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

In the legislature today during Private Members statements Stephanie Cadieux, the MLA for Surrey South, and I had a productive exchange on the topic of Registered Disability Savings Plans.

Ms. Cadiuex spoke for five minutes discussing the history and emphasizing benefits of the RDSP program. I followed up on the importance of protecting RDSPs from creditors, an issue I first raised in Question Period on March 13, 2014, provided more context to on June 26, 2014 and culminated in my bringing forward private members bills on both March 15, 2016 and again on February 28, 2017.

I plan to reintroduce the bill again shortly and hope that it will be put on the order papers to be debated in the legislature.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the entire exchange.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

S. Cadieux: On December 1, 2008, the late Jim Flaherty, the then-Minister of Finance for the federal government, did a remarkable thing — a forward-thinking, first-in-the-world thing. He responded to the advocacy originating from South Surrey from Al Etmansky and the Planned Lifetime Advocacy folks, and he introduced the registered disability savings plan, or RDSP.

The first of its kind in the world, this new tax-deferred savings vehicle was designed specifically to assist people with disabilities and their families for planning for the long term for financial security.

I won’t need to tell members of this House about the reality that people with disabilities have higher rates of poverty and unemployment than their temporarily able-bodied counterparts. I hope I don’t also need to educate this House on the reality that living with a disability can add significant costs and expenses not faced by those who don’t have a disability.

While there are many social programs designed and provided by governments to assist, some of those programs are only available to individuals whose sole source of income is government benefits. Another less-known reality is that there are far more people with disabilities that are not dependent on — or even eligible for — government benefits than those who are.

That’s why the RDSP vehicle is so important. An RDSP allows you to save money for the future without paying tax on the earnings. The federal government will contribute as much as $90,000 to an individual’s account. It’s estimated that 500,000 people across Canada are eligible for the benefit.

The future impacts of the RDSP go well beyond a simple planning tool. They provide a path for security, for choice — for individual choice.

So far, since first becoming available in 2008, over 100,000 RDSPs have been opened. I’d like to read for you the Plan Institute’s top ten list — the top ten reasons why people with disabilities or their carers should open an RDSP:

(1) You choose where to invest your money. All of the major Canadian banks are offering RDSPs.

(2) The government contributes generously. For every dollar saved, they will match up to $3.

(3) If you have a low income and can’t invest yourself, the government will still save for you.

(4) An RDSP will not affect your disability benefits.

(5) It’s an easy way to save for big items like mortgage down payments, home renovations or cars.

(6) There are no restrictions. You can spend the money on anything you choose.

(7) When you close an RDSP, your contributions and investments gained are yours.

(8) With savings tucked away, the future becomes yours to imagine.

(9) You become more powerful economically. Decision-makers need to take you more seriously.

(10) The whole world is watching. What happens here in Canada may determine the future of people with disabilities in other countries.

As of December 2015, the total value of RDSPs in B.C. is over $460 million. British Columbians have personally contributed $163 million to their RSDPs, leveraging an additional $297 million in federal grants and bonds. I know, with talking with financial advisers and having financial planning education myself, there’s no better deal out there. People have nothing to lose and so very, very much to gain.

In 2015, British Columbians held 18 percent of all RSPDs in Canada, yet made up only 14 percent of eligible Canadians. Currently, 12 percent of all people with disabilities under 50, or 22,500 people, in B.C. have an RDSP, higher than any other province, which is great. But another 60,000 people in this age group could benefit, and they should.

Like most financial products, the rules are complicated, but there are plenty of experts available to help. It doesn’t need to be overwhelming. People should not be afraid to ask for help. There is too much to gain, especially if you have a low or modest income.

As an example, also from the Plan RDSP website…. An individual with an annual net income of $26,000. If they contribute $900 per year, they will earn $2,300 in federal RDSP grants and another $1,000 in a bond every year. So over your lifetime, you could receive $250,966 from your RDSP by contributing $18,000 in contributions, garnering $20,000 in federal bonds, $46,000 in federal grants and $166,000 in earned interest at 3 percent a year.

Understanding that even coming up with an initial contribution could be a challenge for some people, there are grants available through the endowment 150, which offers eligible people with disabilities a one-time savings grant of $150 to help get their RDSP, or registered disability savings plan, started and growing.

There’s no better time than now. October is RDSP Awareness Month, and the government of British Columbia has been a leader across the country in supporting the efforts of the advocates and the federal government in ensuring that British Columbians were first and most apt to take up this challenge. B.C. was first to exempt the income and earnings from an RDSP from affecting disability benefits, and on so many fronts, B.C. has been leading the country when it comes to providing supports to people with disabilities and looking to find ways to ensure that people with disabilities can claim their economic position, as well, in our society.

I think it’s tremendous. There’s a tremendous amount of work that has gone on. The RDSP action group, made up of advocates and groups that support people with disabilities, is doing a tremendous job making sure that British Columbians with disabilities stay at the forefront of this program so that B.C. continues to have the biggest uptake of RDSPs in the country. But there are so many people that still haven’t taken advantage of this vehicle and should, because they only have everything to gain.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member opposite for her compelling narrative about the importance of the registered disability savings plan.

Unlike some other provinces, the province of British Columbia does not actually protect RDSPs from creditors. It’s something that…. I think we could expand upon the leadership that British Columbia has shown. Twice over the last couple of years, I brought in a bill to ensure that RDSPs, like RESPs and RRSPs and RIFs are protected from creditors. In the case where, through no fault of their own, somebody who is relying upon an RDSP — once perhaps their parents pass away —can have that taken from them because it can be accessed by creditors.

Now, the reason why that occurs is nothing more than for historical reasons. The RDSP a relatively new tool and was predated before that by the RESP and the RRSP. While we have no problem in British Columbia and Canada, that’s why protecting RRSPs and RESPs in some provinces — certainly RRSPs and RIFs…. The RSDP is not protected. There’s a national organization, whose name slips me at this moment, who have been pushing for this provincewide. Some jurisdictions, like Alberta, are taking a proactive response here.

I completely agree with the member opposite about the importance of RDSPs, allowing people to put aside some resources in case they need to be accessed sometime in the future. Fundamentally, those resources should be used for the purposes that they’re used, and they should not be used in terms of creditors potentially having access to them.

The analogy with our RESPs is direct. A child may have an RESP. Through no fault of their own, they might get into financial difficulty. In B.C., RESPs are not protected either. What can happen, then, is creditors can go after those — go after those designed specifically for the education of a child down the road. In the case of a disability plan, it’s analogous.

As we move forward, in light of the presence of the new government here, I hope that we can actually work across party lines to build the support for RDSPs that we’ve just heard, in terms of why they’re so important, to build support from all parties to bring credit protection for those in British Columbia blessed to have an RDSP so that they are protected, not only for today but also for tomorrow. They’re there for a specific reason.

With that, I thank the member opposite for her comments. I agree wholeheartedly with her comments, and I hope that we can take that to the next level and protect RDSPs for present and future and generations.

S. Cadieux: Thank you to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his comments. There are probably, I would say, few things that we have been in agreement on in the recent days, and yet, like the member’s desire to see us work towards basic income pilots, which I agree with him on, and I certainly agree with him on the need to look to expand creditor protection for RDSPs. These are, in my mind, no-brainers, as we look to modernize and ensure that all of our citizens engage fully in their economic citizenship as well as their social citizenship.

The reality is that the RDSP is such a significant tool for long-term financial security. Someone saving $1,500 a year over 30 years could find their RDSP worth nearly half a million dollars. An RDSP allows you to save money for the future without paying tax on the earnings, and I can think of no other program where the federal government will contribute as much as $90,000 to an individual’s account.

It’s true for many people with disabilities, who rely on government benefits, saving even a small amount can be too challenging, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t have an RDSP and benefit from the tax-free savings vehicle and the government’s contributions and the compounding interest. And compounding interest is just a beautiful thing.

In fact, the reality is that this vehicle is extra beneficial, in that anyone can contribute to an individual’s RDSP. Family, friends, neighbours, charities, foundations and organizations can all contribute dollars to an individual’s RDSP. The federal government encourages these contributions by matching each dollar contributed with up to $3 depending on the RDSP owner’s annual income.

This is an opportunity for us, as elected members, to use our platforms — the platforms provided to us — to amplify the message, to use our voices and our collective non-partisan voices to do our best to ensure that people with disabilities in our communities are aware of the RDSP; and for those who need it, that they’re aware of the grants available through endowment 150.

In case there’s any doubt from members in this House who is eligible for an RDSP, it’s people who are eligible for the disability tax credit federally, who are under the age of 60 and who are Canadian residents with a social insurance number. So it’s relatively easy for a person with a disability to qualify.

If people have any questions at all, in October, 2014, the provincial government created the RDSP action group. Their goal is to maintain B.C.’s position as the province with the highest per-capita uptake of RDSPs. They have a toll-free hotline, step-by-step guides to help people plan and even a dedicated website.

This will truly be a step forward in the journey to full inclusion for financial security for people with disabilities. It’s now up to people with disabilities and their allies to take the fullest advantage.

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

As noted earlier, today in the Legislature we were in Committee Stage for Bill 2: Budget Measures Implementation Act 2017. This is a bill that implements the various initiatives discussed in the BC government’s most recent budget update.

One of the sections in the Bill dealt with shutting down the International Business Activity Program. I took this issue very seriously as I was concerned about the unforeseen or unintended consequences of cutting this program. Prior to speaking to the amendment I sought two briefings on this particular section of the bill from staff within the Finance ministry. The evidence I gathered informed the decision I ultimately made.

Below I provide the rationale for my support in eliminating this program.

I also append in the text below an exchange I had with Shirley Bond, the MLA for Prince George-Valemont. In it you will see that I support her statement that the partisan BC NDP Caucus claim that AdvantageBC was a BC Liberal corporate giveaway scheme was not supported by the evidence (the program started under the Social Credit government in 1988).

Video of Justification

Text of Justification & Followup

A. Weaver: I thank the member for Prince George–Valemount for putting forward the amendment. I also wish to thank her sincerely for providing me with information, including a copy of the MMK Consulting report Building B.C.’s Brand and Assessment of the International Business Activity Program.

I have sought two briefings on this particular section of the bill out of concern, as expressed by the member for Prince George–Valemount and others on the opposition side, with respect to: what are the unforeseen or unintended consequences perhaps of cutting this program?

I will say also that I do commend the present CEO of the program, who has clearly taken steps since a previous review to get it on its right track. But if we come, in speaking to the amendment, back to the history of this program, the international business activity program was actually brought forth in 1988 at a time when the corporate tax rate — combined province and federally here in British Columbia — was over 50 percent.

At the time, the rationale for bringing it in was that in British Columbia we were not competitive with other jurisdictions in terms of the corporate tax rate.

Now, as of January 2018, the corporate Canada-plus-B.C. tax rate will be 23 percent. Corporate tax rate has come down 23 percent since the introduction of this program.

If we look, very recently, in terms of what this program is being used at, I have, in the briefings that I’ve sought to get to the full details here…. I understand that, in terms of what’s using it, factoring contributes about 29 percent; dealing in securities, about 28 percent; foreign exchange, about 33 percent; and other issues, such as with the film industry, etc., 10 percent of the usage.

Now, the issue of factoring is an interesting one. What it allows to occur, for example, is British Columbia…. It’s done in a non-arm’s-length fashion. You can set up, in a non-arm’s-length fashion, businesses in other jurisdictions. For example, if I’m a business, I can trade amongst myself by setting up a corporation in America, say, and have a company in Canada. I can go back and forth between myself and take advantage of the tax credits in this program, when really all I’m doing is taking advantage of something that is finding a means and ways of taking advantage of a specific tax break.

Where it gets particularly egregious…. This is a 33 percent that comes in with foreign exchange. I’d like to give a specific example. Let’s suppose that I would like to loan you $100 million U.S., and in order of doing that, I’m going to not loan you but find you $100 million U.S. as capital, so you’re going to get access to it. There may be, say, a 5 percent or a 3 percent commission attached with that. Now, if I’m registered in this, I can go and get the B.C. taxpayer to give me a 12 percent tax credit on that 3 percent commission.

The problem here is that that’s just not right. Why should the B.C. taxpayer…? This is 33 percent of the business model within this international business activity program. One-third of all the activity involves foreign exchange. Any service fee associated with getting money from somewhere…. And it just has to be the money. It doesn’t have to come from another jurisdiction. If it’s another foreign currency, it’s eligible for the money.

One-third of the business model, and you get a 12 percent tax credit. The B.C. taxpayer is subsidizing those who don’t need a subsidy just for the commission. It’s just wrong. I can’t see any justification for that.

You know, I’ve looked at this in detail. I understand that this report is a thoughtful report by MMK Consulting. Unfortunately, it only relied upon interviews, and pre-audited fees were looked at — that is the information that was used. That’s my understanding. The claim of 7,800 jobs that was embedded in this report is actually based on a large number of assumptions that I think could be challenged by the civil service and government if the actual income tax reporting data were available.

I’m not saying that this isn’t a thorough report, but I’m saying the analysis in this report did not have the actual data, the income tax data, that would allow it to make exact or precise assessments of jobs and income.

I took this very seriously. I took the suggestion of the member for Prince George–Valemount very, very seriously. It was not until the second extensive briefing from the civil service…. I’m very grateful to the minister and the staff of the civil service who have provided me with this briefing. It is only after extensive briefing that I must say now that I support the rationale here in recognition of the good work done by the present CEO, and I cannot support this amendment.

S. Bond: I appreciate the comments that have been made. I go back to the fact that the quote that I…. You know, this is a reasoned amendment. It’s not saying that eventually this program needs to be tweaked, modified, changed, but the minister has moved on this issue more quickly than anything else that she’s undertaken. I go back to the words in the NDP government caucus release that “there is a lack of evidence and this is a B.C. Liberal giveaway scheme.”

The request is a simple one. Take a look. Extend the time frame. The program has shown benefit, and I think our job in this House is actually to ask those questions. While there may be some amusement about that on the other side, the fact of the matter is that this has made a difference in British Columbia.

The question is simply: why so quickly? Why not give it the opportunity?

And to the minister: “I’m not interested in referring it to the task force.” That’s exactly what a task force is created for. It’s simply the opportunity to take a look at a program that’s existed, look at its merits and its weaknesses, and take the opportunity to take some due process here. In fact, in our view…. That’s why the amendment has been tabled. There was a significant lack of due process. Quick action. We’re simply asking for reconsideration and allowing there to be some time before the decision moves forward.

A. Weaver: I wanted to stand and support the member for Prince George–Valemount’s comments, with respect to this being a Liberal giveaway. Clearly, this is not a B.C. Liberal giveaway. It’s a program that was established under the Social Credit government in 1988. It was developed and continued through the NDP governments of the 1990s and continued through the 2000s under a B.C. Liberal government.

I think it’s very unfortunate wording that it’s been phrased that way, but it doesn’t change my views with respect to the actual amendment itself. I do respect the fact that it was brought forward. I think it’s a very reasoned amendment. But in light of the briefings that I’ve had with Finance staff, I remain still committed in opposition to this amendment

Today in the Legislature we were in Committee Stage for Bill 2: Budget Measures Implementation Act 2017. One of the questions I asked the Minister of Finance concerned the application of BC’s carbon tax to marine gas oil.

As noted in the video and text exchange, reproduced below, I serve on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. We recently had a compelling public presentation in Nanaimo from a representative from Cruise Lines International Association – North West & Canada (also reproduced below). One of the issues he raised was the competitive disadvantage that BC ports have been placed in relative to US ports due to an error in the application of our carbon tax.

In what can be only described as an oversight, the carbon tax in BC is only exempt on traditional bunker fuels and jet fuel for international travel (consistent with international reporting rules). However, more modern cruise ships use refined marine gas oil which is not exempt.

I am thrilled with the response I received from the Finance Minister who stated that she is very open to examining this further.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I am on the Finance Committee, and we had a very compelling presentation made by representations from the cruise ship industry who have noted that bunker fuels, as per international standards, are exempt from carbon pricing because of the fact that you’re essentially moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they’re historically exempt. However, modern cruise ships don’t actually use the traditional fuels that are exempt, and they’re under a competitive disadvantage against Seattle, which does not, of course, have a carbon pricing.

My question: is there a consideration for exempting cruise ships who will be using fuels now subject to the carbon tax?

Although, under international reporting regulations or rules, typically multi-jurisdictional travel is not charged with carbon tax — international airfare, for example, international cruise ships and so forth.

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member for the question. As the member points out, quite rightly, there are already exemptions for interjurisdictional travel that are in place for the carbon tax. But as we’re going through the budget process for February, we know a request and the information has come in. The member sits on the Finance Committee, so it may come forward through that route as well. But we’ll take a look at all of that information as we develop the February budget.

A. Weaver: The Finance Committee has a very broad set of recommendations. I’m not sure something as specific as interjurisdictional travel and fuels with the cruise ship will be in the report. It may, but I’m not convinced. I just bring this to the attention of the minister, if she might consider having a look at this with her staff as we move forward. We wouldn’t want to put our cruise ship industry in a competitive disadvantage against docks in Seattle versus docks in Vancouver.

Hon. C. James: Happy to take a look at it.

Presentation by Cruise Lines International Association – North West & Canada to Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services

G. Wirtz: Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity.

I am Greg Wirtz. I’m the president of Cruise Lines International Association, North West and Canada. Our association is based in Vancouver, and we represent the cruise lines operating in Canada. Our association has been a pillar of the B.C. economy for decades, with 15,000 jobs associated with B.C.’s cruise industry and some $2.2 billion in economic benefits to our province each year.

Currently British Columbia’s cruise industry is facing some serious competitive challenges. That’s why we’re here today asking for your support for a small change to tax policy that will enhance our competitiveness and further the growth of our industry while reinforcing British Columbia’s environmental leadership and promoting the use of cleaner-burning fuels.

Please allow me to explain. Cruise ships operate in this region typically between Vancouver and Alaska or Seattle and Alaska. Alaska is the marquee destination, and Vancouver and Seattle are the primary home ports. Each year more than one million cruise guests tourists sail to Alaska from either Vancouver or Seattle as home ports. The ships often call at B.C. destination ports, like Victoria, Nanaimo and Prince Rupert as well.

The cruise lines, however, acquire the vast majority of the services and supplies needed by the ships — like fuel, food and other supplies — in the home ports, Seattle and Vancouver. Each home-port call in Vancouver creates $3 million of direct benefits to the B.C. economy. In total, there were more than 230 home-port calls in Vancouver this year alone.

When ships buy fuel for an international voyage, it is normally tax-exempt. This is just like airlines flying on international voyages. The fuel purchased is tax-exempt, recognizing that taxing fuel exports is not good tax or economic policy.

In B.C., cruise lines can purchase what are known as residual fuels, or bunker fuel or heavy fuel oil, for their Alaska voyages on a tax-exempt basis. Cruise lines also purchase cleaner, refined fuel, known as marine gas oil, in B.C.

However, due to a historical artifact of B.C.’s tax legislation, these marine gas oil purchases are only tax-exempt if used in what is called a gas turbine engine. The legislation is more than 15 years old, reflecting that the only cruise ships at the time using marine gas oil were gas turbine ships. Today most ships can operate with the cleaner marine gas oil whether they have gas turbine engines or traditional internal combustion engines. In fact, most cruise ships today are equipped with internal combustion engines, as will be most of the $50 billion in new cruise ships currently on order. Gas turbine ships just have not caught on.

Cruise ships with the much more common internal combustion engines will have to pay three cents per litre on the cleaner-burning fuel when purchased in British Columbia, but not on the less clean-burning bunker fuel. A cruise ship that’s home-ported in Seattle, Washington, does not pay any such tax on their fuel used in international voyages.

As a result, Washington state enjoys a significant fuel-tax advantage over British Columbia in attracting cruise ships, and their passengers, as well as the associated work and supplies needed to support the cruise ships, their thousands of passengers and crew.

In recent years, Seattle has outpaced Vancouver as the home port of choice for cruise ships. There are a number of reasons for this, and a long-term strategy is needed to help British Columbia remain competitive.

However, in the interim, a small, positive change regarding the taxation of cleaner-burning marine gas oil would send a very encouraging signal to the cruise industry that British Columbia remains committed to a sector which contributes $2.2 billion in direct and indirect spending in our province, including $712 million in wages and salaries.

In summary, if British Columbia provides an expanded exemption for the purchase of marine gas oil, it will (1) eliminate a significant competitive disadvantage in attracting cruise ships to British Columbia’s port cities, (2) send a clear signal of support to a key revenue-generating industry in the province and (3) help create jobs in related industries on which British Columbians rely.

I do have copies of a letter and a short backgrounder, which I’d be happy to give to you for your reference. I’d welcome questions, although I acknowledge you can’t ask them.