process.

Now, I’m not arguing that we should continue with the switch from daylight savings to Pacific Standard, because that, too, is an artificial construct. What I’m arguing is that if we’re going to move forward with this…. And we don’t need this legislation to do that because, already, government has the ability through regulation to switch us permanently on standard time if they so wish to do so. This legislation only allows us to potentially give government a decision as to whether they want to move permanently on daylight time.

Given that I would argue, fundamentally, year-round daylight time is simply the wrong approach, and given that the existing legislation already allows government to move through regulation on permanent year-round standard time, which I would have no problem speaking in favour of, and given that it’s clear that people in British Columbia don’t like the switches, it seems to me that this legislation is entirely unnecessary and, if enacted, only gives government options of doing something that we know, historically, we’re just going to turn around….

I look forward to three years from now, if this bill passes and we follow it on this path, to pointing to Hansard and saying: “Look. I told you so.” Everyone is complaining now because Johnny and Jill going to school at eight in the morning are going through in pitch black walking around, and their first accidents are happening. The public outcry is going to be there. We’re going to either revert back to standard time, or we’re going to revert back to a switch.

Standard time would be my preference. I think standard time would be the preference if people were given the information on which to make an informed decision, other than just giving them one option in the midst of summer when we all enjoy our summer evenings.

For that reason, I’ll be voting in opposition to this bill. Thank you for your attention.

Today in the legislature I had the pleasure of introducing Jackie Powell along with Sister Patricia Donovan, Sister Judi Morin, Cherry Lynn Brown, Bruce Sanders, Joe Devison, Naomi Beck, Owen Jones, Mike Mori, Tula Rivera, Peter Fitzpatrick and Sonia Garza, who have been instrumental in setting up Connections Place. As noted on their website:

“Connections Place is a Greater Victoria, BC-based community that helps people with mental illness achieve self-reliance, and use their skills and talents to get their lives back on track.“

I first met Jackie Powell in 2014 when she came to me as a constituent with a vision. She wanted to realize a goal of providing a day program for people with mental health challenges. I was incredibly impressed with her presentation on the need for a program modelled on the Clubhouse International program. Jackie has persevered and built support for her initiative and kept me informed of her progress for the last five years.

Connections Place opened up its doors in March of 2019 and now has about 100 members, with more coming onboard every week. I’m absolutely thrilled to see her vision become a reality today.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the Statement I gave celebrating the importance of Connections Place in our community.

Video of Statement

Text of Statement

Today is World Mental Health Day. There are many individuals and organizations doing incredible work in this field across our beautiful province. But today I want to speak about just one that I had the pleasure of visiting this past summer. Connections Place is a recently opened Clubhouse International in the greater Victoria area. The Clubhouse model is an evidence-based model of psychosocial rehabilitation for people who are struggling with a mental illness.

Isolation is a major factor in mental illness, and a clubhouse gives a people a reason to wake up in the morning, a place to come to, to have a purpose, to be welcomed, needed and wanted, to be part of a community of caring people. I witnessed that firsthand and put behind those words my experience to say that they are exactly as I read. A small group of trained staff work alongside members to guide them to full social inclusion.

Connections Place is not alone in B.C. Their mentor clubhouse, Pathways in Richmond, has been operating for over 30 years successfully and helping the lives of many. It’s been named as one of Canada’s top 10 impact charities. This is clearly a model that works.

One in four people struggle with a mental illness in the greater Victoria area. That’s about 95,000 people. Almost a quarter of that number will have a serious and permanent mental illness — almost 25,000 people — which can cut life expectancy by up to 20 years. Families, employers and emergency services are all impacted.

Connections Place opened up its doors in March of 2019 and now has about 100 members, with more coming onboard every week. I welcome the addition of Connections Place to our community. This was Jackie Powell’s vision when I first met her in 2014. I’m absolutely thrilled to see her vision become a reality today.

Yesterday, a few days before the Pride Parade in Vancouver, the BC NDP government published an open letter to the Honourable David Lametti, federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General, calling on the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to ban the practice of conversion therapy. The letter specifically states that:

“Conversion therapy is hateful and harmful and therefore should be a crime in Canada.”

While obviously supportive of this call, the fact of the matter is that there is much we can do in British Columbia. I am troubled by what appears to be the government’s response to my introduction of a bill to ban this practice in British Columbia. Rather than taking steps to deal with this issue in a timely fashion, as has been done in other provinces, our government’s response is simply to kick the can down the road and blame the federal government.

Conversion therapy is an abusive, dangerous practice that must be banned to protect the safety and health of British Columbians — children and youth in particular. This is, fundamentally, an issue of human rights. Medical and scientific associations, including the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization, condemn the practice, but it continues to this day and it continues to this day in British Columbia.

British Columbia is currently behind much of Canada. Ontario banned this practice provincially in 2015, as did Nova Scotia in 2018. While the BC Greens believe that this practice should not be happening anywhere in Canada, the federal government have already announced that they expect the provinces, not the federal government, to address it.

Ultimately this is why the BC Greens introduced our bill prohibiting the provision of conversion therapy treatment to minors and the payment or reimbursement of conversion therapy through health insurance or MSP. All British Columbians deserve to be loved, supported and accepted, not persecuted for who they are. And all British Columbians deserve their government to stand up for their interests and not simply pass the blame onto someone else.

Below I reproduce the media release my office issued in response to government’s open letter.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus calls for comprehensive protections against ‘conversion therapy’
For immediate release
August 1, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. –  The B.C. government’s response today regarding the dangerous, nonmedical practice of conversion therapy rightfully calls for the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to fully ban the practice nationally. It also highlights current regulations within B.C.’s health system preventing health professionals from offering the service and billing for it. However, the letter from the B.C. attorney general, minister of health and MLA for Vancouver-West End shies away from tackling the full scope of the issue.

“Preventing health officials from practicing conversion therapy is important, and we also know that the majority of medical and scientific associations, including the Canadian Psychological Association and World Health Organization, oppose conversion therapy,”  said Dr. Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green party. “For those outliers in the medical community, it is essential that clear regulations are in place to prevent them from assaulting youth with this treatment.

“Unfortunately,” Weaver continues, “many people are exposed to this pseudo-scientific practice by non-medical professionals – faith leaders, youth organizations, and even so-called family support groups. By trying to fundamentally change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity they risk inflicting harmful, long-lasting damage that puts lives at risk.”

In May, the B.C. Greens, alongside stakeholders and LGBTQ2+ rights advocates, tabled legislation to amend the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act and close this loophole to ban the abusive practice of conversion therapy and protect British Columbians.

“In addition to ensuring this abuse is banned from anyone in the medical field, the B.C. Green bill also seeks to protect children and youth from conversion therapy practiced by other adults in positions of trust or authority.

“Elected officials have a responsibility to support those with diverse sexualities, gender identities and expressions. We must send a clear message that it is OK to be who you are, that your elected officials and those in positions of power hear you and will act now to protect your human rights. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard the human rights of everyone within its national borders.   In the absence of that leadership, however, B.C. should not wait to protect the health and safety of our communities and our children.

“We welcome legislation from any party that will protect the human rights, health, and safety of LGBTQ2+ people by banning so-called conversion therapy in our province and hope the government will work with us to ensure any efforts to do so are comprehensive.”

-30-

Media contact

Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
B.C. Green Caucus
+1 250-882-6187 | macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

It’s been a week since the legislature rose for the summer and it’s taken me that entire time to muster up the energy to write about the BC Liberal antics on the last day of the session.

Those who have been following the daily proceedings of the BC Legislature will know that on Wednesday May 29, 2019 the Speaker decided it would be prudent to back up several computers in the legislature and store the data off site. While the BC Liberals spun themselves into a tizzy over what can only be described as normal and due process in light of the ongoing Auditor General and police investigations into the conduct of several senior legislative employees, their overall behaviour has left me dumbfounded.

The backups occurred after work to allow the employees to continue using their computers during the day while the legislature was sitting. Stories have emerged about how the Leader of the Official Opposition was hiding around corners and popping out to photograph the Speaker’s Chief of Staff as he walked around the building.  When asked why the computers needed to be backed up, the Speaker’s Chief of Staff told the Vancouver Sun:

“[The Speaker] simply wanted to ensure that all records were properly stored. He said he recalled five instances in the past where information, documentation and evidence ‘vanished into thin air.'”

A Liberal staffer also slept in their office during the evening of May 29 to prevent anyone from entering out of apparent fear of some sort of ongoing Legislative Inquisition. And on Thursday morning, chaos ensued as the BC Liberals initiated an all out assault on the integrity of the Speaker. Those who read what follows will probably have the same questions that I have. What on earth are the BC Liberals afraid of?

Thursday morning started the same as it always does. Visitors to the gallery were introduced and then we moved to Members’ Statements. Each day the legislature sits, three government and three opposition MLAs give two minute statements in which they typically celebrate something or someone in their riding. On Thursday morning, the Leader of the Official rose and delivered a bizarre rebuke of the Speaker’s apparent actions. Ironically, he concluded his statement with these words:

“We must work to make this a better place to conduct the business of the people of British Columbia as the elected representatives of the people of British Columbia. Part of that involves the continuity of the democratic process. So question period must proceed. That is part of the democratic process. This House must sit, but this House must also sit until the air is cleared about the events of the last 24 hours.“

And then the Liberals proceeded to boycott the rest of their Members’ Statements. As such, a number of government MLAs and I scrambled to offer impromptu statements to fill the void that had been created.  Mine was on the topic of global warming and intergenerational equity.

During the lunch break from 12:00 to 13:30 the BC Liberals continued their attack on the Speaker. First, the Leader of the Official Opposition offered up one of their own members to serve as a new Speaker if the BC NDP and BC Green caucuses would agree (we did not). Then, their house leader decided to hold a press conference wherein she released handwritten notes she had made at a House Leaders’ meeting with the Speaker the day before.

What’s remarkable about the release of the notes is that the day before, the three house leaders agreed that the BC Liberal house leader would be the note taker. But those same notes were never circulated among the house leaders for approval before they were publicly released. Our house leader, Sonia Furstenau, was incensed and immediately distanced herself from them in a hastily put together press conference we organized immediately after the lunch break on May 30.

But it didn’t end there.

The afternoon sitting was to continue with the debates on Budget Estimates for the Office of the Premier. Recall that I had risen on May 29 for 20 minutes to ask the Premier a series of questions concerning demand side measures that affect the price of gasoline. Initially I had requested a full hour of time as I had a suite of other questions that I had hoped to raise on a variety of other topics. In discussion with the BC Liberals (who we schedule time with) they were very adamant that I only be given 20 minutes as they had so many questions that they wanted to ask. There are battles that you pick in the legislature and this was not one of the ones I wanted to waste my energy on. As such, I agreed to rise for only 20 minutes on the Wednesday.

So you can imagine my surprise when I walked into the chamber after Sonia and I held our hastily put together press conference on Thursday to witness Ravi Khalon, the BC NDP MLA for Delta North, asking the Premier a series of questions. I subsequently learned that the BC Liberals had decided to boycott the rest of Premier’s estimates (and shut down debates in the other committee rooms too), presumably to try and force the house to adjourn before the Lieutenant Governor arrived later in the day to give Royal Assent to a number of bills. As such, the NDP and BC Green MLAs had to spontaneously fill the remaining time with questions to the Premier.

I took the opportunity to express my frustration with the behaviour of the BC Liberals (see jesting exchange video and text reproduced below). Seeing as I didn’t have any background research with me, I could not ask the more detailed questions I had originally planned to. Instead, and to kill a bit of time to allow the NDP MLAs to put together a speaking list, I followed up with two sports questions and one more serious open-ended question. In the latter, I asked the Premier if he could reflect upon the last two years and perhaps identify some of the high points that he believes are important areas where the government and the B.C. Green caucus have worked together for the betterment of the people in British Columbia (see text and video of Premier’s reflection below). I thought this question was particularly timely as it was the two year anniversary of the date that he and I signed the Confidence and Supply Agreement underpinning his minority government.

As the time approached when we were expecting the Lieutenant Governor to arrive in the precinct, the next stage of the BC Liberal antics got underway. After the passage of third reading of a couple of bills (that the BC Liberals did not support), BC Liberal MLA after BC Liberal MLA rose on a point of personal privilege. For the better part of an hour, virtually ever single BC Liberal MLA, including the Assistant Deputy Speaker (BC Liberal MLA for Coquitlam-Burke Mountain Joan Isaacs) read out a statement along the lines of:

“I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege. I have become aware of behavior and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties.

I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedoms as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions, which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and contempt for this House.“

While they proceeded to filibuster the closing of the session, the Lieutenant Governor was kept waiting.

At 18:05 the Lieutenant Governor finally arrived to a house void of virtually every BC Liberal MLA. All but three had decided to leave and boycott Royal Assent.

This was perhaps the most disgraceful and disrespectful behaviour I have witnessed in my six years in the legislature. Each and every MLA swears allegiance to the Crown and the Lieutenant Governor is Her Majesty’s representative in British Columbia. As the Lieutenant Governor walked in, it was obvious that she was visibly surprised by the absence of the BC Liberal MLAs. It was also obvious that the BC NDP and BC Green MLAs were visibly uncomfortable with what was going on. The Lieutenant Governor put on a brave face, gave Royal Assent to several bills (including one of my private members’ bills) and quickly left the building without the customary hand shakes and exchange of pleasantries with MLAs.

Looking back on this last day, it is clear to me that two things need to happen.

1) The BC Liberals, and in particular their Leader, need to offer a formal apology to the Lieutenant Governor for their disrespectful behaviour. There is simply no excuse for what transpired on the last day of the house. I honestly don’t know how Mr. Wilkinson sees himself as Leader of “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition“. There was nothing ‘Loyal’ about his party’s behaviour last Thursday.

2) Joan Isaacs needs to immediately resign as Assistant Deputy Speaker. Failing that, I will almost certainly bring in a motion to have her replaced in the fall. It is unconscionable that she would undermine the non partisan nature of the Speaker’s office by reading out the above statement while wearing her Assistant Deputy Speaker gowns in the chamber. This is now the second time that she broken longstanding tradition and worn a partisan hat in her non partisan role.

It’s unfortunate that the BC Liberals continue to behave the way they have been in the legislature. The province deserves an effective opposition that respects, not flouts, the integrity of our institution. Their response to the Speaker’s desire to protect data for ongoing investigations was over the top and positively bizarre. It leaves me wondering why?

Videos of Exchange

Text of Jesting Exchange

A. Weaver: My humble apologies to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. There are some burning questions I have for the Premier, in light of the fact that I had requested an hour’s time of the Premier’s estimates. I was told by members opposite that I could only have half an hour, because they had too many questions to ask.

Now I see that they decide not to ask questions. Yet another example of us listening to them….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, come to order.

A. Weaver: Not having them agree to one thing and not following through.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

A. Weaver: As the Leader of the Third Party, it is my right to ask questions. I respected the jurisdiction of the official opposition to have more time, because they had so many burning, urgent questions that they felt it was appropriate for me to rise at 6:30 for 20 minutes last night when I knew I had an hour.

I have three very important questions for the Premier. I’m sure all British Columbians want to know. To the Premier, who do you want to win the basketball game tonight?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ve become accustomed to questions not necessarily related to the office budget of the Premier, so I’m happy to answer this question as well. It speaks to something that all Canadians are passionate about. I myself, was a university basketball player. I’m a big fan of hoops. I’m a huge fan of the Vancouver Grizzlies. Before that, the Seattle SuperSonics. They’re both gone now. Go, Raptors, go!.

A. Weaver: On this important line of question, I have, for most of my life participated in hockey pools. In fact, I won a hockey pool one. I won $10,000 once. It was quite remarkable. I was very pleased.

However, this year I had chosen Boston against St. Louis in the final, but I got knocked out in the first round. My question to the Premier is: who does he want to win the Stanley Cup this year?

Hon. J. Horgan: If I had consulted with community liaison member Blair Lekstrom who is very ably helping us with caribou issues in the Peace country, he would have said the Boston Bruins. He had the audacity to wear a Boston Bruins jersey into our meeting earlier this week.

I certainly couldn’t support that initiative because of the 2011 outcome in Vancouver, but I think St. Louis is long overdue. It seems an ideal place to send the Stanley Cup.

Text of Premier’s Reflection

A. Weaver: On a more serious note, I just would like to ask an honest question here. As the Premier will know, we’ve been together under the CASA agreement for the last two years. There have been low points and there have been high points. I’m wondering if he could reflect upon the last two years and perhaps identify to the Legislature some of the high points that he believes are important areas where the government and this B.C. Green caucus have worked together for the betterment of the people in British Columbia. Perhaps he could elucidate that for the members of the gallery there who would like to learn about some of the good work that has been done.

I can understand it will take the Premier some time to reflect upon this, because there is so much good work that has been done. I really believe the Premier might need a few minutes to reflect upon the good work that’s been done.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member, my colleague in the CASA agreement, for his question. It has been two years plus a day since we signed the agreement, a historic agreement in British Columbia, that’s led to stable government, positive outcomes for British Columbians in every corner of the province.

It’s difficult to point to one highlight, but one I know that the member will be most satisfied with is the development of CleanBC, which was absolutely integral to the foundation of a climate action plan that leads the continent. He and the Green caucus were critical to making that happen. I know members on the other side of the House as well, leading the first carbon price in North America set by the former government…. Their enthusiasm has waned over time for that, but I know that they laid a solid foundation. I give full credit to Premier Gordon Campbell for having the courage to start that initiative. I’m excited that we’re here to take the next step and lead the country and, in fact, the continent in that regard.

When I think about…. Again, the member comes from the post-secondary sector, so he would also agree with me that eliminating fees for English language learning and adult basic education was also critical to reducing barriers, eliminating obstacles to people realizing their full potential. At a time when we have a skills shortage, it’s important that we get people back into the classroom so that they can get the skills they need to be full participants in the economy, for their families, for their communities and, in fact, for the province.

We also have done a number of initiatives to cap tuition fees, to ensure that we have eliminated interest on student debt, on B.C. student debt, which I think is something that would be applauded by all members of this House. One area that I’m particularly excited about, the member for Mount Pleasant, the member for Kootenay West and I were at Vancouver Island University in the first couple of weeks of our time in government — at Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo — announcing the tuition waiver for kids in care.

Of course, for those who are unaware of the program, that is an opportunity for those who have been in foster homes, have been wards of the state. When they age out, oftentimes they see an abyss rather than an opportunity. By waiving tuition fees, we’ve allowed kids in care to see hope in their future, to see opportunity in their future. That’s not just good for the individual. It’s good for the broader community. I know our colleagues in CASA were very supportive of that.

Arts and culture is another area that I’m very proud of. Reinvesting in the B.C. Arts Council, making sure that we’re doing everything we can to get the payback that we all see from arts and culture.

I’ve been to a number of film studios, in my time as Premier to see firsthand just the enormous number of jobs that we get in this sector. I know my deputy and I are ad idem on this question. We see electricians, carpenters. actors, extras — extras that get their big break by being at the right place at the right time on a Netflix film or a series or whatever it might be. That launches their careers.

Deadpool coming to B.C., not once, but twice and, let’s hope, three times. Probably the defining moment for me was just last week, Member, when I was visiting a studio in Vancouver that did the dragons for Game of Thrones. Now, not a lot of people know that. But the CGI for Game of Thrones was developed and designed in Vancouver, which had a whole host of other spinoffs for the community. Subcontractors creating more jobs, good high-paying jobs, whether it’s coders, whether it be artists, and that’s all happening here in British Columbia — not just in Vancouver, by the way, but also throughout B.C.

On the economy, of course, the member will know that we put in place an innovation commissioner to make sure that we’re talking about the economy of the future. We also, of course, are very mindful that traditional industries built British Columbia. We’re working hard to make sure that forestry, mining and other resource industries can prosper and flourish. Agriculture is very important to the member. He supports the agricultural land reserve. He supports strengthening tools like that for all British Columbians.

I know the member would like me to go on.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: You would? Okay. Creating a ministry…. I didn’t know I was filibustering myself, but here I find myself. It’s been a while. Excuse me.

On the housing side, the member is devastated, as I am, to see homelessness proliferating across B.C. But with modular housing programs, we’ve seen the hard-to-house and homeless finding a place to hang their hat and to start a new life, and it’s been transformative in places like Surrey. The Whalley strip was infamous, and now that’s been changed. Nanaimo. We’re working very hard on that. One of the largest tent cities in Vancouver Island’s history. No longer there. Service is in place for the people that have been moved into modular housing.

We’ve increased a whole host of other issues with respect to seniors. We’re demanding accountability for staffing standards in care centres. There’s more support for Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, increased length of home support visits, capital funding to strengthen senior centres.

A systematic review of care centre staffing levels. This is something that the Minister of Health was absolutely pivotal on. We remember back to the turn of the century, when the government of the day was ripping up contracts, making it more difficult for seniors to find care facilities that were appropriately staffed with enthusiastic workers — caregivers that were not just coming to a job, but coming to care for our moms, our dads and our loved ones. An underrespected and underpaid area of our economy, and we’ve taken steps through the leadership of the Minister of Health to achieve that, with the support of the Green caucus.

We ended the disability clawback for transportation for bus passes. I know the member responsible for poverty reduction was the lead on that, but we had full support of the Green caucus in that regard. And a whole bunch of other stuff.

Anti-SLAPP legislation. I know the member and I talked about anti-SLAPP legislation in the first session. There were some challenges. A decision, a determination made in Ontario, made the bill that we were working on together on this side of the House a bit in doubt. We worked with the Attorney General, leg. counsel and the Green caucus to make sure that we could have anti-SLAPP legislation here British Columbia to protect those who are standing up for their communities.

We’ve made a whole host of other changes. The reduction of PST on electricity was absolutely critical to industry and something that should have happened a long, long time ago. That’s created more opportunities as well. I think there’s more here, but I think if the member has more questions, I’ll take that….