In the legislature today the Minister of Finance introduced a motion to send a number of amendments to committee stage for Bill 45 – 2018: Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and Vacancy Tax) Act. These amendments match the three amendments that I put on the order papers although they were drafted by independent legislative drafters. The reason why government needed to do this was to ensure that my amendments were not ruled out of order by the Clerk. Amendments can be ruled out of order if they incur a cost on government.

Below I reproduce (in text and video) my brief remarks in response to the Minister’s motion. I was inappropriately cut off by the Speaker. The motion was a debatable motion and I should have been given 30 minutes to address it. The speaker was reacting to Mike Farnworth, the BC NDP House Leader, who stood up and was gesticulating to me and the speaker that the the motion wasn’t debatable. He was wrong. But you can’t challenge a speaker’s ruling.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Just a few words briefly on this motion. I’m pleased, obviously, to rise and take my place in the debate on this. The motion to move the amendments to the speculation and vacancy tax act.

For procedural reasons, government had to table these amendments. You’ll see some amendments I put in on the order paper as well. But the amendments that government is tabling reflect the agreement that we were able to reach with government on this tax a few weeks ago. I’m pleased to be supporting moving them to committee today. These amendments do three things — the three things as promised. Again, on the order paper, you will see three amendments that I put in that are virtually identical. But for procedural reasons, government is introducing these amendments.

The first is that mayors from affected municipalities will be consulted annually by the Minister of Finance on how the tax is affecting their communities, with metrics that are being developed. Over the past number of months, I’ve consistently raised the need for local governments to have a more significant role in determining what happens in their communities. The annual review of the tax with mayors will give communities a clear channel to making the case, based on evidence, for how the tax should apply to their communities and whether they should be excluded.

The minister will also be required to report the results of the annual review to cabinet to make a decision on whether the tax should continue to be applied in each of the specified areas. While I would have preferred for local governments to have the ability to opt out automatically, this is a compromise position that I feel I can support and my colleagues can support as well.

The second amendment requires that revenue raised by the tax will be used for housing initiatives within the region it came from. This is also important — that local communities directly benefit from the tax raised so that it is not viewed as a tax grab by government that rolls the moneys into provincial coffers to be lost thereafter. There needs to be a clear impact on the communities because the justification for the speculation tax is, of course, that there’s an externality, a social cost, that we’re asking people in British Columbia and elsewhere to internalize through the application of the speculation and vacancy tax.

The third amendment equalizes rates for Canadians and British Columbians. It brings the rate for Canadians down from 1 percent to 0.5 percent. Now, this is a very big change. Back in the spring, when this tax first came out, it was 2 percent for other Canadians.

Here after many, many months of working with government to come to razor-focus this tax to exactly this intent and purposes, it’s very reassuring to see that the rate has come down to 0.5 percent.

I believe fundamentally that from a fairness perspective, we should not be penalizing Canadians by making them pay higher rates just because they happen to live in another province. We are one country. I feel that as one country, we need to treat our citizens equally across that country.

In addition to these amendments, government has made a number of small changes in the legislation that go a long way to limiting the unfair impacts of this tax on Canadian homeowners who aren’t speculators.

Since it was first introduced in the budget, I’ve been hearing scores of cases that I’ve been bringing to government over the past eight months from people who are not speculators and who should not be facing the tax, as well as other examples where the speculation tax shouldn’t apply.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

A. Weaver: My understanding, hon. Speaker, is on a motion, I am able to deliver a full 30 minutes.

Deputy Speaker: Member, this is purely a procedural motion. This allows the amendments to be placed before the House for debate. Not at this time.

A. Weaver: Is this not a debatable motion, hon. Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: Not at this time. This is a motion to refer.

Motion approved.

Video of Speech

Today in the legislature Bill 53: Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018 was up for debate at second reading. Recall that this bill aligns advertising and financing rules for recall campaigns with the Election Act.

As I noted earlier, the BC Liberals continue to oppose banning big money out of BC politics. They seem to think that it is alright for a single corporation or a wealthy individual or MLA to be able to put any amount of money into either supporting or opposing a recall campaign or a citizen’s initiative.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech in two parts. The first part occurred before the lunch break; I picked up immediately after lunch.

The video might be entertaining as the BC Liberals were heckling so loudly I found it difficult to hear myself at sometimes.

Videos of Speech

Text of Speech (Part 1)

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. True to form, frankly, the official opposition once more stood up today and rallied against taking big money out of politics. It’s remarkable.

I wonder if, after almost a year and a half, they’ve learned anything from the last election. I’m wondering whether the official opposition have not learnt the lesson that put them in the time-out where they’re sitting now, a lesson which is to have them realize that what matters to British Columbians is not the games and the cynicism but actually ensuring that their interests are front and centre in our democracy.

Now, listening to the member for Vancouver-Langara, moments ago, discuss another bill, frankly, and not actually address the substance of this bill, which is taking big money out of yet another aspect of B.C. politics, I had a lightbulb go on. The lightbulb was this. I realize now why the B.C. Liberals are so cynical, are throwing allegations of gaming the system, are actually claiming that this is undermining this and that. It’s because that’s the mindset by which they operated government for the last 16 years, and they recognize and realize….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Vancouver-Langara said he wasn’t here for 16 years, and I understand that.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, Oak Bay–Gordon Head has the floor.

A. Weaver: The member for Vancouver-Langara wasn’t here for 16 years, but I suspect the person who wrote his speech was.

The cynicism embodied in what we hear today is classic. It is exactly what I’ve come to now realize. It is the way that they operate.

They accuse others of being them, because the only frame that they understand is one of a few select people doing what’s in the best interest of the people that they want to represent. I understand that. It was a lightbulb, and I expect to hear more about that as we discuss this bill further.

I’m not sure what, if anything, as I said, the official opposition have learned. We, in British Columbia, were called the Wild West of political financing by the New York Times. That’s not exactly a brand that we would want to actually take some pride in. It’s an embarrassing brand.

One of the first things that was done with the new government was reflecting the will of election campaign promises of both the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens to ban big money. What was truly remarkable is that the B.C. Liberals voted against that as well. They voted against banning big money in provincial politics. Talk about self-serving, the gall.

To be in this Legislature, today again…. We listen to B.C. Liberal after B.C. Liberal go on about how somehow this proportional representation campaign is self-serving, after they voted against the bill to ban big money, at first reading of this bill. Without even having the opportunity to see what was in the bill, they voted at first reading against taking big money out.

Bill 53 complements Bill 3, the Election Amendment Act, 2017, which was passed and which again, as I pointed out, was voted against by the B.C. Liberals. It also complements Bill 15, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, which was passed in the fall of last year as well, which took big money out of local government elections. So big money is now gone from provincial elections, from local government elections and from school board elections. What’s happening right now is that the final aspect of that is being closed — in recall and initiative campaigns.

When this bill was introduced, my office put out a press release applauding this bill. What was stated in our press release — and attributed to quotes which I gave — was: “Recall campaigns should be about making politicians accountable to their constituents, not to making them subject to big money–funded hit jobs.” That was one of the quotes I gave for that. Another quote I suggested was: “These rules will apply to both proponents of recall campaigns and politicians who are attempting to stay in power.” It’s conveniently forgotten by members opposite that big money can be used not only by a proponent of a recall campaign but by a defendant in a recall campaign. That is being cleared up in this particular legislation.

This legislation will assure that a sufficiently motivated electorate is able to recall their elected officials without risking the process being corroded by the influence of big money. Politicians should be accountable to voters, plain and simple. Unions, corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals should not have a disproportionate say in our democracy, whether they support an elected official or the recall campaign against that elected official. Right now, any person, any union, any corporation — any entity anywhere in the world — can give any amount of money, any time they want, to any recall campaign. I think we don’t want that. I truly think we don’t want that here.

As I said in our press release, I am disappointed, although not surprised, that the B.C. Liberals voted against this legislation. This is the same party that refused to act while our province was internationally derided as the Wild West of political fundraising, only to make a 180 reversal in their summer of 2017 throne speech, in a desperate attempt to cling to power.

It’s remarkable that the official opposition continues to fail to understand that democracy should reflect the views of citizens as equal members of society, not the ability of special interests who happen to have slightly deeper pockets.

Coming back to this legislation. Under the Recall and Initiative Act, when a recall petition is issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, the voter becomes the proponent of the recall petition and has up to 60 days to garner signatures and submit the petition for verification.

There have been 26 recall campaigns that went through. The 27th was actually not followed through on, because the actual MLA at the time resigned before votes were counted. No recall campaign has been successful. One, where the proponents thought that they had enough signatures, turned out not to be successful — because, as we know with petitions, you’re in a mall somewhere and anybody can sign, and of course, you have to be in the riding that you were. In fact, after they counted, a substantial number of the votes were deemed to be ineligible, and it was not successful. So there has not been a successful recall campaign.

It’s remarkable, again, that the member for Vancouver-Langara suggested that there was one. He suggested that in fact there was a successful one. There was not. Again, alt-facts. This is very similar to what we’re seeing in the self-serving discussion by the opposite side about proportional representation.

As mentioned, a voter can only petition to recall the member for the electoral district in which they are registered to vote. That doesn’t stop people anywhere in the province, any corporation, donating any amount of money to that initiative, right now. But that will change. We also know that there’s a very high bar in recall campaigns. Forty percent of voters eligible to sign the petition in that electoral district must actually sign. If the petition meets the criteria, a by-election must be called within 90 days.

Now, I know that the B.C. Liberals are all salivating about the opportunity to have a recall campaign — a recall campaign here and a recall campaign there.  The reality, I suggest, is that they should actually be worrying about recall campaigns in their own ridings, based on their performance in this Legislature over the last session — where we have spent almost 36 hours debating a bill that is actually being debated solely in the self-interest of a party that is made up of multiple factions that are clearly warring within themselves.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: They’re warring within themselves. You can hear it in the banter in this room. It’s a party that’s afraid of the future, a party that is afraid of British Columbians actually having a say in their own democracy — because they might not like what the outcome is.

No other Canadian jurisdiction provides a legislative framework for voters to remove an elected member from office. We are unique here. Successful petitions, as we note, do result in the immediate removal of an MLA. A recall petition cannot be initiated until at least 18 months after an MLA is elected. In the present case, that date would be November 10. It’s incredibly easy for a citizen to initiate a recall campaign. You basically need a 50-buck processing fee and a statement not exceeding 200 words setting out why, in the opinion of the applicant, the recall campaign is warranted.

We have an initiative…. It’s very similar for initiatives. I’ll come to that in a second. We still have an initiative that just stopped — an initiative to basically stop Site C. I don’t know what happened to that, because we still haven’t seen the signatures. It didn’t get a lot of attention.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, we have no idea. I never saw that.

Anybody can do these. That’s the point I’m raising. Whether they’re successful or not, anyone can do it. The point of the matter is that what’s being done here is that certain rules are applied to ensure that vested interests — that have been so embraced by the former government, now official opposition — cannot use their deep pockets to actually influence.

I do note the time, though, and I reserve my right to continue my position in debate.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Text of Speech (Part 2)

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party.

Leader, Third Party.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I continue my place in this debate after the demotion I just received over lunch.

For those in Hansard, I was introduced as the House Leader, Third Party instead of the Leader of the Third Party.

Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Third Party.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I rise again to continue my place as designated speaker from the Third Party on Bill 53, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018.

I want to summarize where I left off at the last, just before lunch. As I left off, we were standing here in this Legislature essentially debating this. On the one side of this House, we have a party and a third party — a government and a third party — who are supporting legislation which will eliminate big money from recall campaigns and initiatives. What that’s saying is that this act — that is, the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act — will come into compliance, in essence, or come in to be similar to the elections act — which the Liberals voted against, mind you — to ban big money from B.C. politics.

Now, what the official opposition is arguing, in summary, to this is they’re arguing against this bill. In essence, this is what they’re saying. They’re defending the ability of one individual or one corporation with deep pockets to spend millions of dollars because he or she may have a personal grudge against an MLA. They’re aggrieved by the affronts to democracy that this would have by not allowing one individual with a grudge against an MLA or one individual with a grudge against a government’s policy to be able to spend their millions to actually recall an MLA or put forward an initiative.

You know, members opposite laugh. I mean, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who seems to find this all very funny, should probably spend more time talking to British Columbians about how happy they were that big money was finally from B.C. politics. Let’s see him defend and stand up there, stand up and defend the fact  that they, the B.C. Liberals, continue to argue that it is okay. A year after we banned it from B.C. elections, they continue to argue that it is okay for a corporation to intervene in our electoral process and spend millions of dollars because they don’t like an MLA or they want an initiative. This, to the B.C. Liberals, is democracy. On this side of the House, we’re saying: “Enough of that.”

You clearly — you being the B.C. Liberals — have learned nothing from the last election. You have not listened to British Columbians for the last year and a half. You continue to think that British Columbians think it is okay that you seem to see that your only goal in this Legislature is to stand and complain about the fact that you’re in the opposition. At some point…

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member. Through the Chair.

A. Weaver: …the B.C. Liberals need to recognize that they’re in a time-out, that they’re going to be sitting in opposition for a long time. As soon as they come to realize that, they might actually start to debate issues that matter here in the province of British Columbia, not issues that come to the foundation of their existence as a party and their quest for power.

I cannot believe this. They seem not to have learned anything. They seem to not recognize that people in British Columbia are cynical about the B.C. Liberal approach to politics. They seem to not recognize that it is not okay for friends and donors to that party — through you, hon. Speaker, the other party that’s not on this side of the House…. It is not okay for them to have corporate donors give them hundreds of thousands of dollars and then them make decisions — some of which I hope to explore in the weeks and months ahead — that are clearly not in the best interests of British Columbians but are clearly in the best interests of the donors to the party making those decisions.

This is what we’re hearing. We’re hearing a defence of the status quo from a couple of years ago, the status quo that put opposition where they are. In the debate, their critic to this file, the member for Vancouver-Langara, did not once mention the fact that this bill is actually banning big money. His remarks to the debate were a diatribe, a continuation of the 36 hours we’ve had to sit here and listen to the drivel — yes, drivel — misinformation, alternate facts emanating from members opposite as they try to campaign on a quest of fear over proportional representation.

Again, they clearly haven’t understood that in British Columbia, the largest voting demographic are the millennials now. The largest voting demographic are the millennials. And what they don’t understand is that millennials are voting out of hope — the hope expressed by the two parties over here working together. They are not reacting to the fear of a dynasty from the last century, struggling to find a mandate for itself, unable to define who they are but united under one quest — the quest for power.

They have the gall at times to suggest that ride-hailing not being brought in — it’s going to be brought in this fall; it’s not being brought in now — was somehow not their responsibility.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

A. Weaver: I sat in this Legislature, and not once, not twice, but three times brought in a private member’s bill. They had every opportunity to enact to bring in ride-hailing three years ago. But ah, they didn’t do it. Why? Because as I pointed out before lunch, the cynical framework that governs the party opposite is one in which it is all about power.

Heaven forbid they actually bring in ride-hailing in the lead up to the 2017 provincial election and alienate a few key ridings south of the Fraser that they were hoping to get. Fortunately, they were trumped out by removing some tolls on those same ridings. But nevertheless, it wasn’t brought in. There is simply no high ground for the members opposite on this file. In fact, it’s almost humorous when they bring it forth.

Coming back to this Recall and Initiative Amendment Act. Again, we’re seeing nothing more than consistency here, eliminating the ability of big money to influence politics in B.C. in its final form.

Coming to some of the changes that I outlined earlier that are happening. We know that the Election Act was amended last year and that this area, this particular component, the Recall and Initiative Act, was not. Right now, all that’s happening, all that’s happening…. This is what we’re debating here, not proportional representation that they’re hung up on.

Honestly, I come back to 36 hours in here. I’ve heard the same speech for 36 hours. For those riveted to Hansard, just go back and type in the words “stacked deck” and see how many of the members opposite have been reading their media lines.

Change game. I mean “rigged game.” Look up “rigged game” as well. They have a 22-year-old staffer down in the basement who is writing them speeches, and we have the puppets opposite who are reading the same speech member after member after member. It’s frankly embarrassing that we have 42 members opposite who collectively cannot write an independent speech, and we have to listen to that here.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. Let’s get back to the bill please

A. Weaver: Coming back to the financing window, we know that this act aligns financing rules for recall campaigns with the Election Act and changes that were made last year in the Election Act amendment changes last year that, of course, members opposite also voted against because, of course, they still want big money in politics.

We know that this bill before us is banning union and corporations just like has occurred in the local government elections, school board elections and provincial elections. We know that it’s setting a $1,200 limit to contributions for individual British Columbians just like exists in the Elections Act, just like exist in local governments and school boards. We know it creates a third-party spending limit of $5,000 for advertising during the recall petition period.

Frankly, these were needed changes. Frankly, I do not think it is okay if somebody with a grudge or an MLA who happens to have access to a deep corporate sponsor could somehow in the case of an MLA who can — there might be a recall campaign — perhaps go to somebody and get several $100,000 to prop up a campaign and spread disinformation.

I don’t think that is right. I don’t think it is right that the opposite could occur — that a particular vested interest could solely fund a campaign initiative in British Columbia. These are common sense changes. Again, I get these common sense changes make the Liberals feel uncomfortable. They make them feel uncomfortable because they’ve been playing by this rigged game with a stacked deck for far too long. What they’re finally seeing is that rigged game with a stacked deck is being fixed. They can’t take it.

They can’t take it because they know that the reason why they were able to remain in power and the reason why they were able to ignore British Columbians for so long was because they could appeal to their corporate donors for vast quantities of money to ensure that they got the airways filled with their message, went on character assassinations with anyone who opposed them. That’s the way they go. That’s the way they operate.

Look at where we are now. Corporate donations no longer. The B.C. Greens are nipping at the tails of the B.C. Liberals in terms of annual funding. We are not too far from them in terms of annual funding. That’s what happens when people have to support parties, not vested interests.

As I said, the bill is common sense. Only one recall campaign can exist at a time. Now, I heard the member for Vancouver-Langara somehow thinks this was an affront to democracy, clearly not even listening to his own arguments during his diatribe. On one hand, he would suggest that it’s important for people to actually have an attempt to follow through with a recall and that maybe now it might be misused. Well, in actual fact, the best way to misuse a recall campaign, as soon somebody did one, is to start three others. You’re just going to get people not knowing which petitions they’ve signed.

This is actually cleaning up a problem that existed with the GST initiative that went forward and passed — the HST one. What if we had four that were running at the same time? Four initiatives like that? How would that initiative have been successful? There would’ve been many people who signed and said, “I already signed it.” Confusion would abound. That’s commonsense rule 1. Again, B.C. Liberals hate that because it’s not the kind of status quo of their cynical party politics from the past.

Another smart change. We’re getting a prohibition of a recall petition six months before general voting day for a scheduled election. My understanding is that I think there was a recommendation for a year, but this is a compromise from what was actually asked for by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Six months makes sense. It’s kind of ridiculous to be able to have a recall campaign initiated in six months so that after you have the 30 days, you’ve got a few months left. You call a by-election, and the person basically may not even come into the Legislature, or very much. And then you swear him in; you swear him out. Back to the election. It’s consistent, again, with by-election legislation. The six-month time frame is entirely consistent with that.

Makes some positive changes, this act does, to violations of the act. And it provides the Chief Electoral Officer with regulation-making authority. What it’s not doing, despite the fact…. If you listen to members opposite, you’d think the world was going to end. Chicken Little and his or her friends opposite would suggest that the sky is falling. This bill does not provide any new protections for MLAs. It actually creates a level playing field that ensures the interests of British Columbians are front and centre, not vested corporate and union interests.

You know, 40 percent — if people wanted to make this harder, they would’ve pushed it up to 50 percent, to 60 percent. Forty percent — nothing has changed with that requirement, 40 percent of the electorate. It’s a very high threshold, a hard threshold, but it is still the only threshold that exists in Canada. We are the one jurisdiction that has that.

I don’t hear us today saying: “Let’s repeal this legislation.” I don’t hear government today saying: “Oh, let’s make it 60 percent.” I don’t hear government today saying, let’s ban donations. All I hear in this bill is government putting forward a very, very reasonable approach to protect our democracy from the influence of big money and special interests.

To conclude, I have sat here now for, it must be, two weeks listening to members opposite in question period, in speeches. It seems that they have forgotten what it means to govern in this province, what it means to be in opposition. The role of an opposition is not to try to solely argue for everything in terms of trying to actually save a party and get back into power no matter what. It’s about representing the will of the people of British Columbia.

The will of the people of British Columbia is that big money be gone out of politics here.

[Applause.]

Aw, thank you to — I don’t know whether I’m able to acknowledge somebody not sitting in their chair, but to — somebody who normally sits down in the Premier’s chair for the support of this.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Of course, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson is shocked that the Premier would support this bill.

What should be shocking to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson is the fact that they, their party, are yet again standing up before British Columbians and saying that it is okay for one corporation to donate whatever they want, because they have a grudge against an MLA, to try to out that MLA. Or it’s equally okay for the member for Kamloops–North Thompson to go to a corporation and say: “I have a recall campaign against me. Can you give me a million bucks to fund the no campaign.”

He’s essentially arguing that that’s okay. That is the essence of the argument that we have before us. The members opposite think this is funny, but what is funny is their lack of moral compass, the fact that their wind vane is broken. It’s spinning. There’s no direction. There are no values.

British Columbians don’t know what they stand for, apart from trying to get back into power to ensure that their vested corporate interests are at the table, through donations, to actually ensure that their friend’s interest, as opposed to British Columbians’ interests, are put front and centre in this Legislature in decision-making in British Columbia.

With that, I and my colleagues proudly stand in support of this bill, and I look forward to continued debate.

True to form, the BC Liberals once more stood up today and voted against taking big money out of BC Politics. Recall last year they also voted against taking big money out of our provincial election campaigns. This time it was at First Reading of Bill 53: Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2018. This bill aligns advertising and financing rules for recall campaigns with the Election Act.

I’m not sure what, if anything, the BC Liberals have learned since the last election. British Columbians were well and truly fed up with the “wild west” of BC political financing: Any person, union or corporation anywhere in the world was able to donate any amount of money to any political party any time they wanted.

Bill 53 complements Bill 3: Election Amendment Act, 2017 and Bill 15: Local Elections Campaign Financing Amendment Act, 2017 which were passed last year to ensure provincial, local government and school board elections were free from the influence of big money.

Below I reproduce the press release my office issued on this topic.

Media Release

Weaver: Taking big money out of recall campaigns will strengthen our democracy
For immediate release
October 30, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, today commended the government’s legislation that would take big money out of recall campaigns. Weaver says the legislation builds on the work the B.C. NDP government and his Caucus are doing to make the B.C. political system more responsive to voters rather than special interests.

“Recall campaigns should be about making politicians accountable to their constituents – not to making them subject to big money-funded hit jobs,” said Weaver.

“These rules will apply to both proponents of recall campaigns and politicians who are attempting to stay in power. This legislation will ensure that a sufficiently motivated electorate is able to recall their elected officials, without risking the process being corroded by the influence of big money. Politicians should be accountable to voters – plain and simple. Unions, corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals should not have a disproportionate say in our democracy, whether they support the elected official or the recall effort in any given campaign.

“I am disappointed, although not surprised, that the B.C. Liberals voted against this legislation. This is the same party that refused to act while our province was internationally derided as the “wild west” of political fundraising, only to make a 180 reversal in their summer 2017 throne speech in a desperate attempt to cling onto power. They continue to fail to understand that democracy should reflect the views of citizens as equal members of society, not the ability of special interests to pay more.”

-30-

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

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 48: Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act at second reading. This legislation seeks to improve protection for workers and the accountability of recruiters and employers. It requires the licensing of foreign worker recruiters and employers; establishes a criteria for issuing registrations; and imposes tougher penalties for recruiters and employers who violate the legislation. It also allows government to recover and return to workers illegal fees charged by recruiters. Finally, this bill creates two registries (one for foreign worker recruiters and one for employers) via a cost-free and accessible online process.

Below are the text and video of my speech in support of this bill.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in second reading debates on Bill 48, Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act, an act that’s been introduced by the minister to ensure protection for temporary foreign workers.

I rise to speak in support of this bill. Like the member for Chilliwack, we, too, raised a number of questions and concerns that I hope to see or be explored further in committee stage. Overall, I think this is good legislation and takes us generally in the right direction.

Temporary foreign workers play a critical role in our economy and our society, whether they’re working in the agriculture sector or as home care aides, whether they’re filling seasonal employment. For example, recently, many of us attended the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting in Whistler. The hotel I was staying at was clearly largely employed by temporary foreign workers from New Zealand and Australia, who clearly were coming to British Columbia to gain some experience and gain some expertise in skiing.

I have a great deal in common with them. When I was their age, I was a temporary foreign worker in Australia. I was there for a year, getting the better of the surf and the sand and the Aussie rules football. It was a very rewarding experience for me back in 1988, as I’m sure it was for those young people in Whistler today.

Temporary foreign workers play many critical roles in such trades as the seasonal employment, and for many, actually, we find that it’s a pathway for eventual citizenship. Canada, as a nation — built on the hard work of immigrants — welcomes new Canadians on an ongoing basis.

In fact, just this morning, a young boy in grade 5 at a school that was visiting this Legislature, from Glenlyon, in my riding, just literally became a Canadian citizen. This was a very big deal for him — that today, he became Canadian.

Temporary foreign workers come to B.C. through multiple programs, including the temporary foreign worker program, the seasonal agricultural worker program and the international mobility program. As the member from Chilliwack pointed out, in 2017 alone, the federal government issued over 47,000 work permits for foreign nationals destined for B.C., and 17,000 of these were temporary foreign workers.

We’re second only to Ontario in terms of the total number of temporary foreign work permits that have been issued. Industries like agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting account for nearly half of the temporary foreign workers in British Columbia — like 9,000 workers. Eighty-three percent of those permits are located in the Lower Mainland, 5 percent in Thompson-Okanagan and 4 percent on Vancouver Island.

Again, as somebody…. When I was at the University of Victoria, and my wife was also faculty there, and we had young children, we, too, took advantage of the temporary foreign worker program and were able to bring to Canada a now-Canadian, somebody who was working in Hong Kong as a nanny. She was able to come to British Columbia on such a caregiver program and spend three years with us before becoming a Canadian citizen. Now she’s married here. She’s contributing to the Canadian economy. Her husband is here as well.

We benefited greatly, as a family, from being able to bring a temporary foreign worker here. I’m sure other members in this chamber have similar stories about the importance of temporary foreign workers.

One of my son’s friends had very serious health issues and required 24-hour care — his father did, rather — in the home. And, again, that care was provided by live-in, temporary foreign workers, 24 hours a day. Again, it was simply not possible to find the people, Canadians, who would be able to or willing to serve in such a capacity. Again, in this case, we had a loving home. Temporary foreign workers come, spend a few years, are now Canadian and contributing to our economy and bringing their rich, diverse cultures to Victoria, in this case, but British Columbia and Canada in general.

However, not everyone has the kind of employer that provides a nurturing, safe environment. Temporary foreign workers can be amongst some of the most vulnerable in our society. In a new country, many will face a language barrier. They may be unfamiliar with their rights and our laws, and they are at risk for exploitation and abuse.

For this reason, the legislation before us is important to support, because it addresses this particular aspect. It begins to put in place a means and mechanism to actually ensure that temporary foreign workers are not exploited. The legislation will improve protection for workers and the accountability of recruiters and employers.

For example, it will do a couple of things. It’ll create two registries, one for foreign worker recruiters and one for foreign worker employers, via a cost-free — that’s important — on-line process. It’ll allow, also, government to recover and return to workers illegal fees charged by recruiters. In particular, government could impose tougher penalties for noncompliance, including a loss of licence or registration, financial penalties — $50,000 for an individual, $100,000 for a corporation; that’s an awful lot of money — and up to one year imprisonment. The legislation will improve government information about temporary foreign workers, and recruiters and employers will also be required to disclose their relationships with recruiter organizations in various companies.

These are important, some of these changes. We know of, or we’ve heard stories of, examples where recruiters collect a fee from temporary foreign workers. They end up working here. There are examples we’ve heard stories of where passports are held from temporary foreign workers, and exploitation sets in.

Much of this bill, obviously, is modeled after the employer standards act, and it follows the lead of other jurisdictions like Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which already have temporary foreign worker registries in place. Last week one of our press gallery, Les Leyne, reported out that B.C. is considered to be well behind the pack in upholding standards and pursuing complaints. This was reported out in one of his articles he wrote. This is important to note, that this legislation does actually deal with bringing us in line with some of the other jurisdictions.

In 2018, the B.C. budget for the Minister of Labour received a $3 million increase in funding over three years to support initiatives for compliance and enforcement, improve protections for vulnerable workers and support fair and balanced treatment of workers and employers in B.C.

Within that context, we know that the legislation coming before us is legislation that has got monies associated with it to ensure that it’s delivered in a manner that will actually meet the objective it is being put together to address. Most recruiters and employers will seek to do their best for employers. We know that. But this legislation is targeting those who try to skirt the rules a little bit to ensure that there is unsafe working and living conditions, for example, are dealt with to ensure that temporary foreign workers cannot be treated inappropriately for fear of complaining about their jobs, they might lose their jobs. So they might be sent home in debt. There is a whole bunch of issues that are being dealt with here that for which this bill is trying to ensure safe conditions exist.

This bill will require recruiters and employers who seek out and hire temporary foreign workers. Registration. They will require them to register. By doing so, the government will be able to identify and respond to bad operators for the benefit of all stakeholders involved. In essence, this levels the playing field for both employers and recruiters by addressing the few bad operators out there who take advantage of temporary foreign workers and hence, reap the benefit.

When this first came in, I feared that this bill to establish the temporary foreign worker registry would have created an unfair burden for employers — the small employers, not so much the bigger employers, but the small employers — the employer who is perhaps a spouse who is looking for help for a caregiver for their ailing partner or a family who is looking for a caregiver for their child.

Small business. I was initially concerned that this might be regulatory red tape but oversight and costs. I was reassured after receiving a briefing from the ministry that this is, indeed, not the case. In fact, the fact that is free is not a financial burden, and the fact that it’s looking like it will be an online process that will take 15 minutes or so to fill out in terms of the registry. It seems to me that that is not onerous in light of the fact as an employer of a temporary foreign worker in a caregiver capacity you already have to register for a GIC number. You have to register with CPP and EI deductions, etc. So this is relatively pale in comparison to what already exists.

Overall, I am pleased with this legislation. Again, creating a safer environment and a safer experience for temporary foreign workers will have a net positive impact on B.C. I will also agree with the member for Chilliwack who spoke about some of the work that was done by the previous government in this area.

I remember very fondly working with the then-minister of, I guess it was Jobs, now the member for Prince George–Valemount, who together and collectively, we were able to introduce legislative change to no longer make it allowable for an employer in British Columbia to require an employee to wear high heels or footwear otherwise deemed to be unsafe.

In fact, I can tell you if you go to bars around this area you will find that most people are no longer wearing high heels. Very often, people come up and are very pleased by that legislation. Government listened, government responded, and now you’ve got soft flats happening in bars across British Columbia. That’s actually an important health and safety achievement that we’ve got here.

Finally, I’ll say that I do commend the minister for looking out for workers. But I hope the minister can also recognize that we have to look out for not only temporary foreign workers but our own workers in British Columbia. The fact that British Columbia is dragging its heels in terms of introducing legislation or introducing now order-in-council to actually address the presumptive clause for mental illness in a number of professions. Frankly, we could follow the lead of some provinces and actually assume a presumptive clause for all mental illness for all workers covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

The reason being, of course, is if you have exposure to mental illness having to recant and retell your stories time and time again in order to prove that it is your workforce that actually is the result of or caused that mental illness, can be very onerous, and frankly, can be detrimental to the overall well-being and subsequent recovery of workers in B.C.

So I look forward to further efforts that the Minister of Labour will have in this regard in the weeks and months ahead

Video of Speech

Today in the legislature I rose to speak at second reading to Bill 43: Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2018.

This bill corrects a number of very minor errors in legislation that have been found over the years. Such miscellaneous statute amendment bills are considered house keeping bills that contain numerous minor changes to several existing pieces of legislation.

Below are the text and video of my not to be taken too seriously comments on Bill 43.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in favour of most aspects of Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2018.

Unlike the member for Vancouver-Langara and the Attorney General, I do believe one of the changes is very controversial, and I will come to that at a later point. Perhaps maybe I should…. Well, I’ll come to that at a later point.

This bill, like previous miscellaneous statutes bills, corrects a number of typos and errors. It’s truly remarkable that some of these have been found. I’m amazed at the level of service we have here in British Columbia — for example, the change in Assessment Authority Act, the first section, No. 1, in this bill. What it’s doing in this change…. Somebody caught the change of December 31 and suggested it be changed to December 31 — 31 to 31. I literally couldn’t tell the difference.

I asked my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands, and he couldn’t tell the difference. My colleague the member for Cowichan Valley couldn’t tell the difference. The Minister of Health couldn’t tell the difference. So what I had to do was ask the Attorney General. The Attorney General pointed out that he was advised that, in fact, the number 1 was not a number 1 in the first December 31; it was the small case for the letter “l.”

Now, there’s just no way you can tell that. I have no idea, because they are identical, how somebody was able to find that. That person, if that person reports to the Attorney General, needs a pay raise, because this is just unbelievable, the level of accuracy in our legislation.

You know, I think I’m going to pull across right to the very controversial section at this phase, and that is section 21 in this bill. Now, it is controversial at its fundamental level. What section 21(b) says here…. Well, the first part’s not. Section 21 is a change to schedule C. It says, “in the description of Coste Rocks Parks by striking out ‘1 hectares’ and substituting ‘1 hectare'” instead. Now that, I agree, is not controversial. Clearly, “one” is not plural, so it is correct, actually, to have the singular form of hectare.

However, look at the second change, that “BC Hydro Plan plan” should be changed and struck out and replaced with “BC Hydro Plan.”

Now, I remember in the leadership debates, in the lead-up to the last campaign, that there’s a very subtle difference between the word “plan” and the number you use. I remember accusing the B.C. NDP at that time of having a plan to develop a plan to come up with a plan on MSP reform. I asked the now Premier in the leadership debate: “Is what you’re saying that you have a plan to develop a plan to come up with a plan?” He responded: “Yes.”

Here, we’re talking about a B.C. Hydro plan plan. So I’m not so sure that we can so glibly assume that this is a minor correction in light of the fact that maybe we need a plan for a B.C. Hydro plan and maybe we need a plan to come up with that plan to develop a B.C. Hydro plan. I look forward to exploring this at committee stage, and I do ask the Attorney General to bring in senior officials from B.C. Hydro to justify the use of the removal of the word “plan” in its second case there.

We move forward in this. Of course, there are some important changes, like we see in section 2. Heaven forbid we leave “local” un-italicized. That’s been corrected. Thank you. Section number is incorrect. That’s very important.

You know, this is shocking. This one is really shocking. Not as shocking, actually, as the fact that in section 1, the error in having the small case “l” instead of the number 1 has been in place since 1980. For 38 years, we have had December 3″l” — small cased — and not December 31 — 38 years.

Do we have to go back and look at every reference in our history of law here to whether that was invoked and ensure that it was invoked correctly? But no….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Wonderful.

The good news here is the changes are applied retroactively to 1980, so we’re safe.

In terms of another issue that was really troubling to me — it’s troubling to me that this actually happened — under the 16 years of rule by the B.C. Liberals, I would have thought that they’d have recognized the difference between American spelling and Canadian spelling.

Here we have in the Clean Energy Act — an act brought in by the previous government — the use of the word “fueling” with a single “l,” instead of a double “l.” It’s unacceptable for a representative of Her Majesty the Queen to be using single l’s in the word “fuelling” and “fuelled.”

What’s next? Is “travelled” going to have one “l”? Is “modelling” going to have one “l”?

Interjections.

A. Weaver: What’s happening to our English language here in this Legislature today? I sympathize with the members opposite who are saying, “Shame, shame,” to this.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Even the Liberals have two l’s, as pointed out by the member for Penticton, who’s really not supposed to heckle from the back when he’s not sitting in his chair, but I liked it. Thank you for that.

Moving forward, we have a couple of changes here, where “an” was inadvertently written, and “a” has replaced “an” to correct it. I totally appreciate that. There  is, actually…. I’m surprised we haven’t spawned a delegation from the province of Quebec. I’m concerned that we haven’t actually seen the francophone society of British Columbia up in arms about section 7 where the accent ague was left off économie. Instead of saying économie, it’s “economie.” What are we saying to our French British Columbians when we are so lackadaisical that we don’t take care of the application of the accents? It’s just outrageous, shocking, but I’m glad that it’s being fixed.

There are a few more examples, where “an” was changed to “a” — very important. We’ve got a typo here — a typo that I make myself sometimes. In section 12, we see the International Commercial Arbitration Act has an important spelling mistake. They spelled “usable” as u-s-e-a-b-l-e  — a classic error — and it should be u-s-a-b-l-e. Anyone who plays Scrabble will  know that that’s a no-no, trying to get rid of your extra “e,” no less.

We have others, in terms of the Local Government Statutes (Housing Needs Reports) Amendment Act, we’ve got a missing “R” there. The “S.B.C.” was supposed to be “R.S.B.C.” Who knows what they were referring to with “S.B.C.”?

We’ve got some renumbering of sections in section 14, a small addition in section 15. We’ve added the word “provisions” in section 16. It says here: “one or more of this Act.” Who wrote that? Who wrote this Mortgage Brokers Act so that it just said: “one or more of this Act”? What does that mean? Thank heavens we now know what it means. It’s actually “one or more provisions of this act” — a critical, critical addition that ensures that we actually are accurately dealing with this.

I’m really pleased to see the Parental Liability Act was updated. Heaven forbid we didn’t italicize the letter “y” in front of “young offenders.” That clearly has misled British Columbians. There’s another in the Water Act that wasn’t italicized. There are many of these.

Another one that, frankly, I think is quite shocking — I believe this is from the dark era of the 1990s. In the Resort Municipality of Whistler Act, there’s an incorrect use of the word “which” instead of “that.” Thank goodness that the people who review legislation have caught the more appropriate use of the word “that” instead of “which.” I am glad to see that that is changed here.

Most of these are pretty pale. Again, coming back to the egregious error by the B.C. Liberals with respect to the two l’s, even in 2004, they were making that mistake, where they started talking in the Wildfire Act of “fuelling” with a single “l” instead of a double “l,” and “fuelled” with a single “l” instead of a double “l.”

With the changes, I’m sure that grammaticists from north to south and east to west, not only in British Columbia but across our beautiful nation, subjects who revere the monarchy will recognize that these changes are actually at the essence of what it means to be Canadian.

With that, I do thank the minister for bringing them forward. I’m particularly grateful that some of these are brought forward retroactive to the year 1980, two retroactive to the dark ages of the 1990s and 1997 and one to 2016.

The only thing I feel sorry for in this debate is that I don’t get to listen to the comments and the remarks from the member for Nanaimo, who went and got himself elected yesterday and now appears not to be coming back to this Legislature.

I do thank the minister for bringing this forward. With all seriousness, this is important work that our legislative team does. It’s important to have bills that are factual and correct. Obviously, I support this. I commend the work that’s done to find that, particularly…. A pay raise for the person that found the “l” instead of the “1.” That one was a toughie.

Video of Speech