Today the BC government tabled legislation that would ban union and corporate donations for school board, municipal and regional district elections. An individual donation limit of $1200 was also introduced.

The BC Green Caucus is thrilled to support this new bill. We have been pushing for this for a number of years and we welcome its introduction today. Below I reproduce the press release that we issued in response to this announcement.

I’ll provide a more thorough analysis when I speak to the bill at second reading later this week.

Media Release

B.C. Green caucus welcomes government’s move to ban big money from municipal elections
For immediate release
October 30, 2017

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, and Adam Olsen, party spokesperson for campaign finance reform and for municipal affairs, welcomed the government’s move to extend campaign finance legislation to municipal elections. If passed, the move would ensure that the 2018 municipal elections would fall under the new rules.

“I am thrilled for the municipalities of this province that their next elections will be free of the influence of big money,” said Weaver.

“The undue influence of corporate and union donations, particularly from sectors like the real estate development, has eroded British Columbians’ trust that their government is putting their interests first. The B.C. Greens have long pushed to reform the status quo that has made B.C. notorious around the world. 2017 will go down in history as the beginning of the end of the wild west of B.C. campaign finance.”

Olsen added that the move shows that the government has finally heard the pleas of B.C. municipalities for campaign finance reform. Campaign finance reform has been the official policy of the Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) since a resolution was passed in 2015.

“I am very pleased that the provincial government is finally listening to municipalities,” said Olsen.

“As a Central Saanich councillor, I used to come away from UBCM conventions feeling frustrated that the concerns of local government were not heard by the province. This demonstrates that the message has finally gotten through. Local governments around the province can now look forward to 2018 election campaign that puts the focus squarely on the people of their communities.

“We are currently going through the bill and look forward to discussing it in greater detail.”

-30-

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

On Wednesday, and continuing to Thursday, we debated at second reading Bill 6 – 2017: Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. This is the act the enables a referendum to occur in the Fall of 2018 on proportional representation.

Below I reproduce the text and videos of my second reading contribution to the debate. As I am sure you will notice, there is a remarkable amount of BC Liberal heckling during my speech.

Text of Speech
Wednesday, October 25

A. Weaver: Thank you for the warm welcome to my friends to the left of me here.

I rise to take my place in the debate in support of Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum Act. This bill, as we know, sets up a framework for a referendum on changing our electoral system to one based on some form of proportional representation.

I’ve been listening for quite some time downstairs and now up here in the chamber to members opposite raise their concerns about this debate. And it’s quite remarkable, when you listen to some of the concerns, how they’re grounded in fear. They’re grounded in alt-facts.

But what’s even more remarkable is let me take you to the throne speech — the throne speech that was read here in the Legislature on June 22, 2017. This is what the throne speech said.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member from Chilliwack-Kent just heckled me and said: “Old news.” I’ll come to what you spoke to in response to this throne speech shortly.

This is what the throne speech said:

 “The results that British Columbians delivered in the May election require cooperation. Your government is committed to working with all parties in the Legislature.

“Following referenda in 2005 and 2009, there remains a desire by many members in this place to revisit electoral reform. With the confidence of this House, your government will enable a third referendum on electoral reform. It will require extensive public consultation to develop a clear question and will ensure rural representation in the Legislature is protected.

“It is vital that any referendum reflects the views of British Columbians, not just its political parties. Additionally, your government will work with other parties to strengthen lobbyist legislation and regulations.”

I look forward to hearing them speak against that one as well.

“Members, we gather for the first time since British Columbians sent you here following an unprecedented outcome in the May election. British Columbians want a stable government, and in sending us this result, they expect us to listen and find a way to work together. They expect us to collaborate, while respecting the dignity, rules and traditions that govern our constitutional monarchy, our democracy and this Legislature.”

Quite remarkable. Quite remarkable that this was part of the B.C. Liberal Party throne speech on June 22, 2017. What’s even more remarkable is listening to members now speak and compare it to what members said in June of 2017. We just heard the member for Richmond-Steveston stand here before us and tell us how profoundly troubling he thinks this proposed referendum is. He’s aggrieved by this affront to democracy, which is being put forward by government as part of some kind of conspiracy theory in collaboration with the B.C. Greens.

Well, let’s just have a look at what the member for Richmond-Steveston said in his response to the throne speech on June 28. It says this. I’m quoting directly from Hansard. Hansard, you can go back and cut and paste here, as you listen to this.

“Our electoral system has been heavily scrutinized in recent years. We held referendums” — note grammatically incorrect; “referenda” is the correct thing — “on electoral reform in 2005 and 2009 — both times of particular importance to me because I was either a candidate or seeking re-election as a member of this assembly.

“The discussion around electoral system is a key facet of our democracy, and renewing a healthy debate on our system is important. That’s why we have committed to a third referendum on electoral reform.”

I can’t make this stuff up. But there’s more. Let’s come to the member for Chilliwack-Kent, who just heckled me a few minutes ago, and see what he had to say. What did he have say? Well, he said this: “We said that the people of British Columbia will decide that question, and we will provide a path to that decision point. I have no problem with that,” he says. But now the member for Chilliwack-Kent feels this is an affront to democracy as well.

Let’s go to the member for Abbotsford-Mission, who is not here today but who spoke eloquently on June 29 and said this:

“Our electoral system has been heavily scrutinized by our time in government. The discussion about electoral reform will allow us to open up that dialogue, and it’s been a source of discussion around this province. Our government is addressing that. It’s something we make a top priority.

“We are also looking at electoral reform. Electoral reform, I know, is something that is of particular interest to our friends….

“We’re going to develop another referendum and develop a clear question, which reflects the needs of British Columbia, but protecting key populations and ensuring that rural areas are treated fairly here in the assembly….”

And on he goes.

We’ve heard some people talk about the fact that this is a leadership race happening within the B.C. Liberals, and there’s an awful lot of posturing going on there, trying to look like they’re strong champions of democracy here in British Columbia.

Let’s take a look at what a couple of those leadership candidates said in speaking to the throne speech back in June. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson, seeking leadership here for the B.C. Liberals, had this to say: “We are committed to enabling a third referendum with a clear question and absolute protection for rural representation.” I look forward to him voting in support of this bill as well.

What about the member for Vancouver-Langara, also seeking leadership of the B.C. Liberals? Well, he had a lot to say. “For many, it’s important that we conduct a third referendum on electoral reform to give British Columbians an opportunity to consider, once again, what is the best electoral system for the province and its people. Again, we listened, and we’ve acted.” On and on it goes — remarkable, frankly.

I could go on. Well, one of my favourites, actually, comes from the member for Penticton, who also felt this was an important issue. He says the following:

“We know that if there is a reform that takes place in the future on how people are able to govern out of this wonderful building, there is a promise that has been put forward for electoral reform no later than November 13, 2018. I hope we work together through the extensive consultation that should take place to develop a clear question that British Columbians could understand and can see that it is 100 percent in its meaning and depth, and also that not only protects urban areas but also protects the rural areas of British Columbia. I think that’s really important, because sometimes rural B.C. is forgotten”— and on he goes.

That’s seven members opposite who spoke strongly in favour of this legislation, but now somehow, because government has brought it in, it’s the worst thing since the development of I don’t know what. We hear about the rise of the Nazi Party coming in British Columbia. We had one member talk about the Rhinoceros Party. Oh, the fear of all these fringe groups that are going to spontaneously arise.

In fact, my favourite quote, of all the things I’ve heard spoken to this today, must go to my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands. He has said: “This party that was, for 16 years, in power is just going to vaporize into a bunch of gangs of two, and they are going to run around the province with clubs or something.” That’s the kind of level of fear that we’ve got going on here. There is fear. There’s fear internal to the B.C. Liberals that somehow they’re going to disintegrate into these roving bands of two across the province.

I really think we need to take this debate to a different level and actually start to talk about the different forms of proportional representation, because the legislation before us is nothing more than enabling legislation, legislation designed to enable a process to lead to a referendum. We’re not talking about what form of proportional representation. We’re not talking about one question or two questions. It enables the possibility of there being multiple questions. It’s enabling legislation.

We’ve already heard from members opposite that there apparently is only one form of proportional representation that’s going to be put forward here. It’s going to be some kind of system that they already think it is. I’m not sure what they’re articulating, but they all come back to the same message line that has obviously been prepared for them on what it’s going to be. You know, they’re trying to, again….

For so many years, the B.C. Liberals have created an artificial divide between rural B.C. and urban B.C. — artificial because they’ve driven a wedge between rural and urban B.C. in a desperate attempt to retain power. What they’re not telling rural B.C. is that proportional representation is exactly what will bring equity across this province. Right now most of rural B.C. is represented by members opposite. The government does not have the depth and the breadth of representation in rural B.C.

Under proportional representation, there would be an assurance that the Okanagan Valley would have representation in government as well as in opposition.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Again, the members opposite say: “Not necessarily.” Just have a look at the election results. The B.C. Greens would have had one representative in the Okanagan sitting here in the Legislature, under a form of proportional representation — in light of the percentage vote, 20-odd percent in a couple ridings in the area, 18 percent in others. The B.C. NDP would have had a couple of ridings, but the B.C. Liberals would have had the majority here in the Legislature.

Now let’s go to Vancouver. Hardly a Liberal to be seen anywhere representing Vancouver ridings. Or Vancouver Island — I feel for the lone member for Parksville-Qualicum. There would be more representation for Vancouver Island and Metro Vancouver in the Liberals here if there was a form of proportional representation. The people of Vancouver would be represented in opposition and in government. That’s healthy. Issues can be brought forward by opposition and dealt with in government, and the debates can ensue.

I don’t know how many times, when the B.C. Liberals were in government, that I was contacted by people across this province, saying: “Please help us with this issue, because we do not feel represented by our Liberal MLA, because government is run out of the Premier’s office, and the Liberal MLAs issues are not dealt with. Help us, please. Raise it in the Legislature. We’re not being responded to.”

If there had been a form of proportional representation, those constituents out in rural B.C. could have gone to one of the opposition MLAs from their region — not travelling to Victoria to meet the B.C. Green MLA or perhaps a B.C. NDP MLA somewhere else, but actually going down street or maybe driving 50 kilometres to their local opposition MLA. That’s good for democracy.

What happens right now if you’re a B.C. Liberal on Vancouver Island or in large parts of Vancouver? You’d feel frustrated if your MLA happened to be in government and they’re not listening to you. You will try to go and find somebody who is listening. This happens, and it will happen. It will probably happen far less often here than it has been, because once you have been in power for 16 years, you get a sense of entitlement — a sense of entitlement, as if divine insight has determined that you shall govern without any kind of accountability.

But that is not the case. There is no representation by the Liberals in southern Vancouver Island. That’s wrong. We should have a Liberal MLA representing southern Vancouver Island. We hear the fear-mongering opposite. We have the fear-mongering opposite that, somehow, this will all be driven by urban B.C. and that somehow….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Chilliwack-Kent is now so affronted again. After speaking in favour of the referendum in June, he’s now saying it will be governed by urban B.C.

Why, Member, did you not stand up and say that? Why didn’t you stand up to your own party and say: “This is wrong? What’s in the throne speech I cannot support, because it’s a referendum on proportional representation that will be dictated by urban B.C. on rural B.C.” You didn’t say, that hon. Member — through you, Mr. Speaker. You had the opportunity. No, you sang the praises of the throne speech.

Now it comes to people like me, wondering who do we listen to and who do we trust? We hear members opposite talk about these agreements signed in back rooms. The same negotiations are going on with B.C. Liberals. The same negotiations were being done at the same time with B.C. Liberals.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Not true. The member from somewhere in Vancouver, somewhere south of the….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale suggested it wasn’t happening.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale was not anywhere near that office and, frankly, probably was not ever consulted or had anything to do with that.

In fact, I was in those rooms, and yes, indeed, there were a lot of discussions going on, just like as happens around the world when you have minority or coalition governments, and people are tasked, and the electorate says “go work together.” We tried to do that, but now we come back and we ask the question: “Did we make the right decision?”

It’s clear to me that the B.C. Liberals can’t be trusted. On the one hand, they argue for something, and now they argue against. For the B.C. Liberals, there are no principles anymore. There are no principles. It’s all about the quest for power. Say whatever it takes, no matter what it is — just “we need to get power.”

I come back to the justification for that, as articulated so beautifully by the member for Abbotsford-Mission before the parliamentary democracy meeting a couple days ago, where teachers from across this province came. He spoke passionately about the importance of being in opposition. He said: “The role of the official opposition is to get into power.” That’s his words, not mine.

That so beautifully represents what’s going on here in British Columbia. This is not about really doing what’s right for people. It’s not about rural B.C. If it was about rural B.C., we’d see them speaking for proportional representation. It’s about their desperate quest for power. What’s demonstrated is they lost principles in the last throne speech. I don’t even know how the members opposite can actually stand and look themselves in the mirror in the morning and say, “I feel comfortable now speaking against this, after my throne speech was one that said we’re going to do the same thing.”

This is why, hon. Speaker, many of us have such respect and regard for the principled position you’d like to show — the non-partisan nature of that Chair. I thank you sincerely for that.

Much of the detail for the referendum….

Oh, before I continue, I do have a question, which the Clerk might be able to address. Given that section 5 passed and was enacted, do we, as the B.C. Greens, now get to designate a Speaker or not, or do we have to wait for royal assent?

An Hon. Member: Royal assent.

A. Weaver: Royal assent? Unfortunately, you’re going to only have me for a half an hour instead of the full two hours.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Thank you, honourable speaker.

Coming back to that, much of the detail for this referendum, of course, will be left in terms of further consultation about. For example, the question, about what….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Again, it’s enabling the process that will lead to consultation that will develop the question. We will be part of that. We will submit as B.C. Greens following the normal process as everyone else. Through the public-run consultation process, we will make our views. We will not provide them to the Attorney General, nor do we want to be consulted on this, and we’ve made that very clear in supporting this bill. We believe that we will respond in the same process as everyone else in this province of British Columbia.

You know, the reason why this is happening is government recognizes that a referendum on electoral reform can’t be based on what politicians want but rather what British Columbians want. Fifty-seven percent of British Columbians put this side of the House into a minority government situation — 57 percent. This is responsible to meeting a promise by both parties, with the B.C. NDP campaigning on this.

While the B.C. Greens didn’t campaign formally on this, it is one of our five guiding principles — representative participatory democracy. It is part of who we are. We didn’t need to campaign on it, because it’s one of our five guiding principles, and that is true of every single Green Party in every form or affiliation anywhere in the world. They fall with the same guiding principle.

I come back to some of the justification. Let’s go to 2001. In which time the B.C. Liberals won 77 seats. Good job, well done — even won in Victoria, which is pretty remarkable. They did that with 57.6 percent of the vote. There were two NDP seats. So 343,156 B.C. NDP voters, with 21.5 percent, got two seats; 57.6 percent of the vote got 100 percent of the power and 77 seats.

How is democracy served there? I’m not so sure it was. I’m not so sure it was served at that time. The B.C. Green Party at that time got 197,231 votes or 12.4 percent — 197,000 votes in British Columbia and zero seats. Is that fair? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s fair, because there are hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who don’t feel represented by a government making decisions for them in their interests not in the people’s interest.

In that election, if you took the number of seats divided by the number of votes, each of those NDP-vote seats represented 171,578 voters. Each of the Liberal votes represented 11,908 voters. Each of the B.C. Green’s zero seats represented an infinite number of voters.

Now let’s go to 2017 — 2017, where we are, here now. BC NDP got 795,106 votes — 40.28 percent and 41 seats. The Liberals had 796,772 votes, or 40.36 percent, representing 43 seats. And the B.C. Greens had 332,387 votes, or 16.84 percent, with three seats.

In 2013, 100 percent of the power was received by the B.C. Liberals, with less than one in four registered voters actually voting for them, because there was just over 50-some-odd percent voter turnout. So the B.C. Liberals, in 2013, had 100 percent of the power with less than one in four British Columbians supporting them.

We know that when people feel there’s something to vote for…. We know that when people wonder whether or not their vote will count, if they believe that it will count, they’ll come out to vote.

That’s one of the good reasons for actually giving this forward is to increase voter turnout.

Over the next several months, British Columbians will have important questions to ask. They’ll be asked what types of values they want to see in their electoral system. They’ll be asked how the referendum campaign should work. They’ll be asked what sort of information the government should provide about the choices on the ballot. What sort of questions do they want to see? And so forth. There are many, many questions that will be asked.

If we think that somehow British Columbia is unique, I would say that we are one of the rare few who do not actually have proportional representation. I don’t know whether members opposite know that 85 percent of countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, known as the OECD, use a form of proportional representation.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: There are 23. There are two, actually. You’re incorrect. There are 23 — more than two, actually. There are 23 countries that list proportional representation. These include the despot….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Twenty-three countries that use a form of list proportional representation of all the OECD countries. These include the notorious despot nations like Sweden, Finland and Norway. There are four that use a mixed-member proportional. These include the totalitarian regimes of New Zealand and Germany. New Zealand actually just had an election that saw the Labour Party elected and a confidence agreement struck with the New Zealand Greens and the Labour Party there.

Two countries, and these are Japan and South Korea — notably disruptive countries — use parallel systems of proportional representation. One country, which is troubled in turmoil all the time on every issue, Ireland, uses STV. What about this democracy that is clearly looked up to by nobody, a democracy in dire straits, about to collapse imminently — well, France has a two-round system of proportional representation. What about Australia? Unfortunately, they get more medals than us in the Olympics every time. I don’t know why, but they do. Australia, a nation in turmoil, they use a form of an alternative vote system or STV for their senate elections.

Finally, just three countries out of 35 in the OECD use first-past-the-post. Guess who they are? Canada, U.S.A. and Britain. So we hear opposite that in fact….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: That’s not first-past-the-post. The member opposite should do his own homework about Australia. The House has preferential balloting. The member opposite would know this if he actually studied the system in Australia. It’s preferential balloting in Australia. It is not first-past-the-option.

The member for Vancouver–Quilchena needs to go and research this because he is one of those leadership candidates, and he should get on top of this file. We continue forth here. You continue forth here. I’m getting concerned of the time, but I do note that the committee Chair has yet to arise into the chamber, so may I….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I know. I have lots more to say. I’ve got much….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I will come back to that. I’ll come back to conclude as we…. I will have to remind people as we move this debate forward to the next session when I do note the hour, which is not quite noted. I will remind members opposite about these quotes because it’s very, very, very important.

So I come back again to the fearmongering opposite that somehow proportional representation will lead to all sorts of crazy parties establishing. Well, the first thing you do is you just raised the bar a little bit by saying: “Okay, you only get to participate if you get 4 percent or 5 percent” — which eliminates the two parties. And the question is: who decides that? Of course, it is the people who decide that.

On top of this, we don’t have to look very far from British Columbia to see what can happen in a first-past-the-post system. In terms of a leader — and I would suggest to you that what we see south of the border is troubling. It’s troubling where first-past-the-post has led to a leader of a nation that has no problem with alternate facts. This is an example of first-past-the-post failing. This is a first-past-the-post failing.

As much as I would like to engage this debate further with the member for Vancouver–Quilchena, who is so desperately trying to get time here on the floor, I do note the hour, and I do reserve my right to continue speaking to this matter at the next sitting of the House.   As such, I move adjournment of this debate.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Text of Speech
Thursday, October 26

A. Weaver: I rise to continue my place in this debate on Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. As I was speaking yesterday evening, I am delighted to stand in support of this bill.

One of the things I would like to address now — I didn’t have a chance to complete it yesterday — is some of the various types of proportional representation that will be explored in this extensive consultation period that we’re beginning to embark on under the direction of the Attorney General’s office.

If we go to the Angus Reid Institute, they did public interest research, which they released a couple of years back. I forget the exact date, but it was a very thorough analysis. They looked at a number of voting systems, and they talked about a number of ballots to get a sense of what people felt. They talked about the first-past-the-post system as one example. They explained, in a very straightforward manner, how it would be used and how it could be voted. They talked about a double system, whereby you could vote for a candidate and a party in a two-type system. They talked about the single transferable vote as one possible approach, an approach that has twice been used here in British Columbia. And they talked about numerous others.

I do recognize that I have not got much time left here, although I do so wish that we had royal assent of the bill granting the B.C. Green Party party status because I have at least another hour and a half that I could talk on this very important office, as I know members opposite would be delighted. I will say, though, that it is inappropriate for members opposite to continue to spread information that is not correct with respect to the process being followed.

It is not correct that regional parts of British Columbia are at a disadvantage. As I pointed out yesterday, proportional representation would give them an advantage over what the status quo is. It would allow members in the Okanagan to be serving in government. It would allow members of the opposition to be serving on southern Vancouver Island if a form of proportional representation were in place.

To suggest somehow that the allowance of other parties to be in this Legislature is giving rise to a National Socialist Party or some other party is rather absurd. The parties reflect the will of the people. Societal changes occur on short and long terms, and we are here to represent society. We’re not here to suppress other parties.

To suggest that we don’t want other parties, because it’s bad for democracy, is actually an affront to democracy. I would hope that as time goes forward, the members opposite realize that this is not the approach we want in British Columbia. We want to recognize society as a whole, and this approach to having a referendum does just that. I’ll end there.

Video of Speech
Wednesday, October 25

Video of Speech
Thursday, October 26

Today in the BC Legislature the BC Liberals proposed an amendment at committee stage to section 3 of  Bill 5: Constitution Amendment Act 2017. The purpose of this amendment was to change the date of the next election from October 2021 to October 2020.

After listening to the arguments proposed by the BC Liberals I stood and spoke against the amendment.

The BC Liberals subsequently called for a standing vote and the amendment was defeated.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my statement. These outline the reasons why I voted the way I did. I also append the results of the vote.

Video of Statement

Text of Statement

A. Weaver: I rise to speak against the amendment put forward today by the official opposition, for a number of reasons. The amendment, of course, as we know, is to change the fixed election date to 2020 instead of 2021. The member opposite does himself a disservice when he continues to refer to government here as a coalition.

The member opposite, as he tries to put forward his wealth of expertise in democratic reform in British Columbia, should know at a very fundamental level that a coalition is not what we have here in British Columbia. It is a minority government, where the majority of members in this House support the B.C. NDP in government.

It would do this member well — and it would do opposition members opposite well — if they actually were to be factual in their responses and debates. To mislead British Columbians by talking about things like a B.C. coalition is not fitting of members of this place.

We know that it is a minority government, under the great vast tradition of Westminster parliamentary democracies, where the government of the day, the B.C. NDP, is supported by the three B.C. Green members in a minority, not a coalition. So I correct that for the record.

We know that under the Constitution Act, we must have an election every five years. The member opposite, again, in what I can only describe as a somewhat revisionist history, forgets to point out that in 1986, the Social Credit government, the 1986 elected Social Credit government did not have an election for five full years, until 1991. Five years — not four years, as was suggested by the members opposite.

Here, what is happening, and why I do not support the amendment and why I support the original legislation, is as follows. Again, in the tradition of Westminster parliamentary democracies, we stood here in this House and pointed out to the B.C. Liberals this past summer that they did not have the confidence of the House. We didn’t quietly spring this on them at the last minute. In fact, shortly after we signed the confidence and supply agreement…. As, I’m so pleased to say, is signed in a similar manner in New Zealand, between the labour party there and the Greens, celebrated today in some of their housing policies.

We signed this agreement and told British Columbians that we would have this agreement signed before the writ was returned because we wanted to instil confidence, and we wanted to ensure that British Columbians had certainty as we moved forward. So we messaged out to British Columbians, through this government, that on May 31, we were going to support a B.C. NDP minority government.

Hon. Speaker, members opposite, despite saying they would call back the House soon, took their time. We waited months for this to come. So to say it’s four and a half years is simply incorrect. We wasted months by this government, not willing to stand up and have confidence tested in this House, somehow in denial that we live in a parliamentary democracy. So to say it’s four and a half years is flat out wrong. That is why I continue to support the bill as it stands and speak against this amendment.

We talk about precedent. We had three independent MLAs in this House: one who formally was with the B.C. NDP, Bob Simpson, who sat as an independent; one who was formally with the B.C. Liberals, John van Dongen, who also sat as an independent; and then, of course, our friend and colleague Vicki Huntington, who was the only independent MLA in British Columbia to be re-elected as an independent. The three of them got together and they made recommendations.

They made recommendations to bring the election to the fall, as we did, but they also recommended and they also suggested that it was important to recognize that we need to go a little longer because of some time for Elections B.C. to adjust. So this is not some kind of surprise, as suggested by the member opposite, the member for Nechako Lakes. This is no surprise to British Columbians. This is precisely what happened in 1986 when the Social Credit government served for five years.

It’s what was recommended in the bill brought forward, which is somehow not being raised by members opposite. They refer to previous NDP opposition bills — not referring to the independent members’ bill, which was truly independent, with one member from the B.C. Liberals, one from the NDP, and Vicki Huntington, suggesting otherwise.

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for your time, and I do appreciate the opportunity to speak against this amendment.

The Vote

Today in the Legislature we commenced second reading debate of Bill 8 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017. This is an important piece of legislation that fulfills yet another promise contained within the Confidence and Supply Agreement that the BC Greens signed with the BC NDP.

As I was the last speaker on Thursday afternoon, I moved adjournment of the debate at the end of my initial comments. I will conclude my remarks when debate resumes next week.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my speech. I will update this post when I complete my remarks next week.

PS This post has now been updated at the end (text and video) with the remainder of my speech given Monday, October 23, 2017.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Kensington for the eloquent words speaking in favour of this bill, a bill that obviously, I’m rising to speak in support to, with recognition that perhaps there are some things that we might expand upon as we have this debate go forward. Some interesting ideas have been raised by members opposite.

I’m sure, in the spirit of trying to develop the best possible Legislature, and with the new access that members opposite have…. Actually, the government deserves a lot of credit for this. It’s quite remarkable that they have given us access to legislative drafters to allow us to actually provide amendments to legislation, government legislation, on a trial basis this fall, that could actually meet the issues that we raise, but at the same time, do so in a manner that we know has spanned across the legislative framework.

So when we put forward amendments — if there are any such amendments — we know that government could make a decision knowing that it has gone through legislative drafters as opposed to — even if it’s an amazing piece of amendment — having to say no because they’re concerned that maybe legislative drafters haven’t seen it.

So I think the government deserve an awful lot of credit for providing access to both the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP MLAs. I hope we, collectively, don’t abuse that so that we get to have the access withdrawn. But I think it’s a good step forward for our democracy and, perhaps, members opposite will be standing forth with some legislative drafter approved or assisted-upon amendments.

This bill that I’m standing to speak to — Bill 8 — Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017, takes steps forwards in British Columbia for much-needed lobbying reforms. But, of course, it doesn’t include all the reforms that everybody would want, perhaps, but it does make an important step forward. It reforms…. Just because reforming lobbying is fundamental. It’s essential to rebuilding public trust in our democracy, in government and ensuring that special interests do not exercise undue influence on this or any other future governments.

The office of the registrar of lobbyists has issued a number of recommendations to reform lobbying in British Columbia. And our priorities for reform were drawn from and in line with these recommendations. The B.C. Greens were the only party that formally campaigned on introducing lobbying reform legislation, and we’re absolutely delighted that government has seen fit to bring forward a bill here to take steps towards improving the Lobbyist Registration Act by the amendments that are brought forward.

In particular, the bill before us acts on one of the recommendations from the office of the registrar of lobbyists, and that recommendation was instituting a prohibition on lobbying for former senior public office holders for a period of two years since leaving office. What does it mean now to say former senior and public officers?

Well, we’re delighted with the definition here in section 2 of the bill, where it says, “‘former public office holder’ means,” and therein lies a definition: “(a) a former member of the Executive Council and any individual formerly employed in the former member’s former office, other than administrative support staff.” Why that’s important is, ministerial staff have access to information, and ministers have access to information that most members here do not have access to. It’s information on how this government is operating at a very fundamental level. So we support this inclusion of those within the minister’s offices.

It also says, “a former parliamentary secretary,” — again, access to information that most members here will not have, as well as, including members in government, who were not in cabinet. Cabinet confidentiality is something that is respected not only with member’s opposition, but also member’s in government do not have access to the information unless they are in cabinet. That’s important that that be kept that way.

I fully support this ban because going out into now lobbying, a cabinet or a government where you have inside information, potentially puts people into awkward situation. I think we should try to avoid that.

The definition further continues saying, “any individual who formerly occupied (i) a senior executive position in a ministry, whether by the title of deputy minister, chief executive officer or another title, (ii) the position of associate deputy minister, assistant deputy minister or a position of comparable rank in a ministry, (iii) or a prescribed position in a Provincial entity” — the famous prescribed position done through regulation.

Again, senior members of government have access to privileged information — information that, in many cases, is subject to cabinet confidentiality. It’s information that is not available to the general public, and therein lies an important point. Sure, we want people with expertise to lobby in their area of expertise, but having inside information gives undue influence to various individuals — kind of like insider trading. If I know, for example, that a company is about to go bankrupt and I’ve been told by the chief financial officer of a company that the company is going bankrupt, and I act upon that by shorting that stock, that’s illegal, and the reason why is because the public does not tolerate the use of inside knowledge to undermine general public interest, which happens in that case. That’s the intent of this, and I applaud government for bringing forward legislation that’s true to that intent.

What’s important…. I’ve heard a number of members opposite speak about the fact that some staff may have moved off into positions now and they have to resign. I think that a case could be made, based on section 2.3 of this bill, which is entitled “Exemption from prohibitions….” It says here: “If the registrar is satisfied that it is in the public interest, the registrar may, on request and on any terms or conditions that the registrar considers advisable, exempt a person from a prohibition set out in section 2.1 or 2.2.” And, again, there are more details that the registrar has to do.

This doesn’t mean…. You know, this is what I would like to see through further discussion. The exemption is there, and if a compelling case can be made that somebody…. Well, honestly, I knew a couple of people who moved here from afar. They weren’t political, per se. They were very talented individuals who have since, because of the downsize of government, lost their positions. You know, one could make a case that they are impartial. They happened to work in the positions they worked because of an opportunity for their career advancement, particularly young people.

But we have the exemption here where the registrar could be approached with a compelling case. So I don’t see this legislation, as some members have pointed out, as being particularly unfair to those who have worked in a ministry’s office.

As I said, the B.C. Greens — soon to be officially recognized in this House, I should say, so I should say right now: the three independent members who ran under the B.C. Green banner…. It was the banner of the only party to actually campaign on lobbying reform. Frankly, it was one of our central pillars of our governance reform platform, and our confidence and supply agreement included a discussion of this.

You know, as in any agreement, it’s not — you bring your baseball bat and your ball to the game and then you stand up and walk and stomp out if you don’t get your way. Clearly, if…. This is not 100 percent what we would have written, but on the other hand, we understand the importance of collaboration, the importance of listening to other views, the importance of actually reflecting upon your position and being willing to change or expand upon it, based on new information that is brought forward. And again, we commend the government on bringing this forward, recognizing that it is a first step.

When we did our campaigning on reforming lobbying in B.C., we wanted to see first and foremost an increase in the transparency of how lobbying takes place in British Columbia and an increase in the accountability of lobbyists and public office holders. So one of the things, again…. To expand upon that, we wanted to see a requirement to disclose who one actually intends to lobby removed from the act and replaced with the requirement to disclose who one actually lobbies within ten days of lobbying.

Let me tell you why we thought that was important. We recognize, of course, that lobbying is a natural part, an important part of political life. It’s an important part for us to gather information as legislators on what the issues are facing various groups. It’s critical lobbying within the democratic system. But the public needs to know who is lobbying whom. By making it more transparent, then, decision-makers are more accountable for their actions, but also, the public trusts them when they make the actions. They’ve done so in an open and transparent manner.

It’s quite common for a lobbyist to say that they’re going to lobby 87 members of the B.C. Legislature — well, 86, because one member has since stepped down. Well, that’s not very helpful to anyone.

Let me suppose I’m from the Deep Earth coal mining company of Kansas. Well, let’s see. Who is a member here? Saanich South — the Deep Earth coal mining company from Saanich South. It’s very unlikely that that person would be lobbying the member from Cariboo-Chilcotin or elsewhere, but if they listed with the lobbyist registrar that they’re lobbying all 87 members, nobody really knows who they’re lobbying.

But if they were to lobby the member for Saanich South, the Minister of Agriculture now, or the Minister of Energy, we’d want to know that. The public would want to know that. They wouldn’t want to know that they intended to lobby everyone, because they’re not. They’re obviously going to lobby whoever. This is done with the greatest respect for the member for Saanich South. I just happened to look to see if there was someone in the audience here.

The purpose here is to register who you are lobbying to, and so we recognize that this is a first step. We would hope that, at some point in the future and in this Legislature, we’ll be able to list who is lobbying who, as opposed to “we’re lobbying everybody.”

One of the second goals that we had, in including lobbying reform in our platform, was to reduce the undue influence of special interests on government decisions. I don’t want to rehash all of the last four years I’ve been here or the last 16 years in total — or even the 1990s. We don’t need to rehash all of that. The reality is the public wants government to work in the interests of the people of British Columbia, not in the interests of vested interests. One of the ways of getting that is reforming lobbying to get to transparency and to reduce undue influence.

One of the things with doing the two-year prohibition is it does just that. It gives, in some sense, a cooling-off period for those who’ve had that insider knowledge, so to speak, a cooling-off period that allows them to, you know, figure out what they want to do. Frankly, if it’s an MLA, it’s going to be tough when moving from an MLA. You’re going from 24-7 a day to suddenly having time on your hands.

Going back to university …. I’ll tell you, hon. Speaker, as you would know from the University of the Fraser Valley, that’s a cushy job compared to what we’ve got here, having to work — and B.C. Greens having to sit on five committees. But they’ll have time to reflect upon what they want to do and maybe they won’t become a lobbyist — and good on them; power to them — and build upon the expertise that got them here in the first place.

Public office holders have, as I mentioned, special privileged relationships and access to privileged information that would give them outsized influence if they become a lobbyist immediately upon leaving. As I said, two years is a sufficient time for these lobbyists to, in some sense, get a sense of what they want to do. We don’t want government and the senior civil service to be a revolving door. Once government, then lobbyists. That’s not good for democracy.

One of the third things we wanted to do is…. We felt it was very important — and again, we’re very grateful to government for moving down this path — to bring B.C. standards in line with other jurisdictions in Canada. As has been pointed out, we’ve been called the Wild West here in British Columbia. And I would argue in lobbying reform, we lag behind other jurisdictions across other provinces and at the federal level.

In 2008, the federal government imposed a multi-year prohibition on lobbying. Now, kudos go to the Harper government at the time for doing just that — a multi-year prohibition on lobbying was in recognition of the undue influences that could have, the special interests of somebody with inside knowledge lobbying as soon as they left.

We know that Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia all have so-called “cooling-off periods” as well for former public office holders and a variety of lengths. Here we’ve got two years proposed, and they also have more stringent requirements for reporting codes of conduct and so on and so forth.

You know, this bill goes a long way towards reducing some of the problems that we face here with lobbying in British Columbia. Coming back to what this bill does, this bill, as I’ve said, takes steps forward for much-needed lobbying reform. It does not include all of the things that we felt were necessary, but it does make a good step forward. The two-year prohibition — wonderful.

What’s also really important — and frankly, give government credit for this — is that they’ve committed to undertaking a review of lobbying. Government has said that they’re committed to undertake a review of lobbying. I think that it’s a good step forward, and I hope that we get a multi-party agreement that this is something that we could….

This is not a partisan issue. I recognize that there are a few individuals who this legislation might actually cause some difficulty for right now. But we do have that exemption in section 2.3 that they could seek to apply for and make the compelling case why it’s important that they continue as lobbyists.

By committing to undertaking lobbying, I think we all will have collectively a chance and an opportunity to actually bring our views to this.

I do note that the Chair of the committee has entered. I do note the hour, and I reserve my right to speak on this matter further on Monday and do so move adjournment of debate just now.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech Part II (Oct 23, 2017)

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place and continue debate on Bill 8, Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2017.

Last Thursday, as I was noting the hour, I was coming to near an end of the issues I wish to raise in this bill, but please let me just expand a little bit more upon something that I think is very important that government has announced that it will do.

One of the key aspects of this bill is not so much what’s in the bill — it’s a very good first step — but also that the government has committed to undertaking a review of lobbying in general. While it’s not in the legislation, this is being put forward by government as a means of us moving forward to account for some of the areas that have not been covered here. For example…. We’ll come to one in a second.

I would like to note that the B.C. Green caucus will be delighted…. Well, we’ll soon be called the B.C. Green caucus, I hope, if the Constitution Amendment Act changes. But we’ll be participating in this review, as we have some ideas that we’d like to explore in further discussions.

One of these priorities for further changes that we’d like to explore is dealing with actual versus expected lobbying. As it stands now, the bill doesn’t really address the transparency issue. The bill articulates…. It still remains that you’re supposed to register who you’re going to lobby.

As we know, various lobbyists will sign up to lobby all 87…. Sorry, I forgot one member’s seat is open. They will sign up to lobby all 86 members here, and the public really wants to know who is being lobbied by who, not whether somebody is lobbying anybody. And transparency isn’t met in this registry system, because of the fact that we don’t actually know who is lobbied.

I recognize that the bill before us is called the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, and the whole framework of the bill is such that it’s designed as a registry, as opposed to a list of who you’ve lobbied. It would require substantive changes throughout the entire act, were we to actually start to note who was actually lobbied, rather than registering as a lobbyist per se.

You know, Elizabeth Denham’s 2013 report had some words attributed to a media spokesperson — I won’t mention his name. It said the following: “The current system creates a smokescreen about who is really being lobbied. We should be able to search the registry and find out who was actually lobbied, when and where.”

We support that. I support that. My colleagues have spoken about this. I’m sure my friend from Cowichan Valley, who will speak shortly, will reaffirm that we support this recommendation, as articulated in the quote that I just did. Again, expecting to lobby, as opposed to who you actually lobbied. We’d like to see that be reported — who you actually lobbied, within ten days. It’s something we hope that, as we move forward in this discussion process, we’ll be able to have input in.

There is no code of conduct, in the actual legislation, for lobbyists. Again, this is something that we will be looking to push, actually: the development of a code of conduct. Now, we recognize that a bill is probably not the right place to embed an entire code of conduct, but we’re looking to see if we could enable the registrar to come up with a code of conduct that will be made available to lobbyists, and they would be expected to follow that code of conduct in their lobbying efforts.

Finally, we want to look a little bit at government accountability and what role ministers play in confirming lobbying that actually may have taken place. We think there can be some further measures taken there to expand upon transparency.

Obviously, I will be standing and voting in support of this bill, because it takes important first steps towards the reform of our lobbying in British Columbia. I look forward to further discussions of this at committee stage. I particularly look forward to the discussions that will ensue as we develop this comprehensive review of lobbying registration in British Columbia in the months ahead.

Video of Speech Part II (Oct 23, 2017)

In what can only be described as a shocking lack of principles, the BC Liberals voted against sending Bill 3 – Election Amendment Act, 2017 to committee stage after it had passed second reading.

I spent most of this week listening to BC Liberal speaker after speaker proclaim how they liked most aspects of the bill but that they had issues with a number of sections. Speaker after speaker talked about potential amendments to the Bill that might help make it better. In fact Rich Coleman, the Leader of the Official Opposition cynically stated:

“R. Coleman: Well, we will, actually. It’s interesting you say that. I can tell you what’s not going to happen. There will be an amendment in committee stage, but I can tell you what’s not going to happen when the division call comes. You’re not voting for the amendment. You’re not voting for the amendment because you want the dough. You’re gonna take the dough. That’s what you want.”

After the bill passed second reading, the Liberals then proceeded to vote against sending it to committee thereby saying they just wanted to kill it rather than amend it. I have never seen such a vote in the 4  1/2 years since I got elected.

Needless to say, the BC Liberals have abdicated their responsibility to offer practical solutions to improving the bill. As such, any future amendments to this bill that they might propose will be treated as nothing more than a cynical political ploy.

Below is the media statement my office issued this morning.

Media Release

Weaver statement on B.C. Liberals voting against banning big money
For immediate release
October 5, 2017

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver issued the following statement in response to the B.C. Liberal caucus voting against a bill that would ban big money. The Liberals voted against sending the bill to committee stage after it had already passed second reading. Votes on particular aspects of the bill that could be resolved by amendments are done at the committee stage of the bill.

“I am extremely disappointed that the entire Liberal caucus voted against this bill that would finally exorcise the corrosive influence of big money from our political system,” Weaver said.

“With this vote, the Liberals have indicated that they are against the core principle that we need to shift political influence away from special interests towards people. For 16 years the BC Liberals were content to personally profit from maintaining the weakest campaign finance laws in the country. Now with an opportunity to make B.C. a leader in electoral finance and put the public interest first, they choose to side with a system that gives special interests too much influence.

“The Liberals’ actions last night demonstrate precisely what is broken in B.C. politics. Instead of debating the individual aspects of the bill based on substance, the Liberals have chosen yet again to play political games. By voting to not send this bill to committee, the Liberals are saying that they are not willing to consider improving this bill. The broken two-party system in this province has led to divisive, obstructionist politics where the pressing issues facing British Columbians are devolved into sloganeering and reactionary partisan grandstanding.

“The people of British Columbia deserve better from their elected officials. Now, with three parties in the legislature and a minority government, we have an opportunity to deliver a different kind of politics – one that focuses on evidence, principles and substantive debate. It is clear that the official opposition is intent on ensuring that this doesn’t happen.

“They are desperately clinging onto an outdated sort of politics that places party and power above principles and policy. B.C. is at a crossroads – we can go down the path of the United States where big money and an entrenched two-party system has led to chaos and the degradation of democratic norms, or we can join the 33 out of 34 OECD countries in removing the undue influence of big money from our political system. I hope that as this bill moves through committee, all 87 MLAs sincerely consider the type of future we want for our province and make their decisions based on their conscience in this vital matter.”

-30-

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