Today in the Legislature I rose to provide my response to the BC NDP government’s Speech from the Throne. The throne speech focused largely on identifying the advances that have already been made and pathways forward to build on those advances for the betterment of British Columbia. I spoke in strong support of the throne speech as outlined in the text and video of my response (reproduced below).

Text of My Response

A. Weaver: Thank you to the members of government here who give a little applause as I rise as an independent member to speak in strong support of the throne speech we heard yesterday.

Before I start, I wish to acknowledge and thank government for raising and acknowledging the passing of a number of friends and constituents: Al Martin, a neighbour, a conservationist, a friend, a great British Columbian; Nils Jensen, former Oak Bay mayor, a friend, a great British Columbian; Eli Pasquale, who went to UVic at the same time as me and was in the rival basketball team, as I was in the rival rugby team, who passed away at the young age of 59 — his number 13 has been retired at the University of Victoria — and of course, Paul Fraser, who we all know in this Legislature, who I became very close to over the years. He will be a great loss to all of us and British Columbia in general.

I’d like to start by addressing some of the issues in the throne speech. Now, with respect to the throne speech, it’s quite clear that the throne speech focussed largely on identifying the advances that have already been made and pathways forward to build on those advances for the betterment of British Columbia. Government has, in its throne speech, mentioned that it has already got big money out of politics and strengthened lobbying rules.

As the former leader of the B.C. Green Party, I feel very strongly that these are quite good policies and take great pride in the role that we played in working with government in ensuring that transparency and getting big money out of politics was done early in the term.

I would like to address, before I move on, an issue raised by the member for Kelowna West with respect to closing trade offices. Now, again I’m going to commend government for doing precisely that and doing what virtually every other province in Canada does, which is recognize that you are not a province in isolation of a country and your trade offices should be embedded in national offices to ensure that you capitalize on national opportunity, for which British Columbia has strategic advantage.

The fact that the previous government went rogue alone is quite remarkable. There are still many questions left as to what value was ever achieved from those multi-million-dollar leases for trade offices that were only used for British Columbia. So I commend government for their moves in this regard, and I think many fiscally responsible people will also look at that as a great achievement. It will not affect trade, and if anything, it will expedite the passage of information between provinces and the nation of Canada and enhance trade with our beautiful province.

To health care. I’m very proud of what government has done and the small role we’ve played in some of this — in the issues of MSP, for example. This is one that I personally take great pride in, for it was about five or six years ago that I stood in this Legislature and announced that the B.C. Greens would eliminate MSP as part of our campaign promise.

We feel we deserve a bit of credit for getting both parties — both the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP — to recognize that public support for the elimination of MSP was so strong that really you couldn’t go forward into an election without making that a form of a campaign promise. To see it come to fruition is very, very satisfying, and I thank government for making that happen.

Government has taken the approach, a wise approach in my view, to recognition that, at times now, when capital is cheap, that is the time you use capital to invest in the province. We’re seeing funding of new hospitals and primary care centres. We’re seeing funding of new schools. And I’ll come back to that in a second. This is the time to do it, when the capital is cheap. I think that government deserves a good deal of credit for its ventures down this avenue.

I’m still hoping and still working with government to ensure that they recognize that each and every school and hospital that is built should be viewed through the eyes of innovation, as an opportunity for innovation, to showcase British Columbia technologies, British Columbia–engineered products — we’ve heard that in the throne speech today — as well as British Columbia energy efficiency and British Columbia renewable power.

We’ve got new diagnostic machines and funding for more health care professionals. I can tell you that one of the most important pieces of change that government has done in the last two years in the health care file is opening access to MRIs 24-7.

I personally have benefitted from that, and my wife has benefitted from that as well — many times, in fact. The months and months that people had to wait for diagnostic tools like MRIs was unacceptable, and the steps taken by Minister Dix in this regard truly deserve a lot of credit. We see money going into mental health services. We see money going into funding more professionals, seniors getting direct care.

On the issue of affordability, despite the rhetoric I just heard from the member for Kelowna West, government has done a remarkable job in delivering on the affordable file. We’ve seen a slow tempering of the market, a decrease at the higher end of the market in Vancouver – not a collapse, a tempered decrease, exactly the type of tempered decrease the market can absorb. Much of that artificial speculation that occurred has been tempered. Housing is becoming more affordable, and I look forward to working with government, along the lines as we did with the speculation and vacancy tax, as we move forward to deal with other rental and tenancy issues.

In particular, the speculation tax, which many in this room, including me when it was first introduced, felt was not thought through completely. The final implementation of that, I would argue — and I believe the Minister of Finance would, too, after many hundreds of hours of negotiations back and forth – is working. It’s working so well that there are jurisdictions like Tofino, like West Vancouver, that are asking to be included in such speculation tax to deal with this.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I am hoping….

Yes, to the member who said “Really?” Yes, really. It’s actually….

There are other issues that I would like to, hopefully, see addressed as we move forward in this session with respect to rental, tenancy act issues. You know, one of the things I would like to explore is the notion — and I will be doing this on my blog shortly to get a sense of public opinion — that there is unfairness in the present system right now.

Let us suppose I live in Ontario, and I have a vacation condo in Victoria, and that vacation condo happens to be in a strata that has a “no rental” clause. Well, guess what? I don’t pay the vacancy tax because there’s a no rental clause in my strata. However, if I was the same person’s neighbour in Ontario and I had a vacation condo in a strata that allowed rentals, I would be subject to the speculation tax unless I rented it.

In my view, what we need to do in this province in a timely fashion is follow the lead of Ontario. In Ontario, they’ve eliminated the ability of strata councils to actually have no rental clauses attached to them. But in doing so, they allowed stratas to enable the banning of limited rentals – i.e., Airbnb or vacation rentals – and at the same time, grant to strata council the powers of eviction – the idea being that if there is an absent landlord, who is actually not looking after the property, council has the powers of eviction.

This, in and of itself, will create a vast amount of units. We don’t need to build more empty units. We can go to Metrotown in Burnaby. There are skyscrapers of empty units, with no rental clauses. What we need is we need units to be used. This, in my view, would be the single most important policy that I hope government will deliver upon in this coming session.

I’m also excited by the words that we saw in the throne speech about ICBC and the reforms that are forthcoming. Now, I recall in September of 2017, very shortly after Minister Eby took the role of Attorney General, he stood and he spoke out and said: “I’m not considering no-fault insurance.” At the time, I issued a press release, and I said: “Why would he do this?” Why would you take off the table ideas before you’ve actually looked at the books? Why would you not look at the model from Manitoba, having some of the lowest rates in the country, where they have a no-fault system?

We have the analogy in Saskatchewan, which is slightly different – and I know members from opposition will at some point raise it – in Saskatchewan it used to be no fault, and why over 90 percent of people in Saskatchewan are still no fault, the reason why is because it was no fault for a long time, and then they were allowed to potentially soon opt out of that, at a later date, and only a very few people did.

I think this approach to no fault is certainly going to be one that will get to the bottom of the books of ICBC. I mean, it’s a file that really has been neglected for some time by members of the opposition. I think they have to be very careful when they speak and try to pass blame on the present government in light of what they left behind. I think, in the words of the Attorney General, “a dumpster fire,” it was described as.

Education. You know, we come back to the economy. Again, I know the B.C. NDP like to be branded by the B.C. Liberals as bad for the economy. But we’ve had already balanced budget after balanced budget, and I’m convinced the next budget will be balanced with the triple-a credit rating being maintained and the strongest economy in the country. People want to live here. They want to come to British Columbia. Why? Because we are the most beautiful place in the world to live. We have a strong stable democracy, and we can offer everything.

Schools. Our school system in British Columbia is one of the top in the world. It ranks in the top five year after year in the international PISA assessments, ahead of the much-touted Finland, ahead of the much-touted Quebec. We are the very best. We have some of the best schools and best teachers in the province, and government now has invested substantively in more services for schools as a direct consequence of having to implement the rulings of the Supreme Court.

That, frankly, wasted a decade and, frankly — I’ve said this publicly — has led to a decade of children, a whole generation of children, not getting the services they needed at the times they needed in their early developmental years. From 2001 to 2017, for those 17 years, a generation of school children had their child psychologists cut, their speech pathologists cut, the in-class help cut, class size increases.

What would you expect as a result of that? Well, what you would expect is that as those children age out into adulthood, you’d start to see troubles in society. And lo and behold, guess what, delayed, down road, we’re dealing with an opioid crisis. We’re dealing with a homeless problem and an out of control….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It is not a far reach.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It’s interesting. One of the members opposite, who is a teacher, doesn’t clearly understand the research in education.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, clearly you don’t, because it is very clear that the interventions in early years of child education are absolutely critical to put the children, particularly in their K-to-3 years, on the right paths for success. If you don’t catch it early, you have to pay down the road. That falls squarely on the B.C. Liberal government.

To the First Nations, I was very proud to be part of this collective group. There is no one individual. Collectively, the passing of UNDRIP legislation last year. I’m looking forward to seeing how that moves forward.

We see in the throne speech words about safety and policing. We see about increased diversity and inclusion and how a human rights commission has now been improved. There’s talk in the throne speech about what’s being done in the arts and culture and museums. Transport and rural development were there.

One of the key things that has been done — again, I’m very pleased with this; this is something we’ve been advocating for, for a long time — is the beginning of taking high-speed broadband into rural communities. You want to stimulate the economy of rural communities? It’s not going to happen until you bring broadband in.

The only way we’re going to compete in the resource world is not to just dig dirt out of the ground and think, somehow, we’re going to beat, say, Indonesia, which doesn’t internalize the social and environmental externalities we value here. The way we do that is we’re smarter, more efficient and cleaner. We do that by bringing the technology sector together with the resource sector. We do that by focusing on the value-added. We do that focusing on efficiency, cleaner and selling those technologies elsewhere, like MineSense, Axine or others. I was so very pleased, so very pleased to see that recognized in this throne speech as a direction this government is going.

I feel that this government is on the right track. It understands where the future of our economy is. It doesn’t lie in continuing to dig dirt out of the ground. It never will. It lies in innovation. It lies in the harvesting our resources in innovative ways by bringing the tech sector together with that.

You know, a member opposite lauded the $2.7 billion surplus that the last Liberal government left, and seemed to think that that was a good thing. It’s remarkable that this was actually raised — that this $2.7 billion number was touted as a good thing to have as a surplus — when we have the highest child poverty rates in the country, when we have over a decade with disability and welfare rates not being increased, where we have homelessness getting out of control and we have a $2.7 billion surplus. It’s outrageous fiscal mismanagement at its very, very worst.

The Liberals, who claim to be these managers of fiscal prowess, actually demonstrated fiscal incompetence in their budgeting in that last year. We see that not only in the $2.7 billion surplus, but we see that in the money-laundering issue going on, we see that in the out-of-control speculation in the real estate market, and we see that with what has happened to some of our most vulnerable, as they’ve been on the streets.

So I say that B.C. Liberals, as I said a while back, needed to be put in a time-out for some time. I’m still convinced that that time-out is not over yet. There needs to be a longer time-out until such time as the opposition starts to recognize that you have to govern for the people of this province, not for those who are your funders, not for the elite, not for the 1 percent. If you start governing for the 1 percent, you end up seeing what we see all around us today.

We see very disturbing trends emerging. We see society splitting into two ways. We see the kind of Trump, and we see the anti-Trump. We see these two kinds of polarizing views of society, the Trump far right and the anti-Trump, almost anarchist. This is a very, very dangerous situation that the world is moving towards. It does not help when we polarize this place and continue to suggest that one side is far better than the other. We must, for the betterment of all our society, start to recognize that we are in turbulent times.

When unruly mobs like this feel like they’re not being heard, it doesn’t lead well. We have ample, ample examples in human history about how it ends up. I don’t need to do history lessons here. The way it ends up is when income inequality gets out of control — when, for those who have, compared to those who don’t have, that gap grows more and more — that sows the seeds for discontent. Each and every time in human history where that has happened, revolution has occurred.

We don’t want that to happen in Canada. We’re a nation of peaceful people. We’re a nation built on immigrants. We’re a nation of openness and of multiculturalism, of awareness, of progressive policies.

We must govern for everybody and recognize that there are some in our society who have a bit too much — maybe some of them have earned it hard; some of them have just inherited it — and there are some who have just lost the lottery of life. It’s not like they knew they were going to be born into poverty. They just lost the lottery of life. Others might have been born into and won the lottery of life. That doesn’t mean you’re a better or a worse person.

As legislators, in my view, it behooves us to recognize that we have a duty to ensure that society is stable, that we actually help those who need the help, and that we say, to those who have some more: “You know what? Our society, collectively, is better if you give us a little bit more to help those who don’t, because we know what happens in human history if the elite go off over here and everyone else is down here.”

You might want to ask: “What happened in Russia?” Or you could talk about the French Revolution. You could talk about myriad examples like this around the world. This is not what I want to see British Columbia and Canada become.

Coming down to the direct quote from the speech. I want to read this, because to me…. I was blown away, to be blunt. I was very pleased to see this. Directly from the speech, it says this:

A strong economy cannot be built on a foundation of rampant real estate speculation. It cannot be won in a race to the bottom, with minimum standards and fewer workplace protections. And it cannot be gained through windfall profits earned on the backs of low-wage workers.

Instead, a strong economy comes from good-paying jobs that raise family incomes and everyone’s standard of living. It is built with quality public services as a cornerstone, services that help B.C. grow, attract and keep its skilled workforce.

“A strong economy is rooted in competitiveness, a necessary ingredient for success in today’s global marketplace. And it is in harmony with government’s commitments to fight climate change and achieve meaningful reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

“These are the values that guide this government’s actions to build a sustainable economy that puts people first. The challenges we face, from worsening weather to global economic headwinds, make this work more urgent than ever.”

I’ll stop there and pause there and say that those words are remarkable. It is essentially saying, in the throne speech, that government gets what the challenges are. Then it moves on to say how it plans to deal with those challenges.

“As this government charts a new course to a low-carbon economy, powered by CleanBC, British Columbians can rest assured that not only will we weather these storms; we will create the conditions for people and industry to thrive.”

“CleanBC is a critical part of this government’s strategy to grow a sustainable economy with good jobs and opportunities for people. It’s been one year since CleanBC was launched, and British Columbians are starting to see that the way to a cleaner, better future is by innovating and working together.”

The change that has happened in one year is remarkable, whether it be as simple as just saying: “Look at how many electric vehicles there are….” Now, you might say: “Oh, electrics vehicles. Whatever.” That’s stimulating the economy. We have B.C. builders of electric vehicles.

We now have Harbour Air seeing the opportunity and seeing British Columbia with the signal that this government has sent, the signal that it sent to the world, that we want to be leaders in clean tech. Harbour Air, the first electric airplane in B.C. This is what you get.

We have Corvus building batteries now for Norwegian ships. We have Portable Electric building diesel generator replacements. Innovation in British Columbia is growing, and the single-biggest seed for that innovation is signals that governments can send saying: “We’re here to support you and nurture you.”

The creation of the innovation commissioner — one of my very dear platforms — has been very, very successful as well. If you track the additional moneys British Columbia is now levering out of Ottawa, we historically have been dreadful — and it falls squarely on the B.C. Liberals — at leveraging the pools of money that exist in Ottawa if you have matching funds here in British Columbia.

One of the first things, in discussions with the innovation commissioner, we talked about was ways to actually lever that. It’s happening now. That bodes well for innovation, and that bodes well for the B.C. economy.

You know, it further says here…. Well, it said in the speech…. It talked about the innovation commissioner as well. Also, it talks about that the government is going to have plastics action plan and climate adaptation plan. It’s pretty clear that the government is taking this issue seriously and that it will work with business to promote B.C. businesses as competitive suppliers of low-carbon products. There’s a lot in those small words.

We know that there are consumers out there who want to buy products that are low carbon. We know there are businesses who want to be viewed as benefit companies, which the legislation that was passed by government…. Well, I guess it was my legislation that we all passed. These small signals actually have much greater influence and emphasis on what actually happens in our economy. We’re seeing that now.

We see that government has a potential here to actually stimulate. It’s mentioned in the throne speech that it plans to do that by saying: “Okay. We as government can’t tell you what to do unless we’re willing to model the leadership we expect in others.” Government is going to start using, where possible, B.C.-based engineered wood products in its construction.

Government could continue to advance this by focusing its procurement process on B.C. innovation in a diversity of areas, and I’m convinced that that will happen as we move ahead.

You know, I don’t want to dwell on LNG, because, to be perfectly blunt, I will believe it when I see it.

I know we’re having fights over the Coastal GasLink pipeline. I know people are touting LNG Canada and the, let’s say, $40 billion investment — which it really isn’t because most of that’s being built in Asia and brought up on tide line and then getting steel tariff exemptions, etc.

However, the market for LNG is in the dumps. It doesn’t make fiscal sense right now, and I still will argue that you might get something at some point, but I wouldn’t be counting your pennies on getting any money from LNG. The deep-well credits, $3.2 billion accrued to be used against future royalties…. I mean, there are no royalties coming from natural gas in our province.

The construction of Site C, of course, means that we the ratepayers, not the ratepayers in Kelowna, mind you, because they’re with Fortis…. We the ratepayers in other parts of B.C. are going to end up paying 15 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity that we sell to LNG Canada for 5 cents and change a kilowatt hour. We know that there is going to be no LNG income tax act, so we know they’re going to get exemptions from carbon tax increases.

This scale of subsidy, in my view, is unacceptable. But even given that, I’ll stand here and say I don’t believe LNG will ever be delivered out of Kitimat, because the market simply will not be there. For these multi-billion-dollar companies, they kick the can — $1 billion here, $10 billion there. That’s the cost of doing business. Let’s see what actually happens down the road.

You know, I’ve been to a number of natural resource forums over the years. I’ve been a strong proponent of mining in this province, but again, mining in this province, as articulated and realized in the throne speech…. We will never compete by just going in with a pickaxe and digging dirt out of the ground. We’ve got to be smarter. We get companies like MineSense doing that. We find ways and means of extracting ore in clean ways that use less energy, that use less water, that actually make us more able to reclaim the land. That could be done so more efficiently.

You can grow an economy by making it bigger, by building more stuff, or you can grow an economy by building the same amount of stuff more efficiently. That is where our success will lie, through efficiencies and cleanliness and exporting the knowledge we have developed here.

I come to B.C. Hydro, which was mentioned, albeit passingly, in the throne speech. There’s still a lot of work that needs to be done in B.C. Hydro. Over the course of this session, I hope to use my question period times to focus on specific examples, in this regard, of the opportunities that are potentially lost, as B.C. Hydro seems to be a little bit of a behemoth that needs to be reined in, in some sense, to ensure that we actually allow competition, allow innovation in the energy sector, and we allow the partnership of small projects, existing projects with users of energy as well.

Forestry — another sector that was mentioned. I’m very pleased to see that the government recently got the settlement on Vancouver Island. That’s good news. Honestly, I think it’s very rich, again…. I mean, I don’t want to dis on the B.C. Liberals. I’m reacting to the comments I heard from the member for Kelowna West, who basically hurled abuse about the forest industry on the B.C. NDP. For heaven’s sake, we lost 30,000-something jobs. We’ve known mills were closing under their watch as well.

This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that affects all of us. We need to put our collective minds together to think about how best to rejuvenate British Columbia’s forest industry. Is it really the tenure system? Does that really apply in the 21st century? I would suggest not. I would suggest that the tenure-licensing system has been the cause of the death of a lot of our forest industry. What we need to do is move to more of a temporary lease or more of a community-based approach to forest logging.

With that said, taken together, I’m absolutely thrilled to support this throne speech. I feel very pleased that some small part of that has been accomplished through the good work that was done through the collaboration that I have had and I know my former colleagues have had with a number of ministries. In my case, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance, who I held the files for, the Ministry of Attorney General, the Premier of course, the Housing Minister, Health ministers, Energy and Mines, who I’m really excited about looking forward to working with on the innovation file.

We’ve already started communication in that regard. I think this is a great appointment. The former Minister of Energy and Mines is moving to be the minister of innovation. I think that’s exactly what that ministry needs. We’re already met and ready to go.

I thank you for your attention. I look forward to a positive vote on the throne speech.

Video of Response

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

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

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

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

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

Video of Statement

Text of Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-30-

Media contact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it didn’t end there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Videos of Exchange

Text of Jesting Exchange

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

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

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, come to order.

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

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text of Premier’s Reflection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know the member would like me to go on.

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today in the BC Legislature we continued our debate on Bill 30: Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019 at committee stage. Recall from my second reading speech, this bill amends the labour relations code to make a number of changes to enhance protections for workers and implement the recommendations of an independent expert review panel.

During debate on section 6 of the bill, the BC Liberals proposed an amendment concerning when and how raids can and should be allowed for. In particular, their amendment to section 6 was designed to bring the government’s proposed changes more in line with the recommendations of the independent panel.

Supporting evidence-based policy that restores protections for workers and ends pendulum swings in the labour code have been priorities for the B.C. Greens.

My colleagues, staff and I engaged numerous stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding about the forces at play and concluded — as did the panel — that construction labour law is particularly unique. Because of these unique challenges, which include the transient versus stationary nature of the work place, we believed that it was essential to not simply pass Bill 30 legislation and move on. The construction industry and its workers deserve a thorough review; this hasn’t happened since at least 1998.

The B.C. Green caucus is in strong support of creating an independent panel mandated to address the unique realities of the construction sector, and to expand upon the recommendations of the current Labour Relations Code Review Panel. Until such an independent review is conducted, we felt it was prudent to follow the advice set out by the current review panel, and therefore supported the amendment (which allowed it to pass – see vote above). If a deeper dive identifies challenges with this, I hope that all members of the House would be prepared to support additional changes. We have heard loud and clear that there are numerous questions that remain unanswered and want to ensure a process is established that can get politicians objective analysis and recommendations to act upon.

More than anything, BC Greens believe that the legislation, which passed committee stage today, will go a long ways towards ending the ideological labour code tug-of-war that has been allowed to dominate labour code policy in BC for the past 30 years. We believe it will bring fairness, certainty and stability back to the labour code.

The BC Liberals also introduced a second amendment to section 8 of this bill that we could not support (for reasons outlined below – see vote to the left) as we believed it strayed from the intent of the independent panel’s recommendation.

While this bill took up an enormous amount of our caucus and staff time, I personally found the debates to be an excellent example of how the BC Legislature functions at its best. At all times, and at all stages of the debate, the decorum in the chamber was one of mutual respect. It was clear that Harry Bains, the BC NDP Minister of Labour and the opposition critics were passionate in their views but respectful in understanding the difference of opinions in the room.

I look forward to working with both government and the official opposition to further advance a labour policy review for the construction sector.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my speeches to the two amendments. I also provide a copy of some brief rebuttal remarks I made after the Minister of Labour spoke. At the end of this post, I reproduce the media statement our office released after the passage of the bill.

Videos of Committee Stage Debates

Text of Speech in Support of 1st Amendment

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place to speak to the amendment that was brought forward by the member for Shuswap.

As we know, Bill 30 is a unique piece of labour legislation. It’s one of the first pieces of labour law that has received the broad support of members in this House.

Over the last 30 years, we’ve watched as labour policy in this province swings back and forth like a pendulum as government changed and as ideological fights play out. Putting an end to these pendulum swings, which create instability and division, was essential for our caucus. We further believe, as a caucus, in supporting evidence-based policy that ensures the protection of workers.

In this regard, the work of the expert review panel was essential. They made balanced and thoughtful recommendations as to how we could and should update our labour code in the province of British Columbia.

The amendment before us today, brought forward by the member for Shuswap, addresses one of the very few areas where what the government brought forward in the legislation before us differs from what the panel recommended.

Over the last few months, my colleagues, staff and I engaged with numerous stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding about the various forces at play in this issue of labour policy. What we learned through extensive consultation engagement is that construction labour law in the province of British Columbia is particularly unique. Yet my colleagues and I know that we are not the experts.

What rose from our engagement is the realization as to how essential it is to not simply pass the legislation, as is amended, and to move on from these issues, but rather to take the time to look deeper into construction labour law.

There are a number of challenges facing the construction industry that we firmly believe need to be explored further, including, of course, the question raised in the amendment before us concerning when and how raids can and should be allowed for. The panel itself acknowledged that there are construction-specific issues that relate to the changing labour code.

The B.C. Green caucus understands the profoundly unique nature of the construction industry. There are a number of examples that can be given. We know, for example, that in public sector unions or public sector sites, often people are in the same place for their job — on the construction site. We know that safety is often front and centre in deliberations on the site. We know that workers move from site to site to site. We know that is a very different type of working environment than, say, a stationary environment where you work in the same place.

We understand the special challenges that exist. We understand that there are unions like CMAW, like IUOE and others who actually are end-to-end project unions. We know, also, that present rules within the B.C. Federation of Labour do not allow unions to raid other unions in the Federation. So in the spirit of fairness and openness and transparency, this, to us, must be collectively addressed.

We understand that the construction sector needs a review. We understand that changes need to be there. But we also understand that the terms of reference of the panel precluded them from singling out this sector to actually provide a separate report and suite of recommendations for the construction sector.

In our view, we accept the numerous voices that told us that what they were seeing — whether you’re a representative from a union like CLAC or a union like IUOE or a union that wasn’t in the building trade, represented by the B.C. Fed — is that they’re looking for a fair and level playing field.

That is exactly what we’re looking for, one that’s grounded in evidence, not in ideology.

I come to this again, and I say this. IUOE, an end-to-end organizing union — let us suppose, hypothetically, that they go to a construction site and recognize that on that construction site, the workers there are being represented by an additional union, and that environment is not safe. Or, perhaps, there’s a multitude of unions. The IUOE, right now, is prohibited from raiding into those areas, if said unions there already are members of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Now I come to the nurses’ union, when there was concern within the licenced practitional nurses with respect to them being represented by the health employers union. The concern was such that the licensed practition nurses felt that they would be better represented by the nurses’ union. A raid happened. The response, of course, was that the nurses’ union was kicked out of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Is that fair? Is that actually what we’re aspiring to, here in the province of British Columbia? No. I think we’re aspiring to fair and transparent workplaces — that is, fair for all, not just for the chosen few and not just for those who have stood forward and actually have stronger influence, perhaps, with government than others.

That is why we are calling on the government to undertake a comprehensive, independent review of the construction sector, in addition to supporting the amendment before us now. There does not appear, in British Columbia, to have been a comprehensive review of this industry since 1998.

Now I’m not counting the kind of — what I would argue is a very one-sided — so-called review that occurred in the early 2000s, when the Liberals took over back then, because the building trades weren’t invited to the table. I’m not accounting a self-reflective review that’s also happened.

A proper fundamental review of how labour policy should be applied in the construction sector, I think, is long overdue in this province, because we know that in other provinces in the country, like Ontario, there are a hybridization of labour laws — one that treats stationary workplaces and one that treats transient workplaces or places where you’re not on the same site every day. We cannot expect the same labour policy to apply to stationary and transitory workplaces. The fact that we’re trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole, to take bits and pieces of what the independent expert committee has recommended, is troubling to the caucus, because we appeal to experts for our advice.

We know, and we understand, and we heard from the construction sector that many of the sweeping changes that have been brought historically hurt that sector. We appreciate that. We understand that. We heard that. That is why we urge the government to commission a further sectoral review of labour laws in the construction sector. We support an independent review. We support a timely independent review, one with short time frames and one that looks at the unique realities of this sector of the economy and expands on the recommendations of the current labour relation code review panel.

In my view and in my caucus’s view, by doing this, we can ensure that we bring forward policy to this table that does create a fair, balanced, level playing field, grounded in evidence, not ideological or historical positions. I think, ultimately, that’s what most workers want. They want the opportunity for a fair and open workplace.

Until such time as this separate review can take place, we felt it was prudent to follow the advice set out by the current review panel and, therefore, support the amendment to ensure its language is reflected in this legislation. If a deeper dive identifies challenges with this, I hope that all members of this House would be open and prepared to support additional changes. Our caucus is. We’ve heard loud and clear that there are numerous questions that remain unanswered and want to ensure that a process is established that gets politicians objective analysis and recommendations to act upon.

More than anything, we believe, as a caucus, that we must end this ideological tug-of-war that has been allowed to take place in our province for far too long. It is not about union versus employer. It is not about worker versus employer. It is about doing what’s right to create a fair and balanced work environment for all workers in British Columbia. I think that that only will happen if we actually target this industry with a separate, independent, thoughtful review of the construction sector.

Further Remarks to 1st Amendment

A. Weaver: I just wanted to rise and address a couple of the comments there. I do appreciate the minister, and I think we’re very well served in British Columbia by the minister, who is very fair and open with his deliberations and so forth. I would say that, in listening to the minister’s speech there, he said a few things that were flags to me.

He talked about the fact that this was stopping workers from having a right to…. It does no such change. What we’re saying is that the expert panel recommendations were there as a suite. They were not there to pick and choose. We recognize and we’ve supported all of the recommendations. The important successorship changes — we supported that. In this particular case, what we’re saying is that we don’t think the expert panel did the work that needs to be done to carve out the construction sector and to look at that independently.

Now, the minister has suggested that he has the solution. That’s his view, and that’s fine. It’s his prerogative to have that. Our position is that we don’t have that information. We don’t have that information on which to make a decision in this area, because I suspect that the construction industry would have a lot more that might have to change if we actually went to a review.

I honestly don’t think the construction industry, in the province of British Columbia, has been served well. I don’t think they’ve been served well for many, many years. I come back to the issue that, if there are many sites, those will be represented by a multitude of other unions. But if you are a trade union — a building trade — you cannot raid into those unions. The minister says that that’s their right. It is their right, but it’s also our right as British Columbians to ensure that the playing field is level.

This is not about trying to create an us versus them — us versus CLAC or us versus Unifor or us versus the nurses. This is about recognizing that labour law must represent the diversity of views that are out there and be inclusive and respectful and grounded in evidence that will probably not get what everyone wants but builds forth to a policy that we can actually grow from, as opposed to a pendulum swinging back and forth.

That is one of our singular objectives: to ensure stability, consistency and certainty. We’re not convinced, and certainly no evidence was put for us, that with the change to the summer months, in fact, that will be maintained with an annual, as opposed to the existing recommendation within the panel.

With that, I’ll take my place.

Text of Speech against 2nd Amendment

A. Weaver: I rise to provide support to the minister with respect to his views on this amendment. We understand where the official opposition is coming from. On page 18 of the expert report — as the minister said, it is a superb report — the experts state as follows: “A successor union should be able to apply to the board to have a collective agreement reopened, and the board should have discretion to grant such relief in extraordinary circumstances, having regard to its section 2 duties. This would permit the exercise of this discretion where, for example, terms of the collective agreements are clearly inferior to the norm in the sector.”

The words there were contained in the preamble leading up to the formal recommendation. As the minister pointed out, we believe that in fact the expert panel were, in their recommendations, very thoughtful in terms of the exact usage of language. Were we to add the words “extraordinary circumstances” into the recommendation, I would suggest that this is actually going a step further, because the panel was actually quite careful in not using the words in the actual recommendation.

With that, I will take my place, noting that we will not support this amendment.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus Calls for Closer Look Into Construction Industry Labour Code
For immediate release
May 28, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. –Supporting evidence-based policy that restores protections for workers and ends pendulum swings in the labour code are priorities for the B.C. Greens, and the expert panel’s recommendations should be expanded on to address the unique challenges presented by the construction industry.

“My colleagues, staff and I engaged with a number of stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding about the forces at play and have concluded- as did the panel- that construction labour law is particularly unique,” B.C. Green party leader Andrew Weaver said. “Because of these unique challenges, we believe it is essential that we do not simply pass this legislation and move on. The construction industry and its workers deserves a thorough review, which it hasn’t had since at least 1998. The B.C. Green caucus is strongly in support of a panel mandated to address the unique realities of this sector of the economy, and expands on the recommendations of the current Labour Relation Code Review Panel.

“Until such a time that a separate review, one more focused on the challenges of the constructor sector, can take place, we feel it is prudent to follow that advice set out by the current review panel, and therefore support the amendment to ensure its language is reflected in the legislation. If a deeper dive identifies challenges with this, I hope that all members of this House would be prepared to support additional changes. We have heard loud and clear that there are numerous questions that remain unanswered and want to ensure a process is established that can get politicians objective analysis and recommendations to act upon.”

The B.C. Green caucus supports other significant provisions of this legislation, which take important steps forward to better protect workers and ensure balance in workplaces. These include:

• Extending successorship provisions to protect workers in building cleaning/janitorial services, security services, bus transportation services, non-clinical health care services, and food services;
• Improved access and protection of collective bargaining;
• Removing education as an essential service.

“More than anything, BC Greens believe this legislation will go a long ways towards ending the ideological tug-of-war that has been allowed to destabilize the province’s labour code for the past 30 years.”

These amendments are necessary adjustments to existing labour law, but there is more work to do to address the other fundamental challenges facing the economy.

“Unfortunately, what continues to be missing from the conversation is a focus on how we can adapt our labour laws to support people grappling with the changing nature of work,” Weaver said. “From increases in precarious, gig-based jobs, to the increasing use of contractors instead of employees, British Columbians are dealing with huge changes to job stability and income security, and our laws aren’t keeping up.”

The B.C. Green caucus consults with government to improve fairness for workers and ensure balance in the workplace as part of the Confidence and Supply Agreement.

-30-

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