Yesterday in the legislature I rose to speak in support of Bill 36: Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3). This is a non-controversial bill that makes myriad small changes in a number of existing pieces of legislation.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my second reading speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and stand in support of this bill, Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — (No. 3), no less — 2018.

I thank the member for Vancouver–False Creek for the welcome to speak to this.

Now, those who have been riveted to Hansard videos for the last five years will know that I’ve made it a frequent occurrence, speaking to miscellaneous statutes amendment acts. This one actually is quite remarkable in that it is somewhat unlike a lot of the acts we see in that there are a lot of quite meaty changes that are brought in and a diverse array of bills. You know, sometimes we’ve joked in this House about spell-checker and comma acts when they’ve been the whole bill. Important changes are made, but these have meatier changes.

I would like to start by speaking to part 1, the Advanced Education, Skills and Training amendments. Now, I understand where opposition are coming from in their concern about this, and the very first thing I did, as well as my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, who spoke so eloquently earlier on this issue, was raise a flag. The first thing I did was pull out my conspiracy theory hat, thinking that perhaps we were seeing a political payout for union friends here and perhaps this was a way to try to get negotiators on the board of governors.

I actually requested a briefing. I was delighted to have that briefing this morning with ministerial staff who I was able to ask and probe some questions as to where this emerged from.

To give you some context of this, I was the president of the UVic Faculty Association when I was at the University of Victoria, and I was chief negotiator in two bargaining sessions spanning about five years. At that time, when you look at what’s being removed here, you might suggest that perhaps by removing the language, I could potentially put myself in a conflict of interest by being allowed to serve on the board of governors of an institution while at the same time serving as chief negotiator for the faculty. In essence, you would be negotiating with yourself. I understand where the concern was coming from with the opposition.

Now, therein lies the source of what I believe is some further necessary comment. To get there first, I think it’s important to see what has actually been repealed. In the College and Institute Act, the University Act and the Royal Roads University Act, the same bit of language…. I’ll only read the one, because it’s slightly and subtly different in the University Act from the College and Institute Act. This is what’s being removed. Language presently exists, and it was recently added by the previous government….

“A person is not eligible to be or to remain a member of the board if the person is:

(a) an employee of its institution, and

(b) a voting member of the executive body of” — that would be like a president, a vice-president or someone like that — “or an officer of, an instructional, administrative or other staff association of the institution who has the responsibility, or joint responsibility with others, to

(i) negotiate with the board, on behalf of instructional, administrative or other staff association of that institution, the terms and conditions of service of members of that association, or

(ii) adjudicate disputes regarding members of the instructional, administrative or other staff associations of that institution.“

My Spidey senses were raised when I saw that being removed. I thought: “Well, hang on here. Is this some nefarious backroom deal to pay back friends?” Was this one of these “good faith, no surprises” kind of step-asides?

Again, coming back to the briefing, it turns out that what I was able to learn from this briefing was that we are the only province in the country that has language like this, and we are unique in that regard because in essence we already have a requirement. Again, the previous government put in place very fine conflict-of-interest measures, and demanded that with institutions, that exist that would not allow the negotiator like me, for example, to negotiate with myself on the board.

So again, this is not what I had originally thought it would be, as some kind of payback. It wasn’t. It was actually trying to streamline a process that was already being dealt with, which is the issue of conflict of interest. But in fact, it is making it more accessible for some smaller institutions, particularly in rural B.C., where there are some difficulties to actually get qualified members on the board.

What this has laid out as is a broader ability, particularly…. I mean, this is not an issue for the University of British Columbia or the University of Victoria. But it is an issue for some smaller rural colleges subject to this act, and this is clarifying that the existing conflict-of-interest legislation is sufficient and the responsibilities that are governed by board members are sufficient to ensure that you can’t negotiate with yourself, in essence.

So while initially very suspect about this component, I’m pleased to say that I was very satisfied. Again, I’m very grateful to the ministry staff who provided the briefing at such short notice and did so in such an informative manner — and to the government, frankly, for arranging a briefing on this important topic within literally 24 hours. Because as we know, this bill was only brought before us two days ago, and ministry staff were able to get the briefing this morning, shortly after QP.

I wasn’t the widest awake of all days, having been up since four in the morning, preparing questions and other things, because it was rather a lot of things that have been going on here today in the B.C. Legislature. Nevertheless, though, I am grateful that we were able to do this.

I look to part 2, and this is changes to the Milk Industry Act. I suspect the Minister of Agriculture will speak quite passionately as to why these changes are necessary, required and fundamental to good governance here in British Columbia.

But I’d like to say…. Obviously, I support it, but this is important and timely that we start to talk about the dairy industry in British Columbia. Why is it important and timely? Because we’ve seen recent signing of a NAFTA agreement where our supply management component of the dairy industry has taken a little bit of a hit. They’re not happy losing 3½ percent of their supply to potential U.S. milk products.

I will say to British Columbians who are riveted to the television, watching Hansard today, I’m not worried about that. The reason why is that in Canada we don’t put hormones in our milk. In the U.S., they do.

Why would anyone go to a supermarket and choose to have hormone-laden milk from somewhere else when you can get Vancouver Island Dairyland cows or Island Farms cows? You can buy milk made in B.C. that doesn’t have steroids, that’s supporting local farmers.

I’m not worried about this supply management, so I say good on Canada in their negotiations with NAFTA. I think we’ve done well in the auto industry. I think we’ve done well in other aspects of that, in order that we’re ensuring that labour standards in Mexico, for example, are up to the same, or at least better paid, compared to us here, which ensures that the so-called Dutch disease doesn’t occur by shipping manufacturing jobs offshore.

Again, with the small changes to the definition of a dairy plant…. I didn’t go into a detailed briefing as to what those were. Clearly, the civil service would have identified, in consultation with the minister’s office, issues that have arisen in recent years where the definition of dairy plant has been troubling in terms of legislation. Again, small yet important changes have been put in here.

When we move on to part 3, we see a number of amendments to the Mental Health Act, the Offence Act and others. These are all under the purview of the Attorney General’s office. Again, these are relatively minor yet potentially impactful.

The first, of course, the changes to the Mental Health Act, are, in essence, saying that a retired medical practitioner can now serve on a review panel. It doesn’t have to be a current practitioner. Why this is important is that I understand there have been some issues, historically, where perhaps a retired member has been on it, and then panels have made deliberations, and there’s some question as to whether this person was allowed to be on it.

Frankly, it’s hard enough getting a GP in our present system here in British Columbia. It’s hard enough getting access to a medical practitioner. Let’s actually use those and allow those who are no longer practising but actually have the ability to make informed decisions to serve on these panels, to free up our doctors to actually spend the time in the health care system that they so want to do. Again, that’s another small yet important change.

There are slight changes here to the Offence Act, slight changes to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. On that note, I would like to raise — on the Public Guardian and Trustee Act — some issues that I think government needs to further explore.

This is especially relevant to an ongoing case I have in my constituency, where there are examples in British Columbia where you might have a child who’s taken into care in one province, into the foster care system, and then is adopted, legally adopted, by a family member in another province. The system that we have set up in Canada makes this extraordinarily difficult for that family care provider to actually get the services that they need in the province of British Columbia if, in fact, the case or the child originated from a seizure — whatever the word is.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Apprehension. Thank you to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast who has worked in the field. If there’s an apprehension in another province.

This is an important issue. In the one particular case we’re working on right now, this person, this family member has stepped in where the system has failed and given a home to two young children from a family member, two children who were apprehended from another province and now have a safe home here. The irony is if the children were apprehended in that province and put in care in that province, there would be funding for the caregivers in that province. If their children are apprehended in that province and given a safer way forward in another province — in particular, in this case, British Columbia — there are barriers to access of funds.

I’m hoping, as we make small amendments here to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, we might keep a view of what the bigger picture here is and look at other barriers that exist for existing issues here.

Section 9 — and through 16, frankly. Changes, again, are being made with respect to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, roles and powers of chief justices. My colleague would have addressed these issues in further detail.

Then we move on, of course, to the important changes in part 4. These are the Finance amendments. I had the pleasure — the distinct pleasure, no less — of hearing the Finance Minister talk so eloquently and so passionately about these changes that have been added to ensure that there’s consistency amongst myriad acts with respect to recent changes in the Business Corporations Act.

What do I mean by that? In the Business Corporations Act, there is a new requirement or, essentially, a definition in there as to who is authorized to act as an auditor for a company. The need for this has clearly arisen from issues that were brought to government’s attention with respect to auditing and non-qualified auditors serving as an auditor in the cases of the business corporation.

In the act, what is done in the Business Corporations Act is actually mirrored in a series of acts to ensure consistency across legislation in British Columbia. We see changes that mirror the definitions as to who can serve as an auditor occurring in the Cooperative Association Act, the Credit Union Incorporation Act, the Financial Institutions Act, the Societies Act, and the Chartered Professional Accountants Act. We got into the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, the Greater Vancouver Water District Act, the Legal Profession Act, the Notaries Act, the School Act, the Vancouver Foundation Act.

That’s a lot of acts, but now we have consistent definitions or, in fact, regulations as to who can serve as an auditor. You can’t just phone up Uncle Bob and say: “Uncle Bob, can you audit my accounts and give me your stamp of approval?” That’s no longer going to be approved. Although Uncle Bob may be qualified to do so, there are proper and more rigid measures that are now put in place.

We turn finally to part 5 of this act, a number of Municipal Affairs and Housing amendments. These are, again, providing some regulatory powers, changes, some minor language adjustment, some standardization of terminology. All in all, not very controversial — housekeeping — yet important changes of various act under the Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry. And then, of course, we have the concomitant amendments, some related amendments, in the Safety Standards Act at the end.

All in all, this is not, in my view, a controversial bill, although on my initial reading of sections 1 to 3, flags were raised. I understand where opposition is coming from. I had exactly the same concerns. I had the benefit of a briefing from ministry staff. I feel comfortable now, knowing that this is actually bringing us in line with what every other province in the country has done, as well as the fact that this has been already covered under conflict of interest and fiduciary requirement and other existing rules that apply to governance of boards in our colleges sector.

The importance of this change actually goes to rural B.C. where there are some issues in terms of getting qualified board members representing various institutions in some of the colleges that we have. This has been asked for, as well, by other representative organizations that have pointed out some of the difficulties that arise.

With that, there’s not much more, I think, in this bill that needs to be addressed. I do suspect we’ll see other miscellaneous statutes amendment bills coming forward. I do commend government on providing a substantive bill here, of substantive amendments. It’s much easier to actually go into the depth and detail of these with briefings. I hope that the support that we’ve given to this — that I’ve given to this bill and also reflected in the support of my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands — is recognized by government as: we’re happy to support this through second and final reading.

Video of Speech

Today I had the distinct privilege and honour of speaking at the Memorial Avenue Rededication Ceremony. The ceremony commemorated the 100th Anniversary of the 1918 WW1 Armistice and the planting of London Plane-trees along Shelbourne Street in 1921 in remembrance of the sacrifices made by Greater Victoria residents during the Great War.

Below I reproduce the text of my speech.

Text of Speech

It’s a great honour for me to participate in this ceremony commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the 1918 WW1 Armistice and the Re-dedication of Memorial Avenue.

I would like to give special acknowledgement and express my sincere gratitude to the Veterans who are in attendance today.

Thank you for being here and for your service. Without you, we would not enjoy the freedoms we sometimes take for granted today.

For more than 50 years I’ve walked, biked, bused and driven under the canopy of these magnificent trees on Shelbourne Street marveling at their beauty and historic significance.

The resilient London Plane-trees we see before us were given their name because this species, formed by natural hybridization in 17^th century Europe, was able to survive and thrive in the adverse conditions of London during a time when the combustion of coal left the city black with soot and smoke.

For almost 400 years, these London Plane-trees have been planted in cities around the world. Where their hardy characteristics have allowed them to flourish.

This living memorial is a fitting tribute to those who gave their lives during the First World War. It is critical that future generations understand the history and the heroic sacrifices made for which these trees serve as a commemoration.

When the idea for Memorial Avenue was presented by H.B. Thomson in February 1921, he said in a letter to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce:

“What finer memorial could one have when we are all dead than an avenue of this kind to record to future generations British Columbia’s part in the war and the heroes who died for the empire?”

The Union of BC Municipalities endorsed the plan for this provincial Memorial to be created in Victoria to honour the estimated 600 soldiers and nurses who did not return home to Greater Victoria after the war.

On Sunday, October 2, 1921, the Province of British Columbia held the Dedication Ceremony. It was opened by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, Walter C. Nichol, with a dedicatory address, followed by an address by the Premier, the Honourable John Oliver.

The first tree was planted by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor. In the months that followed, about 75 volunteers worked tirelessly in an attempt to realize the dream of having a tree planted for every person from Victoria who gave their life in the war.

This “Road of Remembrance” was the first of its kind in Canada. Memorial Avenue on Shelbourne Street reached from Mount Douglas Park in Saanich south to Bay Street in the City of Victoria.

Saanich, Victoria and Oak Bay worked cooperatively during the planting of the Road of Remembrance. Victoria and Saanich prepared the ground for planting, Victoria donated the trees and Oak Bay undertook to do the watering. The section of Shelbourne Street from Cedar Hill Cross to North Dairy was never planted. This inspired its nickname “the Street of Unfinished Dreams”.

After centuries, these trees will stand as a lasting memorial of our collective history – a history that must never be forgotten. They will thrive here long after we are gone to honour the legacy of our ancestors and remind us of the great human cost of war.

We are in a special place when we are shaded by the canopy of these historic trees. We owe it to future generations to keep the history and memory alive as we safeguard these trees.

I would like to acknowledge the significant contribution of the Memorial Avenue Committee, together with its Chair, Ray Travers. They’ve worked hard for many years to steward this project forward and to ensure that there’s a long-term plan to care for both existing trees, as well as planting new ones in the future, as our community develops.

Volunteers play a vital role in our community. And I offer my sincere thanks to Ray Travers and the Memorial Avenue Committee for all that you have done.

The Saanich Remembers World War One project has served to help us learn more about the individuals from our community who’ve served our country and to keep their memory alive.
Thank you again for extending me the honour of being here with you today. It is a privilege for me to be able to serve the constituents of Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

New Brunswick went to the polls today and elected a minority government with the New Brunswick Greens and the People’s Alliance holding the balance of responsibility. The final result was 21 seats for the Liberals, 22 seats for the progressive conservatives, 3 seats for the NB Greens and 3 seats for the People’s Alliance. 25 seats are needed for a majority government.

This is an exciting time for New Brunswick as their electorate sent a clear message that they wanted their representative to work together.

Below is the media release I issued congratulating David Coon, Kevin Arseneau and Megan Mitton on their success.

Media Release

Weaver congratulates New Brunswick Greens on electing first caucus
For immediate release
September 24, 2018

VICTORIA B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, is extending his congratulations to David Coon, leader of the New Brunswick Green Party, on the election of his first caucus. The New Brunswick Greens join the B.C. Greens and the P.EI. Greens as the first provincial Green Party caucuses in Canada.

“I extend my sincere congratulations to David and his team on the incredible growth they achieved tonight,” said Weaver.

“I also commend David and his Party for running on a positive campaign based on hope, not fear.

“Last year, there were three provincial Green representatives in office across the country. Now there are nine elected in B.C., Ontario, New Brunswick and P.E.I. This is a testament to the hard work of provincial Green Parties and the increasing resonance of our message as voters look for sensible, evidence-based policies that consider the impact of our decisions on future generations.

“The Greens and the People’s Alliance are now faced with the same balance of responsibility that our Caucus was in when the results came in in May 2017. While this burden will weigh heavily on them, minority governments are good news for voters. When political parties are forced to work together, they make better decisions. I wish them both well as they move towards establishing the agreement that will form the next government of New Brunswick.”

Weaver was the first Green politician elected at the provincial level in Canada in 2013. He was joined by B.C. Green MLAs Sonia Furstenau and Adam Olsen in 2017 when the Party doubled its popular vote share to 17%.

– 30 –

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

Today the BC Green and BC NDP caucuses celebrated the one year anniversary of the signing of our historic Confidence and Supply Agreement.

The Premier and I took the opportunity to celebrate the event at the offices of Alacrity Foundation in Victoria. This was a fitting venue since Alacrity represents a stellar example of innovation in the new economy.

Alacrity has helped bring over $225 million to B.C.’s technology ecosystem through its investor readiness program and on April 19, 2018, the Province announced that it was investing more than $711,000 over the next three years in the Alacrity Foundation of B.C.’s Cleantech Scale-Up program.

Below I reproduce the brief remarks I gave at the event as well as our joint press release.

My remarks

I am delighted to be here to celebrate the one year anniversary of the announcement that we had reached a Confidence and Supply Agreement with the BC NDP.

The 2017 election was historic for our Party. We doubled our popular vote count and tripled our seat count.

When the results came in as a minority government, we felt an enormous weight on our shoulders. We took our decision very seriously.

In the end, we decided BC needed a change. It was clear that most British Columbians wanted things to be done differently.

There was a clear desire for bolder, forward-looking policies on a range of important issues:

affordability;
environmental protection;
investments like child care and public education that will give our children the best possible future.

CASA is the result of two distinct parties coming together around shared values.

Ultimately we want the same thing:

to improve the health and wellbeing of British Columbians;
to make government more responsive to the challenges and opportunities they face in their everyday lives;
and to set our province up for success.

There have been ups and downs in the first year, but like any relationship our Agreement has required us to work through our issues and come together to find solutions that we can both support.

This is a special opportunity – under majority governments, a party can get 100% of the power with as little as 39% of the vote and push through its agenda without having to consult or collaborate with any other parties.

This has often left British Columbians feeling disconnected and like their government is not listening to their concerns. In just the first year since signing our agreement, we have worked together to:

ban big money;
reform the lobbying industry;
make historic investments in childcare and public education;
advance key elements of the BC Greens’ economic vision for the province.

And we’re just getting started.

Right now, I am hard at work with Minister Heyman to develop a climate plan that puts a bold vision for BC’s economy centred around innovation at its core.

We have a unique opportunity to make BC a leader again in climate action.

While climate change poses significant risks and challenges, there are opportunities to be had as the world transitions to the low carbon economy.

But the benefits will only flow to those who are leaders – not the last adopters.

BC was once a leader in climate action, providing an example to the world that a strong economy and bold climate action are perfectly compatible.

I am looking forward to unveiling our plan to make BC a leader once again.

There are challenges that lie ahead, but I am deeply encouraged by our ability to come together to work through our differences.

John and I both know that there is more at stake than the future of our two parties – we are united in our love of this province and we want to set it up for the best possible future.

Our caucus remains committed to doing everything we can to work collaboratively to advance more solutions so that we can deliver on our shared commitments to the people of BC

Thank you.

Joint Media Release

A new report was published today which examines and assesses the government’s response to the 2017 flood and wildfire events. The report, entitled: Addressing the New Normal: 21st Century Disaster Management in British Columbia was written by former MLA George Abbott and Hereditary Chief of the Sq’ewá:lxw First Nation, Maureen Chapman. It provided government with 108 recommendations that will assist it to improve existing systems, processes and procedures.

Below I reproduce the media release we issued in response to the release of the report.

Media Release

Weaver: Wildfire and flood report demonstrates need to prioritize adaptation and greenhouse gas reduction strategies
For immediate release
May 10, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party caucus, says that the new report on the 2017 flood and wildfire response underscores the need for B.C. to meet our climate targets.

“Chief Chapman and Mr. Abbott have provided excellent recommendations for how the government can better support communities that are affected by wildfires and floods,” said Weaver.

“The effects of climate change are having nuanced impacts on every corner of the province. We must do everything we can to ensure British Columbians have the resources they need to respond to the ‘new normal’ of extreme weather events. In particular, the province should adopt the report’s recommendations to work more closely in partnership with First Nations and to develop better preventative measures to support communities that are vulnerable to floods and wildfires.

“These rising costs also demonstrate the urgent need to keep our commitment to the next generation to meet our climate targets. Under the Paris Agreement, countries around the world is coming together to do their part to prevent an increase in global temperatures above 2 degrees Celsius. We are seeing historic investments in cleantech and renewable energy from countries diverse as China, Germany and Saudi Arabia as the world transitions to the low-carbon economy.

“B.C. was once a leader in climate action. After enacting the carbon tax in 2008, British Columbia showed the world that a strong economy and bold climate action are perfectly compatible. By seizing the opportunity to reclaim this leadership, we can position our province to develop a thriving 21st century economy centred around innovation, sustainable value-added resource development and entrepreneurship.”

-30-

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