Today in the legislature we debated Bill 5: Constitution Amendment Act 2017 at committee stage. This is a bill I spoke in favour of last week at second reading.

Below I reproduce the text and videos of two short commentaries that I offered during the deliberations of Section 1 of the Bill (the section dealing with giving the BC Greens party status).

Norm Letnick, the MLA for Kelowna Lake Country, proposed an amendment to increase the number of elected MLAs that would give party status from two (in the bill) to three (presently it’s 4). He and John Rustad, the MLA for Nechako Lakes, presented a thoughtful justification. In the end, however, their amendment did not pass.

My first commentary, reproduced below, is a response to the comments from Norm Letnick and John Rustad. My second commentary, also reproduced below, is in response to a provocative speech from Ralph Sultan, the MLA for West Vancouver-Capilano.

Video of my first commentary

Text of my first commentary

A. Weaver: I’d like to thank the member for Kelowna-Lake Country and the member for Nechako Lakes for their very thoughtful probing of this section in the legislation for us, and thank the minister and staff for their responses.

Obviously, this is a section that affects us directly as three independent MLAs that were elected as B.C. Greens in the last election. As the member for Kelowna-Lake Country has said, we are not independent. We clearly ran on a platform. We clearly articulated that platform across the province of British Columbia, and the three of us were elected on that platform, the B.C. Green platform. I agree with the member for Kelowna–Lake Country. When you run on a political platform, it’s very difficult to be viewed as independent, so obviously we support that statement.

The question boils down to three versus two versus four, and that’s what we’re debating here. When I look at this, I ask the question: What about the future? What about the next election? I am drawn by the analogy to 2001, where we had a situation — and prior to that, in the 1990s — where the Reform Party also had a number of MLAs, two MLAs sitting here in the Legislature.

I look at that, and I think that there should have been, at the time, party status for these people. The subsequent questions about whether the funding should be this or whether the names and titles should be that are very good questions. I think we can address those in different forums. So, for example, LAMC would deal with any funding issues. I agree with the member. It doesn’t really make sense for three of us to have a Deputy Whip. Like, we don’t.

I would like to put at ease the members opposite with respect to offices in Vancouver. Again, I think, ultimately, we are judged by the taxpayer. What would the taxpayer say, if the B.C. Green Party were suddenly to look at a big office in Vancouver with no MLAs sitting in Metro Vancouver? I would suggest that the jury of the public would be quite judgmental on that, so this is not something we’re actively pursuing because it’s not something, frankly, that we think is correct. If there had been four of us, and two were from Vancouver and two from Victoria, maybe a slightly different thing. In our case, we’re probably not actively pursue this.

It’s important, again, coming back to the three-versus-two to think, what about the next election? I hope that we can bring it upon ourselves to actively campaign in the upcoming referendum for proportional representation. I know that the official opposition will do this, with humble….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The former official opposition. It’s hard to take that off your….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I know, I’ve seen other MLAs in the opposition say the same thing.

I know that the government will campaign for it, as we will, obviously. I know that in the throne speech of the summer, the B.C. Liberals said they were supporting proportional representation, and there are members on record who support it as well. If we get this proportional representation passing in the fall of next year, we’ll move to a 2021 election wherein there may be a multitude of parties. Wouldn’t it be healthy for us to recognize a democracy wherein two parties can be recognized as two parties?

Now, I understand. We can’t have…. Let’s suppose two members opposite decide that they want to form the disgruntled Liberal Party, and they so register according to rules, coming up to suggesting that they should then have a question every day. Well, that’s not something that’s within the…. We have to look to precedent there, and it would start to become silly.

The precedent in the House, of course, is that when the NDP had two and when the Reform had two, there was a question a day, typically with a third party. We haven’t had four parties, and that would be a new precedent. I think we would look with the members opposite very carefully to say: “What is fair? What is truly representative?” Is it that two members are disgruntled, and now they figure they should have undue influence in this Legislature?

I’m not sure. They ran on a platform. They would have run on a platform that was a Liberal platform, but now they’re suddenly claiming to be something different. It’s a slightly different situation. I’m sure, seeing the openness of the government here to providing us legislative drafters, that this is something that we could discuss.

I believe, if we think to the future, that the number two is the correct number, in light of the history here in British Columbia. But I recognize the concerns that have been raised by both the member for Kelowna–Lake Country and the member for Nechako Lakes and agree that many of these concerns would have to be addressed. They’re hypothetical right now, but they would have to be addressed. I think that the legislation, which appeals to LAMC as well as the Legislature as a whole, could indeed address that, if that situation were to arise.

I don’t think it’ll arise till the next election anyway, because we have a big happy camp over on that side — unless, of course, we could actually end this debate if two members opposite would like to come and join the B.C. Green Party here. We’d have five and away we go.

J. Rustad: Why two? You just need one to get four.

A. Weaver: We’ll take two.

With that, I thank you, and I look forward to the vote.

Text of Ralph Sultan Commentary

R. Sultan: I think the first point to be made is that this bill is only part of a package of bills totalling four in number which, cumulatively, will change the working of democracy in the provincial government in British Columbia. I really believe that. And I accuse the government of employing a salami technique to introduce one little bill at a time and distract the argument on this one — do a discussion of LAMC or perhaps an office in Vancouver —when the grand sum total is much more far-reaching and certainly changes parliament as we know it.

I support the amendment to Bill 5 reducing from three to two the number of persons required to constitute a fully fledged political party in this House. The point is made: “Well, really. Three, five — does it really make much difference?” Well, it’s a 50 percent difference. Certainly, I think, the precedent to go to two members is very significant indeed.

The rumoured reason for this amendment, the scuttlebutt in the corridors, is that the Green Party is faced with the loss of a member crossing the floor, and they’re going to only have two members. My heavens. Therefore, we must change the laws of parliament to preserve the sanctity of the Green Party as a party with full standing. If that is indeed the reason — it’s pure speculation on my part; I would not expect either confirmation or denial of that possibility — it strikes me as being a very trivial reason and not one that should constitute the foundation of our government.

It’s also speculated — and perhaps I can speak with a little bit more personal knowledge on this matter — that some members in the…. What was the label attached? The disgruntled Liberal faction would split off and form their own parties. Indeed, the arithmetic suggests…. We have 42 sitting members, which might, theoretically, under this law, enable 21 new parties, in the extreme. A rather a radical suggestion, but legally possible, I presume.

As the member for Kelowna–Lake Country has already enumerated, and as he reminded me, even though we only have two or three members, they are entitled to party leader, House Leader, Whip, caucus chair, Deputy Whip, an office in Vancouver, members of LAMC, two questions each in QP — we’ll have to extend QP for most of the day, it appears — a certain amount of research money — and, certainly, will dilute the official opposition integrity and strength, which may, in fact, be the ultimate purpose of this amendment.

I have to point out that this fundamental change in our democratic process is being introduced at a time when the official opposition is crippled by being in the middle of a leadership campaign, and we are being distracted. I don’t think that this is time for calm reflection and judicious weighing in balance of the structure of this House when fully one half of the House is distracted with other very important functions.

Finally, have we considered — and I will pose it as a question to the Attorney — what the lessons may be from other jurisdictions? Here are five, for example, drawn from Europe. Belgium in 2010, and 11 parties in parliament. They took 581 days to negotiate a government. For the rest of the time, they really did not have a functioning government.

We’ve seen the logrolling, the midnight meetings and so on that went into the makeup of the coalition or whatever it’s called between the Greens and the NDP. Well, multiply that exponentially as we increase the number of parties we’re talking about.

Consider the Netherlands in 2017 — 208 days to form a government, a four-party coalition government involving 13 parties.

Spain in 2015 — 314 days without a government. No government was actually formed. They held a new election six months later, contested by 12 parties — 12 parties in parliament.

Italy has had two separate systems since 1993 — 65 governments in 70 years, hardly a formula for stability. Currently 28 parties — 28 parties in Italy.

Germany, I have not added up the number of parties, but it strikes me as being worthy of note that one of the parties that will take seats in the Reichstag, if I get the name of their parliament correct, will be, really, a reborn Nazi party.

This is an example of what happens when you have small, very special-purpose parties, dealing with a group of zealots who are bound and determined to be represented in parliament. I do not think that this is a formula for stability and certainty or, in fact, good public policy.

So I must ask the Attorney. When the changes, when we add up the slices of salami, are so significant, isn’t it remarkable, with a government noted for its rush to consult on everything from fish farms to taxi cab licences, that we see no outside consultation, no outside experts, no deliberation beyond this particular hall this afternoon and in the ensuing days, when we debate the other parts of the package as individual pieces — that we are having otherwise thought and deliberation presented for our consideration?

I find it unusual. I could use stronger language. Let me quote the former Attorney on this subject. “This bill is important far beyond the suggestion of its short number of sections in terms of its effect on our democracy. This is part of a package brought forward by the NDP in recent days consisting of Bill 3, Bill 5, Bill 6, and Bill 9. The cumulative effect of them being to change our democratic system substantively, with no consultation, no public consultation whatsoever.”

No public consultation whatsoever. We’re just going to pass it and — what the hell — get on with life. No reference to any expert panels, and no consultation more broadly than in the cabinet room.

So my question to the current Attorney is: why not? Why no consultation? Is not the future operation of this House more important than how we determine taxi licences and fish farms?

Video of my second commentary

Text of my second commentary

A. Weaver: I think the last comment needs to go challenged. We have an assertion here that the legislation going from three to two is somehow — two to three — is about power.

Now, I recognize that the mindset of B.C. Liberals is nothing more than: “We’ve got to get into power, and forget public policy. Forget public policy. Let’s not work together. It’s all about the power.”

You don’t have to believe me. You could go to the education parliamentary democracy meeting and listen to one of the members from Abbotsford who told the teachers from British Columbia here that the role of the official opposition is to get into power.

I understand why the member for West Vancouver–Capilano thinks it’s about power. I understand that because that’s all they can think about.

What we’re trying to do here is actually work together — work together to put people first, not to put our corporate donors first, and I recognize how….

Interjections.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

A. Weaver: I recognize how banning corporate donations….

The Chair: On the amendment, Member.

A. Weaver: I do appreciate being brought back to the amendment. The reason why I so diverged is because we were specifically addressed by the member opposite with respect to a package of bills which this is not a package of bills.

We’re focusing specifically on one amendment. I’d love to listen to the further discussions of this amendment, but to suggest that somehow the National Socialist Party will arrive in British Columbia because of this amendment is truly outrageous.

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 9 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2017. This bill corrects a number of very minor errors in legislation that have been found over the years. Changes include things like the addition of a few commas, correcting spelling mistakes, including an ‘and’, replacing ‘whom’ with ‘who’ and numerous other trivial modifications.

Below are the text and video of my not to be taken too seriously comments on Bill 9.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I see that the Attorney General was very excited and wanted to close debate on this very important bill that corrects quite a number of small, minor issues over quite a number of statutes that have occurred over many, many years.

I take my place to speak, obviously, in favour. But I’d like to cover this in a little detail, because I think that it’s important that we get to the bottom of some of these changes to see how things are playing out. And I must admit these are not trivial changes in some cases.

As the hon. member for Prince George–Mackenzie was able to point out, this, of course, is…. Other tools of doing this…. We have an incredible legislative counsel working with the Attorney General’s office to keep our bills and statutes updated.

But as I was reading through this and as I was going through the various bills, checking why a comma was changed and so forth, it became clear to me that it’s not as easy to see why the changes occur as one might think.

For example, if we start with the very first change in this bill under Administrative Tribunal Statutes Amendment Act, 2015: “1 Section 70 (b) of the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, S.B.C. 2015, c. 10, as it amends section 12 (2) (d) of the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 131, is amended by striking out ‘purposes’ and substituting ‘purpose.'” So rather than having purposes, there’s only one purpose.

But this is where it gets confusing. I went to section 10.3, where it said the following. In section 10, for the purposes of section 10.3, we’re directed to the Farm Practices Act. It says: “Stop a person whom the inspector….” I would have thought that the legislative drafters would have caught that it’s not “whom the inspector” but it’s “who the inspector,” because that is grammatically incorrect.

I’m not sure that, in fact, the Farm Practices Protection Act was changed in this. But I will point out that later in this, we do have a change in this act where the word “whom” is changed to “who.”

Just bear with me for a second. It’s a very complex and long bill here. Look in the Animal Health Act, No. 2 of the changes. It said: “Section 23 (1) (a) of the Animal Health Act, S.B.C. 2014, c. 16, is amended by striking out ‘whom’ and substituting ‘who.'” I agree with that — grammatically correct, very important to do.

But what I cannot believe was missed in this bill — and frankly, shame on government for missing this — in the change on section 1, it refers specifically to section 12.2(d) of the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, which says “stop a person whom the inspector respectfully believes is the person responsible for an animal or an animal product or by-product.” Shocking, reckless indifference to grammar.

I jest, as I’m sure you might imagine. The member Vancouver–West End isn’t sure whether I’m jesting or not, but there will be more of these to come. But it is kind of ironic as I was actually going through these, I did notice in the first reference, the “whom” wasn’t corrected to “who,” where in the very next thing, the “whom” was corrected to “who,” which is kind of interesting. But it gets complex.

When you go to the farm act again, and you’re coming in, it says “For the purpose of Section 10.3, respecting engagement and retention of specialists and consultants by the board,” the problem I’ve got here is that it refers to section 10, which was repealed. So it seems to me, in (1) that we’re correcting something that refers to another act, from “purposes” to “purpose,” which refers to another section that was repealed.

So I’m confused. I’m sure I’ll probe this in thorough detail during committee stage of this bill, as we try to get to the bottom of this critical missing section. I could just be in error.

There are many, many such changes here, most of which I’m sure have compelling reasons to actually support…. For example, the third one says…. In the Assessment Act, we’re striking out “sea going” and substituting “sea-going.” Now, that’s important because “sea going” could mean the sea is going, but “sea-going” implies sea-going. There’s a very important difference there, and I’m glad that this is picked out.

Also, in (4), it’s: “under the Canada Pension Plan.” But should you not know that the Canada Pension Plan needs to be highlighted…. We’re changing that to highlight Canada Pension Plan in italics, which is an important change for those who recognize that this needs to be brought forward and illustrated as significantly different from the rest.

We can go forward to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. There’s an “and” added here. It’s very important. Of course, I could see that. We’ve got some section issues. There’s a comma that was needed as well.

We’ve got “paragraphs” changing to “paragraph.” Heaven forbid we refer to “paragraphs” instead of just the “paragraph.”

There are many more. One of the more important ones is section 15 of the bill, where we talk about the Forensic Psychiatry Act. It’s critical. This is the Forensic Psychiatry Act. In today’s society, mental health issues are first and foremost in what we’re doing, and heaven forbid that we refer to an “inpatient” rather than “in-patient.” Now, I’m confused about that, and it’s causing me some mental anguish, particularly as it’s in the Forensic Psychiatry Act.

When I look it up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “inpatient” is “inpatient.” I know it sounds like “impatient,” which I’m sure the members are right now, as I’m speaking, but “inpatient” seems to be okay.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Surrey–White Rock suggests that I do not jest when I say that.

There are many. The Great Bear Rainforest Act, an act brought in very recently. Instead of now saying “new-non GBR, it’s “new non-GBR.” Not sure quite what the change is in that…. Oh, sorry. The hyphen was in the wrong place. It was “new-non GBR,” and now it’s “new non-GBR.” Another important change.

I could go on. I could on with the many, many changes.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Oh, the member for Chilliwack-Kent would like me to go on.

I want to come to the schedules at the back, where the changes are. There are so many of these commas and others, which are important, obviously. We come to the schedules, and these are some of the most dramatic changes that need to be done.

On page 10 of this bill, it says “in so far” as opposed to “insofar” with no spaces. It’s replacing that in so many places, in 12 different bills. Sloppiness, going back to the 1990s. Heaven forbid we look at the error.

It was made in all the bills. The Arbitration Act, 1996. The Cooperative Association Act, 1999. The Creston Valley Wildlife Act, 1996. The Frustrated Contract Act, 1996. I didn’t know such an act existed. The Interpretation Act, 1996. The labour relations code, 1996. My good friends the NDP here shouldn’t have made the mistake in that one. The Land Title Act, 1996. The Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services Act, 1996. The Offence Act, 1996. The Railway Act, 1996. The Securities Transfer Act, 2007. This error clearly, while originating in the decadent eras of the 1990s, perpetuated through sequential Liberal governments and was not corrected in the 2007 bill, brought in as the Securities Transfer Act. I’m so glad it’s being changed. Grammaticists and spell-checkers around the world are celebrating today.

On Schedule 2. I must admit that I don’t understand this. I guess I do. In 13 — 13 no less — bills, most of which were done by the B.C. Liberals, “mail box” is corrected to “mailbox” with no space. Now, that’s important. It is not “male box.” They’re not saying “male box.” I get why some males should be in a box. They’re saying “mail box,” being replaced by “mailbox,” no space.

Now, I don’t understand that one. I thought “mail box” was pretty clear, that it’s a mail box, but apparently not. So I do appreciate these changes, and I thank government from the bottom of my heart for bringing these changes forward.

We also have, in Schedule 3, “merit based processes” being corrected to “merit-based processes” in many, many places as well. And finally, Schedule 4 on this bill, at the end….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin is taking such an aggrieved point of view about this bill. Oh, my goodness.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Cariboo North. I’m sorry. I’m looking forward to her standing and speaking passionately in support of this, as I’m about to head to Education estimates in about one minute.

The final change that I think needs to be celebrated here today is “self propelled” being corrected to “self-propelled.”

With that, I will self-propel myself back into my seat.

Video of Speech

The 89^th British Columbia Youth Parliament will hold its parliamentary session in Victoria at the Provincial Legislative Chambers from December 27 to 31, 2017. The Youth Parliament is a province-wide non-partisan organization for young people ages 16 to 21. It teaches citizenship skills through participation in the December parliamentary session and in community service activities throughout the year. Youth Parliament is a one year commitment.

The BC Youth Parliament is non-partisan and applicants need only be interested in learning more about the parliamentary process and in serving their community.

The application is available here, along with an informational brochure and poster.

All applications must be received by October 24, 2017. Selected applicants will be notified in early November.

Yesterday I rose in the Legislature to speak in favour of Bill 5 Constitution Amendment Act 2017. This Bill introduces three main changes to the Constitution Act and consequential amendments to the Elections Act. It extends official party status to parties with two or more elected members, allows for acting ministers to be appointed in the case of death of any minister, and changes the fixed election date to October.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my speech.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Thank you to my colleagues.

I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 5, the Constitution Amendment Act — a bill so complex, so complicated, that the member from Vancouver-Quilchena felt the need to get a detailed briefing and analysis of it, delaying our discussing of this at second reading until this date.

This bill does three things. It amends the definition of leader of a recognized political party, in a matter analogous to what the B.C. Liberals did in the July session that we had here. It adds circumstances when acting ministers may be appointed from the members of executive council. For example, if there’s a tragic death within someone in cabinet. And it amends the fixed election dates.

Now, it’s just truly remarkable to hear the righteous indignation of members opposite speaking against this bill, when they produced something almost identical in the summer. They claimed that there was no consultation. They claimed there was no consultation. But both election platforms…. Both the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens campaigned on this.

Why did we campaign on it? Well, I suspect the B.C. Liberals wished they had campaigned on it, because we wouldn’t have been in the awkward situation of suddenly discovering a $2.8 billion surplus because of reckless fiscal mismanagement by a previous government.

What government would project a several hundred million dollar surplus and end up with $2.8 billion surplus, all the while taking mean-spirited policies — taking this mean-spirited position — and not helping those people in our province who need that help most.

Had we had a fall election date, the February budget would have been passed. It would have been passed, and we would have had year-end statements.

We would know what the fiscal situation would be. We wouldn’t have been in this panic trying to pass a supply act because of stalling by a government that knew it didn’t have the confidence of this House. It knew it didn’t have the confidence of this House, so it stalled and tried to rush a supply act. Changing the election date to October is a good change, one that we support in its entirety.

Again, earlier today we had another example of how this government proposes to work with others to represent British Columbians. We saw a cynical, petty statement by the member for Abbotsford South — I think it was Abbotsford South or the relevant Abbotsford riding — who stood up and sought a ruling from you, hon. Speaker, with respect to the ability of members to vote on this. It’s remarkable that he would do that. It was nothing more than a petty, cynical ploy that his own caucus didn’t know he was going to do.

This is a member who wants to lead a party, yet would do something like that without informing his caucus and expect that there would be goodwill from the Green Party members in supporting amendments that they might bring forward on bills. It’s disingenuous at its very worst. I look forward to seeing how members opposite react as this member moves forward in a leadership bid — one who doesn’t actually consult with colleagues. I found it quite sad, particularly since Standing Order 18 is very clear: “No member is entitled to vote, etc….” There are clear cases here. In fact, this Legislature, in 2007, was required by law to vote on its own compensation. Again, petty, and it’s exactly why this government needed to be put in a time-out.

Coming back to the importance of party status, let’s go back to 2001. There are many precedents here. In 2001, the B.C. Liberals won a majority with 77 seats. There were two B.C. NDP seats. In another mean-spirited fashion — again, a mean-spirited fashion that has even been suggested by a former chief of staff that it was mean-spirited — the B.C. NDP did not have official party status. They received 21.5 percent of the vote — 343,156 votes, two seats, no official party status. No official opposition.

I remember watching the Legislature at that time. It’s kind of the thing we do. I remember watching Liberal MLAs stand up and ask questions like: “Hon. Speaker, my question, through you to the minister, is this: how good are our policies?” This is the type of rhetoric we heard back then. Back in 2001….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member opposite is heckling and suggesting that our questions are softball. I don’t know who writes their questions. Their questions are an embarrassment. Their questions, filled with — I love to say this again — righteous indignation, sanctimoniously portraying themselves as victims of democracy, as they ask and criticize government for doing exactly what they’ve been doing for 16 years. It’s just ironic having to sit here. It’s quite enjoyable to see them….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

In 2001, coming back there, the B.C. Green Party at the time — I was not a member of any political party then: 197,231 votes, 12.39 percent of the population. That’s zero seats, and that’s fair enough. That was the system we had. But take a look at the votes per seat back in 2001. When you take the number of seats, divided by the number of votes, each one of those NDP seats represented 171,578 votes. Whereas to win a Liberal seat, all you needed was 11,908 votes.

The NDP were denied official party status, cynically and in a mean-spirited fashion, even though they received 343,156 votes, and each of those two MLAs then represented 171,578 votes. That’s shameful. It’s shameful for democracy, and it’s shameful that that was done. The Reform Party had status back in the day with a number of members.

Let’s go to 2017. Here’s another example. In 2017, the recent election we just had, the B.C. NDP received 795,106 votes at 40.28 percent and 41 seats. The B.C. Liberals had 796,772 votes or 40.36 percent, representing 43 seats. And the B.C. Greens had 332,387 votes, 16.84 percent with three seats.

Now, let’s have a look.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Penticton needs to be careful, because we ran a candidate who got 19 percent in his riding, and he watches.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: She did lose, but just watch the next election. The member from Parksville-Qualicum beside him better be careful too, because we know that we had polling data, and it was very close there until the last week.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They’re very chirpy. Very, very chirpy. They don’t like being put in this time-out. It’s like the boisterous children who were misbehaving. You put them in time-out, and you say: “Take it easy, there.” But they can’t, so they need to be kept there for 4½ years, because they need to rediscover who they are. They need to rediscover what they stand for. Nobody in British Columbia knows. They don’t know what this party stands for.

Everybody and his dog is running for leadership of this party. Nobody knows who’s going to be leader. Nobody knows who’s running the show. By listening to question period, they need to discover who they are.

Again, the righteous indignation portrayed as they hurl abuse at the Minister of Transportation for not bringing in ride-sharing. It’s just remarkable to sit here and listen, knowing full well that they had seven years to do it but they didn’t. In fact, the Minister of Transportation at the time told British Columbians he was going to but got soundly smacked down by, perhaps the Premier’s office, perhaps the Minister of Finance then, and they back-pedalled on it. So again, there is no credibility there.

There’s no credibility, which again, coming back to the bill, is why it’s so important to actually give the official, official opposition party status here in the B.C. Legislature.

Coming back to the votes per seat….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Penticton is chuckling. I did enjoy being with the member for Penticton on the Finance Committee. We had some fun there. I take it in good spirit with the member for Penticton.

Coming back to the votes per seat in 2013. Again, this is important. To win a B.C. NDP seat, given the number of votes and the percentage there and the 41 seats that they won, you needed 19,393 votes. To win a B.C. Liberal seat, you needed 18,538 votes. Each B.C. Liberal over there represents 18,530 British Columbians who voted B.C. Liberal. Each B.C. NDP — see over here — represents 19,433 votes. Each B.C. Green vote represents 110,796 votes. Three MLAs, 332,387 votes.

Now, we know — based on the amount of e-mail we get, the calls we get from across the province — that British Columbians don’t believe we have an official opposition, because all they know what to do is play politics. They’re not raising issues. They’re with the game of politics — got you this, got you that, accuse you this. They have no ideas, they’re out of touch, and they’re navel-gazing as to the direction that they want to go.

We are acting, the three MLAs, as the conscience of British Columbia, holding this government to account while they navel-gaze, while they ask the pitiful questions in question period, while they abdicate their responsibility to offer solutions. And here we stand.

So obviously, it is not only fair. It is the right thing to do to recognize that the three B.C. Green MLAs are the political party. We ran as a political party. We got elected as a political party. In Prince Edward Island or in New Brunswick, one Green MLA was given party status. In British Columbia, three Reform MLAs — I think it was three — two NDP MLAs were not given party status.

Now, I would encourage members opposite who don’t know what they stand for, to actually get together and figure what groups of you stand for, and maybe we might see a B.C. conservative party emerge.

When the new leader of the B.C. conservative party — well the Liberals, they call themselves Liberals — will be Dianne Watts, it’ll be wonderful to see that party break into two, because that’s really what they are. Nobody knows what they stand for.

The party has been driven out of the Premier’s office for the last four years with MLAs not knowing what stands which. MLAs waking up listening to a throne speech after campaigning on the doorstep, saying “We can’t afford this. We can’t do that.” I mean, there are no morals. There are no principles. It’s lost touch. So, again, that’s why it’s so important that we come back to the fact that we get party status here in the B.C. Legislature.

One of the things in this bill that we haven’t touched upon yet is the allowing for the appointment of acting ministers in the case of a death of a member. I caution government that there isn’t a provision here. What happens if the entire cabinet were to die? That is not covered in this legislation.

It would be a tragedy, but there is a loophole there that we need to, perhaps, consider closing, because it’s only if one, or one or two, but not the entire cabinet. Heaven forbid there was an earthquake at 10:10 on Thursday, October the 19th, and the cabinet would go. So there’s a small change there.

Again, this is a very complex piece of legislation that required a detailed thorough analysis and briefing by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, who found it so complex he needed the extra week to think about how he could understand it.

I mean, again, one could be somewhat cynical as to the delay of debating this bill, but I wouldn’t want to go there, of course. No, that wouldn’t be right.

There are other things in this bill. It’s such a complex bill. We’ve got the appointment of if someone dies. We’ve got the fall election date. Now members opposite are all in a fury, all in a kerfuffle about the fact that it’s October — 4½ years. It’s actually only four years, just in case they really care.

If the members opposite had actually got their act together and recognized they did not have confidence of the House, it would be 4½ years. It’s only four years, because we weren’t actually able to put this agreement together until the end of the summer — well, July — because we had to wait month after month, as the B.C. Liberals tried desperately to hang on to power.

And therein lies the key. For the B.C. Liberals, it is about power. It’s all about the game of politics, the quest for power, and the cynical aspects of politics. They’re not interested in good public policy. They’re not interested in that. They’re interested in power, whatever it takes, say whatever it takes, and that is what is so sad about this political party, and it’s why they need to be put in an extended time-out so this government gets a full four years.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Oh, well that’s an interesting idea. The member — I do apologize, I forgot which riding — the member for Maple Ridge–Mission has suggested, I do believe that he has got something here, that the party opposite might be put in a time-out for 16 years instead of just the four years that they’re being put in. That might be….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Oh they are so very, very chirpy today. You know, I don’t think that I need to belabour this….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: The member for Kelowna–Lake Country is applauding the arguments being raised here, the compelling nature of these arguments and thanking for an articulate representation of why Bill 5, Constitution Amendment Act needs to pass.

Obviously, we’ll be supporting it. We look forward to supporting it, and we thank the government for recognizing the importance of recognizing the third political party.

We do recognize the Liberals did offer this to us back in the spring, but we agree with the B.C. NDP, in this time, that it is important — if you run as a party you be recognized as a party. Ultimately, that’s what our democracy is all about.

Today in the Legislature the BC Government introduced Bill 6: Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act. This Bill provides the legal framework for Elections BC to conduct a referendum before November 30 2018 on proportional representation.

We are absolutely thrilled with the introduction of this Bill. It fulfills a major promise of the Confidence and Supply Agreement that we signed with the BC NDP. In their summer throne speech, the BC Liberals also supported a referendum on proportional representation. As such, I hope that they will also support this bill to ensure that it is adopted unanimously.

In response to the government’s announcement, my colleagues in the BC Green Caucus (Adam Olsen and Sonia Furstenau) and I sent a letter to the Premier supporting the fact that the Attorney General will be acting as an independent official and that his office will be responsible for drafting the referendum process and question. In the letter we note that to further ensure that the Attorney General’s office can operate with independence, we will not seek to consult with his office when it comes to evaluating submissions that are made to the ministry during the public engagement phase, or on the subsequent decisions regarding the development of a referendum process and referendum question.

Below I reproduce the press release that our caucus spokesperson, Sonia Furstenau, issued in response to the announcement.

Media Release

Furstenau welcomes legislation to enable proportional representation referendum
For immediate release
October 4, 2017

VICTORIA, B.C. – Sonia Furstenau, B.C. Green Party spokesperson for electoral reform, today welcomed the government legislation to enable a referendum on proportional representation. Attorney General Eby introduced the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018 Act.

“Proportional representation is about making sure every British Columbian’s vote counts,” said Furstenau.

“B.C. is a diverse province. It is essential that people from all corners of our province feel their voice is heard in their legislature. Canada is one of the last OECD countries to not adopt a proportional voting system. It is time we took this important step towards bringing our democracy into the 21st century.

“As we proceed towards the referendum, it is imperative that the process is fair, transparent and includes robust public engagement. An independent process is essential to ensuring the integrity of the referendum.

“We are currently awaiting more details about the engagement process and look forward to being an active participant. Our caucus has sent a letter to the Premier notifying him that our caucus will limit our involvement going forward to the public engagement process. This means that no consultations as envisioned in CASA will take place between our office and the office of the Attorney General with respect to the administration of the referendum, including respecting the complete independence of his office to draft the referendum question.

“I am deeply encouraged that the Premier has repeatedly voiced his support for proportional representation, and that his caucus recommitted in our Confidence and Supply Agreement to campaign on the yes side of this referendum. I look forward to working with the government on the campaign to engage British Columbians in this important discussion about the future of our democracy.”

-30-

Attached:
· Letter to Premier Horgan

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