Today in the Legislature we discussed Bill 23, The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act at the committee stage. As I noted earlier, the bill contained a profoundly troubling Section 46 which granted the Minister unparalleled powers to enter into secret deals with LNG companies concerning natural gas royalty rates. At second reading I outlined my concerns in detail.  Bruce Ralston, NDP MLA from Surrey-Whalley, and I supported each other, including our amendments, as we unpacked the implications of this bill. Below is the text of some of my contributions. I also provide a link to the Hansard video for Part I.

In the end both of my amendments as well as Bruce Ralston’s amendment were defeated. All members of opposition voted against section 46 as detailed below.

Video of Part I

Transcript of Part I

A. Weaver: Now, I recognize that government is rather desperate to land the $30 billion investment, and in so doing, we’re just seeing a $1 billion investment walk from Vancouver Island EDPR and TimberWest trying to put a billion-dollar wind farm investment…. Of course, government is not interested in that, because they’re desperate to fulfil this pipedream.

The concerns I have here…. I’ll ask a very direct one. In light of the fact that everything is up to the minister’s discretion, in essence, to enter into secret deals — presumably handed to him or her by a company, because this government has lost all credibility on this particular file — one of the things that they might do, for example, is work out a royalty rate that might actually be $1 billion less than it would otherwise be so that the company could then find a billion dollars to perhaps give to the First Nation to get title over their land. This is the kind of stuff that the public does not trust government on because of this legislation, where there’s nothing that precludes government working out a back deal to say: “Well done. Good for you to get your title rights recognized. Good for you to negotiate a cost. But we in the province of British Columbia will pay that cost, and we’ll pay that cost by changing this royalty rate in secrecy so that the company doesn’t actually pay it.” The province of British Columbia pays it.

My question to the minister is this, why does he need this level of secrecy, this level of secrecy here that he does not even need to give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, his cabinet colleagues, notification as to what deals he is making? Does this minister honestly believe that the millions of people living in British Columbia trust him and only him to negotiate royalty rates for generations to come because somehow he knows what’s going on, and no one else does?

Hon. R. Coleman: I will walk past the ignorance of the question and just go to my answer. If the member would look and do some research with regards to the legislation, the power given to the minister to do this comes from Lieutenant-Governor-in-council, which is cabinet — the ability to do this. And if there’s any change in revenues or things that have to be adjusted on a financial basis, the minister, as I know, with regards to my service plan, my letters of expectations with my responsibility to government…. Anything that affects the government fiscally, I have to take back to Treasury Board.

I think it’s inappropriate for the member to think that it’s just the minister that’s making this decision. In addition to that, if the member would like to look at section 78.1, subsection (3), it also says that “The minister must, as soon as practicable, publish an agreement entered into under (1) but may withhold from publication anything in the agreement that could be refused to be disclosed under” — an act that governs us all — “the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.” The only thing that would be not disclosed in that, I believe, would be if there was something that was significantly different or something that was — technology over whatever — with regards to the design of a plant or something that may have an effect on the competitive side or the marketplace before it was disclosed by the company in the appropriate manner.

If a request were made under that act, the disclosure of the agreement has to take place. It’s our full intent to make these agreements public.

A. Weaver: Well, in fact, I have read this legislation rather carefully. I’ve been following this file very carefully for the last two years. Frankly, what I’ve been saying for all that time is playing out here. Here’s another sellout.

In fact, if you read 78.1(2), it says the following: “The approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council is not required for the minister to enter into an agreement under subsection (1)….” I don’t know what the minister doesn’t see about that, but it specifically says that “the Lieutenant Governor in Council is not required for the minister to enter into an agreement under subsection (1) (a) in the prescribed circumstances, or (b) in respect of a prescribed class of agreements.”

In essence, this is saying that the minister can essentially enter into an agreement…. The province of British Columbia, all of us, believe that we have such confidence in this minister that we are going to let him — and only him — go into an agreement with a multinational corporation. This has got to be some kind of a joke.

What is the justification that the minister needs these exclusive powers to go and enter into agreements without his cabinet colleagues knowing, without the Premier having to even know, but giving him power under section 78.1(2) to do this? What gives him the right? This is not an autocracy. Why does the minister think it is?

Hon. R. Coleman: If you read the section, it says: “in the prescribed circumstances, or (b) in respect of a prescribed class of agreements.” These are determined by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and allow the minister to sign them as a delegated authority to do so.

The characteristics of these agreements — in prescribed circumstances and in the class of agreements — are dealt with long before they’d ever get to an agreement with regards to what’s in them and what the minister can sign or cannot sign.

So basically, what it effectively does…. It does what most pieces of legislation do and delegates authority, after certain prescriptions and outlines have been prescribed by government, to a minister that he can execute on behalf of government.

Video of Part II

Transcript of Part II

A. Weaver: Coming back to section 46, section 78.1(2)(a) and (b) where it describes: “The approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council is not required for the minister to enter into an agreement under subsection (1) (a) in the prescribed circumstances, or (b) in respect of a prescribed class of agreements.”

The minister recently said that the type of agreements that he or she or whoever the minister will be can enter into are controlled by cabinet. But we have no indication as to what “prescribed circumstances” are. We have no indication as to what “prescribed class of agreements” are.

It could be — and I seek confirmation from the minister — that a prescribed class of agreements could be any agreement to extract natural gas from the Montney region in British Columbia and export it anywhere in Asia. That’s one possible interpretation, and “under the prescribed circumstances,” that the minister has the time to do so. Essentially, this would grant the minister…. We have no sense of this.

Is what I just said precluded from that? What constraints are being placed on the minister to enter into these agreements without consulting, without the need for the Premier, without the need for cabinet, without the need for anyone, obviously, except the proponent to know about what the agreement is? This set of prescribed circumstances and agreements is so large and vague, it could include anything.

Hon. R. Coleman: It gives to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in prescribed circumstances or in respect of a prescribed class of agreements, to allow the minister to execute them. Those will be prescribed in regulation through Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, not arbitrarily by the minister.

A. Weaver: I guess that’s my point. I reiterate what I said earlier. In light of the fact that this government is so desperate to sign agreements with now one company — it’s, I guess, given up on a number of others — there is a lack of trust. There’s a lack of trust that this section is not going to be anything more than “prescribed class of agreements” is with Petronus, for example, or with any company involved in the Montney play that wants to sell gas to Asia. So there is a great deal of uncertainty with this.

This amendment does simply not instill confidence in British Columbians that the government actually has any sense of direction or actual clue as to what they’re doing. They’re making it up as they go along, moving it from a generational to now, as my friend from Nanaimo–North Cowichan points out, a multigenerational sellout in a desperate attempt to try to land a company.

Let me just follow up with a direct question here. If the minister signs an agreement under subsection (2) and then after giving it to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — now it’s signed — the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council receive this, and they then determine that they don’t like it, that the minister overstepped his or her bounds, my question is: what ability does the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council have to overturn an agreement that was signed by a minister under section 78.1(2)?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know that the NDP and the independents in this House don’t support liquefied natural gas as an industry for the future of the British Columbia. I know that. I know the member is clearly after that in his mind, and that’s fine.

But if the member will think about the legislation, it allows regulations to be developed that specify the circumstances or describe the types of agreements that the minister can enter into. Don’t get to write the agreements. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council actually prescribes that in regulation. And by the way, every week the decisions by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on regulations are published. That information, in and around the agreements, would be published, and the minister could only execute under those terms. If he went outside those terms, because of the regulation being in place, it wouldn’t be a legally enforced agreement.

A. Weaver: With respect, this has nothing to do about being against or for natural gas. This has to do with economic folly and irresponsible promises by this government in an election campaign that they cannot fulfil. Here we see desperation in legislation. We see one after another as they so desperately try to land a single contract.

The reality is…. I’m going to read this again. I have read this legislation. It says as follows: “The approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council is not required for the minister to enter into an agreement under subsection (1) (a) in the prescribed circumstances, or (b) in respect of a prescribed class of agreements.” It doesn’t say in respect to an agreement that has been reached and agreed to by cabinet already. It says in prescribed circumstances or a prescribed class of agreements, which is incredibly vague, no matter how you interpret that.

Again, to the minister. If he believes that these circumstances or agreements really curtail or constrain what he is able to sign, why doesn’t he tell us what they are? Why doesn’t he table here today what is actually meant by prescribed circumstances or a prescribed class of agreements? Right now it can be anything. Will the minister table examples of what these are?

Hon. R. Coleman: I’ll reiterate it. I do know the member opposite doesn’t support liquefied natural gas as a new industry for British Columbia. Even in that case, this is a piece of the legislation that allows for regulations to be developed that specify the circumstances that the minister could actually enter into and sign an agreement on behalf of the province of British Columbia.

The regulation is a law, hon. Member. The minister has to follow that law in those prescribed circumstances and in respect of the prescribed class of agreements. He has to do that, because that is defined in regulation. The regulation is developed when legislation is passed.

A. Weaver: Again, to correct the record, I have never said I am against liquefied natural gas. In fact, if you go back to estimates, you will see that I have been arguing strongly for promoting domestic sector use, including the use of liquefied natural gas in our ferry systems in British Columbia, long before the government actually came up with that direction and idea.

This is not about liquefied natural gas. This is about irresponsible economic outlook — that the government is going in with no financial underscoring. They seem to be the only ones in the world that believe this is going to play out, and they’re desperate to do so.

Coming back to the question. The reality is, as the minister would like us to believe, that somehow he’s going to be constrained in entering into these agreements, that the regulations will be developed after the fact.

There is no trust on this file anymore. So there is no trust. The government is simply not trusted to be acting in the best will of the people on this particular file. We’ve seen, time after time after time, broken promises, changing legislation. We bring in an act, an LNG act. We then completely change the LNG tax act only a few months later.

It’s for this reason that I have a second amendment that I wish to put here to actually add another check in place. This is on the order paper. It’s adding a section (8) to 78. So it’s 78.1(8), which says the following:

[SECTION 46, by adding the underlined text as shown:
(8) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, without penalty, pull out of an agreement entered into under subsection (2) within six months of the time at which the minister provided the Lieutenant Governor in Council with the full text of the agreement.]

A. Weaver: The reason why I’m doing this is I don’t trust the minister. The opposition doesn’t trust the minister. The people of B.C. don’t trust the minister. International companies don’t trust the minister. The minister has no trust on this file.

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess he will have to understand what the law means with regards to regulation.

I should tell the member opposite that I spent eight years with the RCMP. You can’t throw an insult at me that’s going to bother me. So try as you must, it just isn’t going to work.

On the other side, the flip side, I know the member opposite doesn’t think that we have opportunities on liquefied natural gas in British Columbia. Like I said to him in debates of a while ago, I want to be invited to the dinner when he has to eat those words. It will happen in the not too distant future, I believe.

Over the next year or two, you’ll see a number of these projects go ahead. They’ll go ahead not because the international community mistrusts the minister. It’s because the minister has built a relationship with the industry across the world and with financiers to the fact that they actually believe this government will deliver on what it says it will do and, therefore, will come to B.C. and invest.

The Vote

Interview on BC1

For the foreseeable future, it seems likely that British Columbians will have to watch as the decades long dance of dysfunction between the BC Government and the BCTF continues to play out.

The most recent iteration of this is taking place in the Legislature this week as we debate Bill 11 – The Education Statutes Amendment Act.

Sadly, with the introduction of this Bill we’ve missed out on an incredible opportunity for British Columbians to come together through an engaging discussion about how we might improve our education system.

In introducing Bill 11, yet another opportunity to rebuild the relationship between teachers and government has been squandered. The Bill unilaterally allows government control over the professional development of teachers, and empowers government to issue directives to school boards that they would be bound to follow.

I want to be clear – I welcome a conversation about reforms to our public education system. We need to be willing to discuss controversial topics like re-examining the role school boards play in a modern education system and whether a decade of corporate and personal income tax cuts have gone too far.

However, these much needed conversations can only take place when all those involved demonstrate a commitment to their relationship with one another, and actively seek to build mutual trust and understanding. And while Bill 11 is only the most recent example of governments role in damaging this relationship, the BCTF is not without responsibility. Earlier this year the BCTF invited the Leader of the BC NDP to address their 2015 AGM in a partisan speech that ended with him calling on everyone to defeat the BC Liberals. This does nothing to build bridges. Rather, it further deepens the partisan divide and everyone loses when that happens.

It is easy to forget that amidst all these issues, British Columbia is home to outstanding teachers and a world renowned education system. We should be celebrating our successes and supporting the good work being done by teachers in our province.

Bill 11 is a poorly thought out piece of legislation that deserved a far more rigorous and substantial public consultation so that we could have the conversation about public education that we need. I will not be supporting its passage and will continue to work to establish a different way forward on public education.

A full copy of my remarks can be found below.

Video of Second Reading Speech

Transcript of Second Reading Speech

To begin, I’d like to emphasize that I’ve always believed that teaching is the single most important profession in our society. Each and every one of us has attended school, and that experience has shaped who we are, what we do, and how we contribute to society. So it follows that public education represents perhaps the most important investment government can make for the prosperity of our province.

Public education is absolutely critical in teaching the next generation of British Columbians to think critically, contribute responsibly to society and to become the leaders of tomorrow.

Teaching is a thoroughly rewarding, yet physically and emotionally exhausting profession. It takes a very special person to be able to instruct a class of 20 to 30 young children for five hours every day. Last year I spent a day engaging every grade from kindergarten to grade six at Savory Elementary’s Four Seasons Eco-School (4EST) program.

I only had one lesson plan to deliver to the seven separate classes, from 8:45 to 2:30 on that day. I had no marking to take home, no report cards to write, no parents to interact with, no staff meetings and no administrative activities. Nor did I have to take the students on extracurricular activities. But let me tell you that I was exhausted at the end of the day. And I only did that once, not day in, day out, for months on end.

Let me start my speech by noting that we have outstanding teachers and an exceptional education system in the province of British Columbia. Every three years the Programme for International Student Assessment, known as PISA, evaluates the performance of students internationally in three subject areas: mathematics, science and reading.

The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada further breaks down the Canadian results on a province-by-province basis. British Columbia consistently performs extremely well. In 2012, for example, British Columbia was the top Canadian province in reading and science and was second only to Quebec in mathematics.

In fact, British Columbia students even performed better than students from the much-touted education system in Finland in both reading and mathematics. And while Finland scored slightly ahead of B.C. in science, the difference was statistically insignificant. Of course, we’ll have to wait until December 2016 to get the PISA 2015 results to see how British Columbia continues to fare.

Now, I recognize that the PISA results only provide one metric of student achievement and, hence, the success of the British Columbia school system. Nevertheless, it’s a very positive one. It says to me that we must be doing something right in British Columbia despite what we might read about in the news. It also suggests to me that maybe we should start to celebrate our successes and dwell less on the negative arising from a dysfunctional relationship between the B.C. government and the BCTF.

At the end of the strike last fall the government spoke about “an historic six-year agreement…which means five years of labour peace ahead of us.” Rather than viewing this as five years of simmering anger waiting to boil over when the negotiations next begin, we should be capitalizing on this time to envision bold new ways of ensuring our educational system is sustainable.

This includes teachers being fairly compensated and adequately supported with properly funded curriculum and learning resources. Such support must include sincere and meaningful class size and composition discussions and support that recognizes that teacher burnout affects us all. It must include reinvigorating our educational infrastructure and ensuring that children have textbooks and access to learning materials.

On Thursday the B.C. Court of Appeal will release its decision concerning the rights of teachers to negotiate conditions around class size and composition. Rather than allowing this to serve as a catalyst to incite increased tension between the BCTF and the government, perhaps both parties will recognize the opportunities that will arise from mutual collaboration, no matter what the Court of Appeals decision is.

For example, perhaps there is a compromise on class size and composition negotiations. Why don’t the BCTF and the B.C. government both agree, for example, that the best place to negotiate class size and composition is at the local school district level?

In fact, as noted in the book Worlds Apart: British Columbia Schools, Politics and Labour Relations Before and After 1972 by Thomas Fleming, the BCTF was not pleased with the 1994 Public Education Labour Relations Act which led to the formation of BCPSEA and the BCTF being appointed as the official bargainer for all teachers.

Provincial data clearly show that one size does not fit all. The class-size and composition needs of Haida Gwaii school district 50 are almost certainly different from those in the Gulf Islands, No. 64, or Surrey, school district 36.

Perhaps both parties would consider waiving the right to strike in favour of binding arbitration with respect to salary and benefit negotiations. In 1950 Manitoba teachers did just this. In return, they gained binding arbitration, due process and a provincial certification board. There has been labour peace in Manitoba ever since.

Binding arbitration forces each party to come up with their best offer. The arbitrator then chooses from one of them or some combination of both. One thing is certain. Outlandish requests are taken off the table quickly when binding arbitration is in play.

While the B.C. government and the BCTF play out their decades-long dance of dysfunction as they battle it out, entrenched in what I perceive to be ideological positions, the ones who are paying the price are the children in the classroom, the teachers who teach them, and their parents at home.

But moving this relationship forward requires trust, mutual trust. It’s easy for me to see why the BCTF and other stakeholders in public education are leery to trust the direction this government is taking in Bill 11. This bill is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Rather than engaging education stakeholders in meaningful dialogue, the government is providing itself with rather sweeping powers to appoint special advisers and issue administrative directives. Nobody knows what the minister has in mind or what cabinet will do with these powers, should this law receive royal assent.

Bill 11 repeals the concept of school planning councils. Frankly, I support moving back to focusing the parent’s role in the parent advisory councils. The B.C. Liberals school planning council model was a failed approach to school-based governance, introduced when our current Premier was the Minister of Education.

I doubt that there will be much public outcry over this, although it would have been preferable to give the public more opportunity for input prior to actually putting this legislation forward. After all, this is public education that we are discussing here today.

Bill 11 takes the very provocative and, honestly, I think, ill-thought-out position of empowering the minister to set teachers’ professional development requirements. Like any profession, teachers require ongoing professional development. That goes without saying. But like these same professions, professional development must be led by the experts. In this case it’s by the teachers, not by ministerial decree.

Now, I recognize that the minister will say and respond that he wants to negotiate with the BCTF as to what this professional development might look like. However, my reply to the minister on this is that he’s lost trust. He’s lost the trust of the teachers, as what the minister had in mind should have been conveyed prior to, rather than after, this legislation being tabled.

Besides, what body would oversee the professional development? The B.C. College of Teachers would have been the natural place, but it’s been disbanded. The BCTF is a union tasked with representing its members in negotiations, not in maintaining professional standards. So they are not the appropriate home for such professional ongoing professional development.

The teacher regulation branch doesn’t seem the right place either. So what does the minister have in mind? We simply don’t know, and therein lies the problem. Why are we bringing forward legislation to discuss this when we do not know what the minister has in mind and when trust has been broken and lost with negotiations on this topic with the teachers before we’ve even started to discuss it?

It’s clear to me that this bill was not ready for debate in the Legislature. In my view, it should have followed the lead of the Society Act or the Water Sustainability Act and allowed extensive public consultation prior to its introduction, rather than afterwards.

Both of those pieces of legislation obtained a social licence, public support. In the case of the Society Act, public input led to a better act, with the removal of section 99. But here we do not have public support. We’ve just come off a prolonged strike, and on Thursday the B.C. Court of Appeal will release its long-awaited decision.

What an incredible opportunity this could be for British Columbians to be offered to come together through an engaging discussion about how we might improve our education system.

Instead of discussing this ill-thought-out legislation whose direction is not actually brought forward with any substance today for us to speak to, we could have had a discussion about education. For example, we could have had a discussion about education funding.

The level of funding allocated to our public education system depends on the priorities of the government. In British Columbia spending on health care has remained a priority since 2000, ranging between 7 percent and 8 percent of provincial GDP. Funding for social services and education expressed as a percentage of GDP, on the other hand, has dropped over this period of time.

In the case of education funding as a percentage of provincial GDP, it has declined from a high of about 6.4 percent in 2001-2002, when the Liberals took office first, to an estimated low of about 5 percent in 2014-2015. Now, that’s a 22 percent decline in the percentage of funding, as a percentage of GDP, being spent on education in our province.

If British Columbians deem education to be as important as I do, surely this drop needs to be rectified. So the question is: where does this money come from? I would argue that British Columbians need to have a hard look at our sources of provincial revenue and the way we spend the money that government receives. Given a decade of corporate and personal income tax cuts, perhaps it’s time to take a look at whether or not we’ve gone too far.

That’s an important discussion to have, as it ultimately affects the availability of funds for our public education system. That’s a discussion we could have had prior to the introduction of Bill 11. With increases in public school enrolment looming, it’s critical that we initiate this discussion now, not later, not tomorrow, not after the next settlement is in negotiation with the teachers in our province.

We could have had a discussion about the ongoing role of the B.C. Public School Employers Association. The BCPSEA was established in 1994. Since that time there has been a continued escalation of conflict between the BCTF and the government via BCPSEA. Perhaps it’s time to consider dismantling BCPSEA and, instead, bringing its operations directly into the Ministry of Education. This would signal that government is willing to start afresh to try and build a new relationship with teachers. After all, it’s the government, not BCPSEA, that holds the purse strings.

We could have engaged in a discussion about the role of school boards in our public education system. Thomas Fleming, in his aforementioned book, noted:

“A history of extremely low voter turnout in school board elections, along with the influence of teacher associations over electoral candidates, has raised serious questions about whether boards in fact actually reflect the public’s educational will or simply serve as a platform for the expression of various special interests — all insistent on greater school spending, regardless of other legitimate public demands government is obligated to consider.”

That quote comes from page 109.

He further points out that only between 5 percent and 10 percent of eligible voters turn up at a school board election not occurring at the same time as municipal elections. In addition, he detailed a by-election in the capital regional district that brought out around only 2 percent of the electorate.

The mandate of school boards has changed over the last century. In the early 20th century local school boards were tasked with hiring the teacher for their often one-room schoolhouse in rural areas, for example, and ensuring that the school was kept up. Provincial inspectors toured the province to make sure that centrally determined educational standards were maintained.

In an extremely influential report authored by Max Cameron in 1946, sweeping changes were proposed to the previously existing model of public school governance. Increased financial efficiency and equitable educational opportunities for all rural and urban British Columbian students required a new approach.

In 1944 there were 650 school districts governed by 437 school boards. Just three years later only 89 school districts remained, and by 1971 this was down to 74. Today there are 60 school districts. Is that the right number? Should their mandate be changed? These are questions the public should have had a chance to discuss and become engaged on discussing prior to the introduction of Bill 11.

We could have engaged in a discussion about whether British Columbians want to follow the New Zealand model, where school boards were eliminated in their entirety, or the Finnish model, where school districts are aligned more closely and intimately with local municipalities for funding, or some other variant.

We could have engaged in a discussion about teacher shortages that will emerge in a few years as projected enrolment increases. All school-aged demographics are expected to rise for at least the next decade. This further suggests that while we may have an excess of teachers being trained today, in three or four years, as the teacher demographic ages and as the number of school-aged children starts to increase, we will almost certainly have teacher shortages, particularly in the areas of French immersion, mathematics and science, where demand exceeds supply even presently.

Rather than perpetuate the boom-and-bust cycle of teacher training and hiring and rather than keeping people for many years on the teacher-on-call list, perhaps a more gradual transition to full-time employment could have been developed. Perhaps we could be discussing this as many of the things in our education system that we could and should have been discussing prior to the introduction of Bill 11.

For example, teacher burnout early on in one’s career is not uncommon. We all know an example of a teacher or two who taught for a few years and moved on, as the requirements placed upon them are simply unbearable, given the support that is lacking at their early age of entry into the teaching profession.

A young teacher might be thrown into a new situation, with multiple class preparations for a range of students with a diversity of skills and backgrounds, with no past teaching material practices to draw upon. New teachers can quickly become overwhelmed with workload. Senior teachers, on the other hand, approaching retirement have a wealth of experience, curriculum resources and best practices. Perhaps it’s possible to negotiate a buddy system, where a retiring teacher signs an agreement to retire gradually over, say, a three-year period, and during that time the starting teacher is paired with the retiring teacher. While the senior teacher gently eases into retirement, the new teacher gently eases into full-time teaching, and the decades of experiences and best practices are passed along from the senior to the junior teacher.

Finally, perhaps we could have started a discussion about innovative ways that would allow school districts to build upon best practices of shared services prior to the introduction of this bill that we are discussing today. Perhaps the government could play a role here and provide the province with a centralized payroll system or legal services, for example. Does each district need to have its own payroll department? Should teachers be employed by the Ministry of Education instead of the board? Are there opportunities for economies of scale?

Bill 11 enables the minister to step in, but again, it would have been preferable to open the bill up first for public and stakeholder input prior to tabling it in this House.

Now, those ideas that I’ve put forward are not any ones that I’m advocating for particularly, or any at all. I’m simply introducing them and putting out these ideas in the hope that they provoke a discussion, a discussion about how public education should evolve in British Columbia. Unfortunately, the approach to educational policy change in the province of British Columbia is viewed by many — by parents, by teachers, by others — in the province as heavy-handed and top down.

Building a social licence for change requires uncomfortable topics to be discussed and new ideas also to be discussed. Sadly, rather than introducing this legislation after such discussions were conducted and concluded, the legislation was brought forward prematurely, and in doing so government sends the wrong message to teachers.

It sends a message that suggests the heavy handed, top-down, rather than collaborative, approach to educational reform is the direction this government is heading.

But please let me reiterate. The status quo between the government and the BCTF cannot continue. The politicization of our public education system serves no constructive purpose. We have outstanding and dedicated teachers in the province of British Columbia. We have a very educated workforce, and we can use it to attract business to our province, as we offer something no one else in the world has — bountiful natural resources and the most beautiful place on earth as our backyard.

Now, the politicization of our public education system is not just the fault of the government. When the BCTF invites the leader of the B.C. NDP to address the 2015 AGM in a partisan speech that ends with him calling on everyone to defeat the B.C. Liberals, which he referred to as “those buggers,” this does nothing to build bridges between teachers and government. It does nothing to build trust in the province of British Columbia. Rather, it further deepens the partisan divide, and everybody loses when that happens. Our children lose, their teachers lose and the parents of those children also lose when public education in the province of British Columbia becomes partisan.

Let’s step back. Let’s let this bill die on the order paper and reintroduce it next year, once a more thorough consultation process has occurred. Let’s get it right, so that we can start rebuilding trust between teachers and government in British Columbia.

In the coming weeks, we will be debating Bill 20: Election Amendment Act. I recently did an interview on BC1 Unfiltered which outlines the reasons why I will be opposing the Bill.

The BC1 Interview

Samantha Falk was stepping in for Jill Krop in the interview.

Last week I wrote about the very serious concerns I had with Bill 23, The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. Today I spoke against the Bill at second reading. Included within the bill are three profoundly troubling sections and below I outline my objections to these in greater detail.

I begin my speech by discussing what can only be described as one of the most bizarre moments for me in the Legislature since being elected. It has to do with the government promising, in their throne speech, to create a medal that already exists.

I then move to outline a number of outrageous steps that government is taking in a desperate attempt to land a single positive LNG final investment decision. It is truly remarkable to witness how desperate government is becoming. Sadly, government’s attempt to fulfill their irresponsible election promise of wealth and prosperity for one and all from a hypothetical LNG industry is coming at the expense of future generations.

Video of Second Reading Speech

Second Reading Speech

A. Weaver: Thank you to the previous speakers for highlighting some of the issues I too would like to speak to, and against. in similar cases.

First off, I do wish to thank the Minister of Natural Gas Development for making staff available for a briefing today, which we found very helpful in explaining some of the rationale behind the royalty amendments that I will discuss later.

As was mentioned by the member from Nanaimo, this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, like previous acts, is always interesting because there’s a potpourri of topics in here, some of which some members in this House will approve. Others, some members in this House will not approve. There’s many different angles that one could take with this bill. In voting yes or no on the second reading, one has to weigh the pros and the cons. One might actually think that the ways of dealing with some of these are at the committee stage, which I certainly will explore in more detail, some of the ideas there.

There are a couple of sections that concern me quite profoundly. But I will start, and I want to preface that there is one section here that is actually good and something that I find very easy to support, and it’s an election promise that the B.C. Liberals will be able to keep. The irony here should not be lost on many people.

I’ve had the privilege of serving in this Legislature for two years. In that two years I’ve heard a lot about the 1990s. I’ve heard it referenced time and time again about what happened in the 1990s. Well, did you know that in the 1990s, the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act was brought in place?

Guess what is there in section 19 of that act. Section 19 states this: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may award the British Columbia Medal of Good Citizenship to recognize persons who have acted in a particularly generous, kind or self-sacrificing manner for the common good without expectation of reward.”

This was one of the prime announcements in the throne speech — that government would actually bring forward a B.C. Medal of Good Citizenship that already exists. This has got to be one of the most bizarre moments for me in this Legislature, to see the hubris, the narcissism of a government that thinks that it’s okay to make a big deal about bringing in a medal that’s been on the books for almost 20 years. It’s truly, truly…. I mean, you can’t make this stuff up. It’s happening in B.C. politics here in the House

You know, what is so sad about this is that British Columbians are paying the price. British Columbians are paying the price for a government that clearly does not have an legislative agenda this session, apart from desperately trying to fulfil its election promise about LNG.

We watch one after another after another of the big players in the LNG market cite what I have been saying for two years: the growing glut of natural gas. The price is dropping. Japan is bringing on nuclear reactors again. Australia is well ahead. Companies are merging. The price of oil is dropping. And B.C., rather than recognizing that we are late players in this game, that we do not have a competitive advantage, that we will maybe one day find a use for this natural gas….

I see some small little additions here, which I call the methanol and the refining amendments, where there are some kinds of ideas that perhaps we should do something in case it doesn’t pan out, and there are other projects that we might go for. What this government is doing with amendments, two of them in this act, is continuing this generational sellout which my friend from Nanaimo–North Cowichan and I describe as a generational sellout. I cannot take credit for the term “multigenerational sellout.” That goes to the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. But it’s far beyond that.

We see this taking another step. Not only are we letting the minister enter into royalty agreements that will hamper future generations, not only government but future generations, by irresponsible promises made by a government that had no idea what it was doing during an election campaign except for offering a message of hope wrapped in hyperbole in a desperate attempt to get elected.

“Say anything. We’re not going to get elected, but let’s hope we get a few seats.” And lo and behold, we have a majority over here, a government that does not know what they’re doing on this file and that has become an embarrassment internationally on the LNG file. We’ve watched company after company after company look at us and say: “What’s going on?”

Here we now have, in this bill, the greatest, most serious insult that future generations could have, which is saying: “We are going to lock you into royalty rates with one company. We’re also going to forget municipal charter acts.” We’re going to go over that too, and we’re going to do what we can to write legislation so that this one company may — may possibly, perhaps — if things go well, make an investment decision by June of this year. And they’re the only one thinking of doing it.

The level of irresponsibility here — I cannot underestimate it. British Columbians should be walking in the streets over this legislation. I know they’re not going to pay attention to miscellaneous statutes amendment acts. Buried within that is not only an intergenerational or a multigenerational sellout, it’s a historic one. It’s a historic sellout to foreign multinationals of the rights of British Columbians and future generations to gain value from our natural resources.

It’s a very sad day in British Columbia if we were to pass the relevant sectors in here. Sadly, as this government no longer listens to constituents, to small business owners — we see it in the liquor legislations — to the opposition, to independent members, they are marching to the beat of their own drum, because they think that by being elected as a majority they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, with no accountability.

But there will be accountability when British Columbians do realize this, and we can see it happening around the province. There will be accountability in 2017 for this multigenerational, historic sellout that is continuing here in British Columbia.

Let’s move directly to section 23, the Port Edward tax agreement. Now, where is this coming from? The Port Edward tax agreement. For those riveted at home to the debates that are happening now, Port Edward is near Prince Rupert. It’s where Petronas and BG and Shell…. It’s in the area where there was going to be an LNG facility.

It’s an area where there used to be a vibrant pulp mill, but of course that shut down because we’re not nurturing our forest industry; instead, we’re natural gas. It’s LNG or nothing in B.C. right now. It’s a message that’s being sent to business in B.C. I recognize the minister is troubled by those words, but the reality is business in B.C. has heard the message: you’re either with us on LNG or we’re not interested in where you’re going.

That is the signal, because the government here is picking winners and losers in the marketplace — a so-called free enterprise government picking winners and losers in the marketplace. The winner they’ve picked is LNG. But it’s even worse than that. It’s not winners and losers; it’s winning companies and losing companies, because we see legislation at the scale of individual municipalities. We’re amending the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act to allow the district of Port Edward to enter multi-year agreements with Pacific NorthWest LNG.

What is going on here? We’re introducing law so that a municipality can forget the rest of the law that’s applied to municipalities in the province so that they can negotiate and do special deals with one company. We’re picking the winning technology and the winning sector, and we’re picking the winning company.

This is no longer a government that has any credibility as a free enterprise government. This is a government that is really a pick-a-winner-and-loser government. They’re picking losers as we go along, and it’s continuing to manifest itself with this legislation.

To be able to have this agreement last up to 25 years and establish an amount or formula to be used for the duration of that agreement for one company may give business certainty for that one company. Sure, Pacific NorthWest is going to have business certainty, and we all know business needs certainty, but this is giving an intergenerational sellout at the same time.

There’s no certainly for British Columbians here. This government was elected to represent British Columbians, not elected to represent Pacific NorthWest natural gas and Petronas and market that company to British Columbians, which is what is happening here in this legislation.

There are many other examples in this. I have another couple on this particular section.

You know, we see Port Edward being given the power to set a unique tax rate for Pacific NorthWest LNG that could be different from other class 4 properties. No, we’re picking one company over another. You want to develop this land, your class 4 property? Guess what. If you’re LNG, it’s one thing. If you’re forestry, you’re another. This is sending a message to industry that you are either…. You want to do industry in B.C.? You’re with LNG. We’ll do anything we can for you. But if you’re a struggling industry in another sector, maybe not. It’s LNG or nothing here in British Columbia.

A government that has the audacity to claim leadership on climate. The audacity for a Premier to be invited by the World Bank and to claim, in this province, that she is leading a government that has leadership on climate policy does nothing but make the government of British Columbia a laughingstock within credible people across Canada.

This government has no credibility on the issue of climate policy. It was the previous administration, under the leadership of Mr. Campbell and the leadership of Barry Penner, the Environment Minister, that built that credibility that this government has destroyed in the matter of two-and-a-half short years.

Now, I recognize the Minister of Health did his bit. He was a very fine Minister of Environment when he was there, but he’s no longer there. The Minister of Environment is doing what she can. Unfortunately, they are but a few within a caucus of many who are doing everything they can to unravel the leading climate policy that existed in this province.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: The truth does hurt. When the members opposite start heckling, they recognize that the truth does hurt — the truth to try to claim leadership on greenhouse gas emissions.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The Minister of Health suggests I’m losing credibility by telling the truth. I would suggest to the minister that the government has lost credibility by not telling the truth for two years.

You can check my page: andrewjweaver.ca. It’s there from December 2012. That’s on Facebook prior to the election and during the campaign. I’ve said the same thing about LNG. I haven’t changed my tune. The government has — a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $1 trillion hit to GDP, “Debt-free B.C.,” no PST, thriving schools and hospitals. La, la, la. Come to B.C. We’ll tell you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear. Unfortunately, here we are in B.C. with yet another generational sellout happening before us.

Subsection (4)(b) exempts agreements from cabinet regulations that prescribe limits on tax rates, relationships between tax rates, formulas for calculating tax rates and so on.

Section (4)(c), another exemption for PNW properties, allows an exemption for them being prescribed as port land under the Assessment Act. That, again, means that cabinet regulations that prescribe the actual value of the port land — or they establish rates, formulas, rules or principles for determining the actual value of the port land — would not apply. Let’s just throw that out. It might not give a company certainty.

Subsection (4)(d) exempts PNW properties under an agreement from the Ports Property Tax Act. We wouldn’t want to tax LNG, which generally outlines property tax provisions for ports.

Whose needs are actually being served here? Is it British Columbia’s needs? Is it this government that is voted and tasked to represent British Columbians and provide the oversight that British Columbians want? Or is it the winner that they chose in the winning sector, in an economy, in a market that’s falling? When other jurisdictions are diversifying their economy, we are not.

The Community Charter was written to provide fairness and a level playing field for businesses. This act seems to empower Port Edward to create an unfair playing field.

It gets worse, with the royalty agreement section in sections 44 to 56. Sections 44 through 66 have received a lot of focus already, as they appear to be particularly troubling. They appear to allow the minister to enter into royalty agreements with natural gas producers. The minister can enter into an agreement without approval from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council if the agreement is “in respect of a prescribed class of agreements” — whatever that means.

There are several concerning points here. The entire purpose of this section appears to allow this government — a government that’s lost credibility on the LNG file, if it ever had any in the first place — to lock future governments into royalty agreements without offering as much as any way of oversight or checks and balances to protect British Columbians from, frankly, irresponsible decision-making that is ongoing in British Columbia today on this file.

We already have a royalty regime in place. The problem, of course, is that as far as the government is concerned and, perhaps, the industry is concerned, this royalty regime may not be certain in future governments. Perhaps the government is worried. Perhaps the government is worried that in 2017 the B.C. Green Party will be sitting over there, and they’ll be sitting over here. There’ll be a lot of my friends to the right over there and a few of you over here.

Perhaps they’re worried about that, and they want to give Petronas, or PNW, some certainty by locking in 25-year royalty rates at some rate that is to be prescribed at some point by a minister, if he or she wants, with some consultation — maybe, maybe not. Who knows? Because we’re not going to be actually bringing this forward in a very public fashion.

You know, the powers that have been given to the minister in this amendment act with respect to royalty creation in the natural gas sector are enormous. Not only are they enormous, they’re enormous powers to one minister — not the minister in the next government or the government after that but the minister in this government, a minister who’s part of the government that is so desperate to fulfil their irresponsible election promises.

The media are not going to…. They’re going to start probing. They may have given the government a few years of grace on this, but mark my word, when people start looking into this, it’s going to come a cropper if it’s not already starting to. This is egregious — what’s going on in this particular amendment.

Under the changes, the minister also has to disclose information that would be required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. However, the section in here does not clarify who determines if the information needs to be disclosed or not. Is it an independent body that’s at arm’s length from the ministry? Or could the minister theoretically decide what should be or should not be disclosed? It’s not clear.

There are other aspects of this act that I’ll just very briefly speak to, that I’d be interested in exploring further at committee stage. That’s with respect to the oil and gas activities changes, section 48, where we have (e.1) and (e.2) to include two types of oil and gas activities, and these are “the construction or operation of a manufacturing plant designed to convert natural gas into other organic compounds” and “the construction or operation of a petroleum refinery.”

Again, it’s seeming to me, in light of the fact that I know of one proposal that’s been brought to government on (e.1) and one proposal that has been brought to government on (e.2), the government again is going forward and trying to pick winners and losers in a marketplace before actually letting the market decide who those winners and losers should be. I’m curious about what the government is intending here, and I will, indeed, speak to it at committee stage.

With that, I do thank you for the time. I look forward to further discussions in committee stage. At this point, I’m still in a quandary, with respect to the vote at second reading, not because I support everything in it, but I’m not sure at this point and I still need time to reflect on whether or not the merits of supporting it at second reading or not supporting it at second reading are more on the positive or negative.

Clearly, the egregious royalty and Port Edward changes that are the government desperately trying to pick winners and losers in the marketplace to fulfil election promises are unsupportable.

Obviously, I support the B.C. Medal of Good Citizenship — again. It’s already been on the books for nearly 20 years, and the irony of this…. Again, it’s one of these priceless moments that you get in this place, in the Legislature, after listening as an independent here for two years to “in the 1990s this” and “in the 1990s that.”

Well, one of the things that happened in the 1990s is that this B.C. Medal of Good Citizenship was brought into place. Obviously, I support that. Obviously, there are other aspects in this updating of various acts that I support. But these two changes are very, very troubling.

With that, I’ll pass and look forward to hear the continuing debates.

On Wednesday, April 22 (Earth Day) I rose to speak to Bill 22: Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act. This Bill provides government with the legislative power to create an auction for wine licenses in support of a wine-on-shelves in grocery store model. In my opinion, this bill creates a multi-tiered system that preferentially favours large grocery chains over small business. It is following a similar pattern to what we are seeing emerging with government legislation. It’s a pattern that is putting more and more power in the hands of the minister to do whatever he or she wants to do, with little legislative accountability. The only reason this legislation is being brought forward at all is because the auction “bids” that government receives are ultimately defined as a “tax” whose collection requires consent of the legislature.

To give a specific example of how this bill might hurt small business, we have to look no further than the locally-owned Peppers Food Store in Cadboro Bay Village.

In 1962 John Pepper opened a Shop Easy grocery store at the location. In the early 80’s  John Davits and his partner bought the store after working in the meat department for Mr. Pepper. Once they took ownership, the community voted on a new name and it was renamed Pepper’s Food Store. John then became sole owner in 1990, although he has been either employed there or owner for over 35 years. Currently, he is in the process of turning over the day to day operations to his son, Cory, who has worked at the store in many capacities for over 25 years. Peppers is a grocery story with an area of 7,500 square feet. It does not qualify as a “grocery store” under the government’s definition that a “grocery store” referred to in the act has an area of at least 10,000 square feet. Peppers Foods owner John Davits publicly expressed concern over the fairness of this Bill. I concur.

Of course Pepper’s isn’t the only grocery store in Oak Bay-Gordon Head that doesn’t qualify. For example, the local grocery store that my family and I get most of our groceries from is Mount Doug Market owned by Carol and Cori Lau (it’s walking distance from our house). They too have an area less than 10,000 square feet yet they too only sell groceries to local residents.

This legislation grants government regulatory power to prescribe “…the number of special wine store licenses in respect of which bids may be accepted under this Act.” In essence, claims made in the media that there will be no new licenses are certainly not evident from this act. The legislation exempts “grocery stores” that win an auction license from the “one-kilometre rule” (prohibiting “store within store” grocery store liquor outlets being established within one kilonmetre of an existing distributer).

Here I worry about the Tuscany Village Metro Liquor store that has developed an excellent reputation for it’s special focus on wine, especially BC VQA wines. There are three larger grocery stores very close by that could undercut their market significantly, especially in light of the special pricing specialty wine store license auction holders are entitled to. Locally-owned small businesses are being unfairly treated. This is not right and I am absolutely bewildered why government wouldn’t ensure that small business in our community is protected. Small business in the engine of our economy.

Finally, the fact that these specialty wine store licenses restrict grocery stores to carry BC wine, cider or sake on their shelves may not be allowable under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). If we look specifically at Annex 312 of NAFTA it seems pretty clear to me that this act is simply not going to stand up to a NAFTA challenge. I wll be raising this at committee stage when we continue debate on the bill next week.

I was not alone in opposing the Bill as is evident in the second reading vote below.

The Vote