The Legislature runs smoothly as house leaders get together and plan out time allocation for the debates of various bills and budget estimates. Independent Member Vicki Huntington and I work with the BC NDP to ensure that we fit our speaking times in with their overall allocation.

It’s important that we do this for a number of reasons:

1. It allows the NDP in question period to run a narrative through sequential questions without us interrupting their flow;
2. It allows for overall planning of how we fit our debate contributions in with other commitments (such as meetings etc.);
3. It allows for more orderly conduct in the legislature. If everyone was standing all the time the Speaker would be put in awkward situations;
4. It allows for flexibility so that we can speak to issues (such as member statements) when our guests are in the public gallery.
5. It’s the collegial thing to do.

All of this has worked well since I got elected until yesterday.

The Office of the Premier’s budget estimates had been allocated to run the full length of both Wednesday and Thursday. As we always do, my office coordinated with the house leader’s office and we received agreement that I would be up questioning the Premier early on Thursday.  And so my office and I prepared a number of primary and secondary questions. I recognized that I would likely get 15-20 minutes total but I was prepared for much longer if needed.

But what happened at the end of the first day is unheard of. The Premier rose “to seek leave to sit again” shortly before 6:25 (meaning that she noted that it was almost 6:30 and time for us shut down and pick up where we left off the next day). The motion to resume the next day passed. Normally that would be it.

But then, a note is passed to the Chair taking everyone by surprise. The Leader of the Opposition has essentially stated that he was done and then to everyone’s (including the Chair’s) surprise, “Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $8,998,000” (Office of the Premier’s budget allocation) was called for a vote and passed. The Leader of the Official Opposition was passing up the opportunity to question the premier the next day. And in doing so he threw me under the bus.

So why is this cowardly?

It’s cowardly for two reasons. First, the fact that the Leader of the Opposition would run away from an opportunity to question the Premier on a diverse array of issues is cowardly. It’s his job to do so. To run away is not leadership and so it is clear to me,  he is not a leader of a government in waiting. He is afraid of challenging the Premier face to face.

If the Leader of the Opposition is afraid, that’s one thing. I was not afraid. I would have been willing to take much more than my allocated time on Thursday if extra time was available. I had prepared six longer primary questions (which would spin off into numerous smaller follow ups). I had other secondary questions that I would have loved  to raise on a diverse range of topics, from housing through social services through education and so forth. And this brings me to the second reason why I think it’s cowardly.

Just because the Leader of the Opposition no longer wants to ask questions does not give him the right to go against a long standing tradition of organized time allocation and take away my right as well. The people of British Columbia deserve better leadership and better opposition.

Below I reproduce the text and video of the closing words that shut down debate. In the text and the video you’ll note the statement: By agreement with the opposition. There was no such agreement as I was scheduled to speak the next day. You’ll see in the video the confusion as a note is being passed along. You’ll over hear the premier wondering whether this was being done legally.

Since I didn’t get a chance to ask my questions to the Premier directly, I am appending the six primary questions at the end of this post in the hope that I might still get a reply.

Text of Closing Words

Hon. C. Clark: With that, Mr. Chair, I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Clark: By agreement with the opposition, I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We have another motion to pass. Shall Vote 10 pass?

Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $8,998,000 — approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

Video of Closing Words

Question 1

The recent wildfire disaster in Fort McMurray highlighted for all of us the reality of what can happen with wildfires in such a short amount of time. A whole city evacuated. This has served as a big reminder of the dangers we face in this province with wildfires.

Not that we need it mind you, as many British Columbians have been evacuated from their homes already this year due to wildfire risk in the Northeast of our province. We all know, and the premier has stated, that climate change is contributing to an early wildfire season in BC.

So I am left confused when the risk is evident, the cause is known, and yet the direction this government continues to take is directly counter to dealing with the problem. Instead of preparing for the effects of climate change, and showing real climate leadership in the face of this evidence, we have your government doubling down on LNG and the extraction fossil-fuel resources.

Every projection we’ve seen comes to the same conclusion, if we create an LNG industry in this province our emissions skyrocket. We can’t be climate leaders if we promote LNG.

So my question to the Premier is this: given the risks climate change poses to our province, and the impacts it is already having, why is this government doing nothing more than paying lip service to the climate issue?

Question 2

The tech sector of this province is in my view one of our greatest opportunities to expand our economy and bring high-paying low-impact jobs to British Columbia. Partnering the tech industry with the resource industry is another big opportunity for this province. While the government has made modest investments in attracting tech businesses to the province, I was shocked at the recent TPP political stunt. Not only was I surprised at the fact that this government endorsed the trade deal before it had even seen the final text, or that many members of her government seemed to have no clear understanding of which nations were even in the deal, but I was most surprised that the government unabashedly opposed a trade deal, that many feel will actually decrease jobs in this province.

Indeed, the TPP has many in the tech industry worried, primarily about intellectual property issues, internet governance rules, and copyright. To me this looks like the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth – we support you but we will undermine you for political gain.

So my question to the Premier: Why is this Premier’s government putting political maneuvers like the TPP motion ahead of truly supporting an industry like the tech sector that is critical to BC’s prosperous future?

Question 3

Your office is tasked with guiding the province and leading the people of British Columbia. Yet there have been substantial reasons why British Columbians might be feeling distrustful of future BC Liberal promises.

For example, your government promised in 2013 that everyone who wanted a family doctor would be able to accesso one within two years. Well, we are well into 2016 now and fewer British Columbians have a regular doctor now than before the gov’t made that promise. In fact more than 200,000 British Columbians in this province are still actively looking for a family doctor.

Another example. LNG. 100,000 jobs, a debt free BC. Major promises, that have not in any way come to fruition.

It is an election year this year and I fear that the government will make some more lavish promises that are simply not based in reality.

British Columbians want to know where we really stand. They can handle it. They don’t want to be spun.

Is the Premier willing to admit that these promises did not have clear, independent evidence to support them?

Question 4

Good leadership also requires preparing for the future. While I’ve touched on the lack of climate leadership shown by this government there are other areas where I think the government is doing a pretty poor job in terms of planning for the future.

Site C is the most obvious example of this. This pet project has been pushed through, despite substantial local opposition, largely for an industry that is failing to materialize. We don’t need the power, we aren’t likely to need that sort of power any time soon. Yet the project must go ahead – so now it is being used as a bargaining chip for Alberta Pipelines. We’ll let your pipeline go through, if you buy our power. Because we need a market for this power.

Through this single-minded approach we’ve seen clean energy investment and interest leave the province, we are saddling the province with major infrastructure debt, and we are losing prime agricultural land. All for a project we don’t need, all because of the fixation on pushing this project forward past the point of no return. This is reckless planning for the future.

Another example is this government’s retooling of our trades industry. They’ve taken a large amount of money from universities and directed it towards trades training. Yet it is simply a political game to say that one type of education is more valuable than another. A humanities education is invaluable in today’s society as it teaches creativity, adaptability, problem solving, the ability to research and the ability to communicate – these 21st century skills are just as needed as more trades education. To prioritize one at the detriment of the other is in my view a lack of foresight and sets the province up for failure down the line.

A third example is that we are all aware of how great a risk Earthquakes pose to the west coast of this province. We are all nervously anticipating “the big one”. We know it’s likely to happen, and we know that when it does it could be absolutely devastating. Yet where is the government in ensuring we are doing everything we can to prepare for this disaster? Yes there is a bit of lip service being paid, some small programs that promote earthquake awareness, and a bit of disaster training for our emergency responders. Nothing on the scale of what needs to happen.

These examples highlight the need for this government to start looking at the bigger picture. The long term health and success of British Columbians needs to be a priority. Not simply focusing on the quick political wins, but ensuring that every decision is made with the view that it will have an impact decades from now.

How does supporting short term political projects ensure that we are looking our for British Columbians long term interests?

Question 5

This government seems to be in a never-ending battle with the education sector of our province. Taken to court, strikes, funding cuts, board resignations, the list goes on and on. Yet a strong education system is the foundation of a strong society. It teaches our youth the skills they need to succeed in this world. It also serves as an opportunity to level the playing field between those who come from privilege and those who do not.

The antagonistic relationship between this government and the education sector has been characteristic of this government. Although a similar antagonistic relationship has been seen with First Nations, and other more specific groups. My concern with this approach is that it works against the interests of everyone. By dividing society into “rag tag groups” and “the forces of no” it does nothing to work constructively with their legitimate concerns.

Does the Premier acknowledge that this antagonistic approach does nothing for anyone, but just entrenches the other side more firmly against the government? Does the Premier have any ideas she can bring forward to begin to repair the relationship between this government and our education sector?

Question 6

I’m sure the Premier stands with me, and most if not all members of this house, in believing in the principles of democratic governance. Yet, if that is the case, why has there been such a reluctance by this government to remove corporate and union donations from our system?

If there is one thing that is completely wrong with our electoral system it is the fact that big money is still allowed in it. The federal government banned corporate and union donations, and imposed strict limits on individual donations, a decade ago. Other provinces have followed suit and British Columbia is quickly developing a reputation, that money can buy influence in this house.

I completely understand that the current system benefits the ruling party, however, as I end my time in Premier’s Estimates I want to emphasize to the Premier that her government has the ability to do the right thing. There is no good reason why this money should be allowed into the political operations of our province. Governing parties are given a mandate by the people of British Columbia on the strengths of their ideas. The influence of money cheapens that principle significantly.

Why is the premier resisting a ban to corporate and union donations to political parties in this province?

Today in the legislature I rose to question the premier concerning the fundamental inconsistency in her attempting to claim leadership in climate change mitigation while at the same time touting the development of a hypothetical LNG industry. As you will see from the exchange below, the premier doubles down on the LNG rhetoric. The response was quite disappointing.

Question

A. Weaver: Last week the Premier commented on the wildfire situation in Fort McMurray. Remarkably, she used the disaster as an opportunity to point out the importance of investment in the oil and gas sector. A couple of weeks prior, the Premier told a group in Fort St. John:

“If there’s any argument for exporting LNG in helping fight climate change, surely it is all around us when we see these fires burning out of control.“

While the scientific community has understood the link between global warming and the increasing occurrence of large wildfires for quite some time, the Premier’s statement is utterly bizarre. It’s about time that this government level with British Columbians and point out that developing an LNG industry in B.C. is simply not compatible with climate leadership.

My question to the Premier is this. How can the Premier continue to talk about showing climate leadership while at the same time completely undermining the climate policies put in place by the previous administration and using every opportunity to promote fossil fuel development in this province?

Answer

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I’m delighted to have a chance to answer the member’s questions, given that I didn’t get that opportunity yesterday. And thanks to the member for the question. He and I, there is no doubt….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: There is no doubt that the member and I have a fundamental disagreement about this. He’s stated his case, and now I’ll state mine, and that is to say that around the world today there are 1,000 coal plants on the books, ready to be built, 150 of them in and around Beijing, in China. The only way that those coal plants will be prevented from being built is if they have an alternative source of energy. And that energy needs to be a transitional fuel that is already in production around the world, which we can get there.

But here’s the problem. We all want to move to renewable energies, and we would all, ultimately…. I know Canada has committed to the international commitment of trying to get off fossil fuels altogether. We are not there yet. And the challenge for humanity today is: how do we make sure that we prevent those coal plants from being built? How do we minimize the GHG emissions that would otherwise be produced in the processing and production of that energy?

British Columbia can play a vital part in that by producing the cleanest fossil fuel on the planet, by producing it in the cleanest method that anyone does around the globe, by shipping it to places like China, displacing much dirtier fuels with this very clean and important transitional fuel and, at the same time, create over 100,000 jobs over 30 years for British Columbians — which I know the members of the opposition, every single day, will stand up and oppose.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: This government has got its own Climate Action Team, and they noted: “New policies have not been added to the original policies, which plateaued in 2012.” In fact, we’ve weakened or repealed a number of these existing policies.

The government really can no longer claim leadership and, frankly, have lost credibility on the climate leadership file. The province has a legislated goal to reduce carbon emissions from the current 62 megatonnes to 43 megatonnes by 2020, and 13 megatonnes by 2050. One single LNG plant would add 15 megatonnes, and every British Columbian would have to provide negative emissions by 2050.

My question to the Premier is this. Will she commit today to abandon this government’s reckless and desperate attempts to land a hypothetical LNG project via a generational sellout and, instead, commit to aggressively increase the price on carbon and begin the transformation of our economy towards a low-carbon future? Or instead, will she continue to do her part to commit the youth of today to a desperate future of species extinction and geopolitical instability?

Answer

Hon. C. Clark: I have to say that was such a long question that it might have been more suited to the estimates process than question period. Unfortunately, we didn’t get a chance to do that today.

I will say this. The investment in British Columbia for LNG so far is not hypothetical. The $20 billion invested in boots on the ground in our province is not hypothetical.

We remain the only jurisdiction in Canada and in North America that has the highest and broadest carbon tax. We are well out in front of any province in this country, any state in the United States, by a long shot.

We continue to maintain the only carbon-neutral government in Canada. We are working to build Site C, which will be a source of clean, low-cost energy for generations to come, despite the opposition of the members across the way. We are poised to make the biggest contribution to fighting climate change that Canada has ever made, with the export of liquefied natural gas.

I know that the forces of no across the way, in the NDP, oppose every step of the way the creation of an LNG industry and the jobs that would come from it for all of those working people around the world. But at least they can admit that while we’re putting…. If they don’t want to put people to work, they should at least join us in wanting to fight climate change by exporting this cleanest fossil fuel on the planet and displacing those dirtier sources of fuel that will otherwise inevitably be built.

Video of the Exchange

Media Release

Media Release: May 12, 2016
Andrew Weaver – Premier using smoke and mirrors on climate file
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head suggested the Premier has not been forthright when it comes to taking action on Climate Change.

“I was shocked to hear her logic on how burning more fossil fuels is equivalent to taking strong action on climate change,” says Weaver. “The fact is that our Premier has done nothing substantial on the biggest issue facing our global civilization since she was elected.”

As fires raged in the north of the province, the Premier stated in late April that “If there’s any argument for exporting LNG and helping fight climate change, surely it is all around us when we see these fires burning out of control,” she told reporters in Fort St. John.

“Our Premier has her own Climate Leadership Team yet she fails to understand that creating an LNG industry and reducing our emissions are fundamentally incompatible,” argues Weaver. “At every opportunity her government promotes the idea that LNG will combat the climate crisis by displacing coal in Asia, while ignoring the fact that it will drastically increase our own emissions.”

“Notwithstanding the substantial evidence that, when its full life-cycle is accounted for LNG is just as bad coal, she fails to grasp that we can’t claim credit for shipping a “cleaner fuel” when we also ship millions of tonnes of coal out of B.C.,” says Weaver. “It’s just ridiculous to claim that shipping out a fossil fuel is equivalent to climate leadership or that it will do anything to address climate change.”

Today MLA Weaver asked the Premier how her argument makes sense, and if she would support the recommendations of her Climate Leadership Team and take stronger action on climate change. The Climate Leadership Team released its recommendations to government in October 2015.

“I ran for office on this issue because frankly it is the biggest issue facing our global civilization. Our province is already being ravaged by wildfires, floods, and droughts and it’s going to get worse. Yet the government is doing everything it can to exacerbate to the problem for its short-term political gain.”

-30-

Media Contact

Mat Wright – Press Secretary Andrew Weaver MLA
1 250 216 3382
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Today in the legislature I introduced Bill M229 — Election Amendment Act, 2016. If enacted, Bill M229 would lower the voter age in British Columbia from 18 to 16.

Those who have been following this site will know that last month, I initiated a conversation on whether or not we should reduce the voting age to 16. The response on social media was wonderful and we received many emails on the topic.

It turns out that this conversation is not only happening now in BC. Prince Edward Island will be holding a referendum in the fall on electoral reform. The eligibility to vote will be extended to youth aged 16 and 17 in this referendum.

Below please find reproductions of both the text and video of the introduction of my bill. In addition, I reproduce the accompanying press release.

Text of Introduction

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Election Amendment Act, 2016, which, if enacted, would lower the voter age in British Columbia to 16. B.C.’s voting age was not always 18. The voting age dropped from 21 to 19 in 1952 and then again to 18 in 1992. In 1970, Canada’s Elections Act was amended to drop the voting age federally from 21 to 18.

There’s ample evidence to suggest that the earlier in life a voter casts their first ballot, the more likely they are to develop voting as a habit throughout their life. It’s also a common misconception that 16-year-olds are not as informed and engaged in political issues as older voters. The available research, however, suggests otherwise. These young B.C. citizens are also old enough to drive, drop out of school, get married, pay taxes and sign up for the military. They are taxed without representation.

Each and every year B.C. students are required to take social studies 11 or civic studies 11 or B.C. First Nations studies 12 to fulfil their social studies graduation requirement. Politics and government is a key unit in the social studies curriculum, taken when students are typically 16. It’s an ideal time to engage students on the history and importance of voting.

Today’s decision-makers don’t have to live with the long-term consequences of the decisions they make. Those who do are either not allowed to or are not participating in our democratic institutions. We can do something about the former by reducing the voter age to 16. After all, the youth of today are the leaders of tomorrow. They should have a say in the direction we are heading, as they will inherit what we leave behind.

Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Germany and parts of the U.K., to name but a few jurisdictions, have extended voting rights to 16-year-olds. Scotland experimented by lowering the voting age in their independence referendum. They viewed it as being so successful that they subsequently permanently dropped the voting age to 16 in all future Scottish Parliament and local government elections. It’s time that British Columbia did the same.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M229, Election Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Video of Introduction

Media Release

Media Release: May 10, 2016
Andrew Weaver – Good evidence for changing voting age to 16
Embargoed Until May 11, 1:30pm
 
Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head today tabled legislation to lower the voting age to 16 in British Columbia.

“There is a lot of evidence that shows that if we engage our youth earlier in the political process they are more likely to develop voting as a habit for the rest of their life,” says Weaver. “The decisions we make today as legislators will have a profound impact on the lives of our youth, I can’t think of a good reason why they shouldn’t have a stake in those decisions.”

The voting age was not always 18 in British Columbia. British Columbia dropped the voting age in 1952 from 21 to 19, but it wasn’t until 1992 that we made the subsequent change to lower the age to 18. The Election Amendment Act, 2016, if passed, would change the voting age to 16.

“Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and parts of the UK to name but a few jurisdictions, have extended voting rights to 16-year-olds”, notes Weaver. Scotland experimented by lowering the voting age in their independence referendum. They viewed it as being so successful that they subsequently permanently dropped the voting age to 16 in all future Scottish Parliament and local government elections.
It’s time that British Columbia did the same.”

“There is a general misconception that 16 and 17-year-olds are too young to make informed decisions or that they will just vote the way their parents tell them to. Research indicates that this is not the case,” argues Weaver. “It appears there is actually a trickle-up effect in civic participation. When youth engage in civics, conversations around the dinner table tend to focus on politics and local issues, which results in a positive impact on voter turnout for the whole family.”

“We allow our 16-year-olds to drive, pay taxes, drop out of school, get married, sign up for the military and work unrestricted hours. Why are we not allowing them to vote?” asks Weaver.

-30-

Media Contact

Mat Wright – Press Secretary Andrew Weaver MLA
1 250 216 3382
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

It was a very busy day for me in the Legislature today. I was one of only two opposition members who spoke at 2^nd reading to Bill 24 – 2016: Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act. I was one of only five opposition members who spoke at 2^nd reading to Bill 23: Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, 2016. And I was one of only two opposition members who spoke at 2^nd reading to Bill 25 – 2016: Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016.

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Acts are omnibus acts that propose numerous minor changes to a number of existing pieces of legislation. Bill 25 is the third such act we are debating in this session alone.

Bill 25 proposes amendments to ten existing acts: the Agricultural Land Commission Act; the Assessment Act; the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act; the Environmental Management Act, the Income Tax Act, the Insurance Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the Local Government Act, the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act.

While many of the proposed changes are minor, as you will see from the text and video of my speech that I reproduce below, I have serious reservations about two critical amendments. I also have a number of questions on other amendments that I will defer to committee stage.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 25, Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016. Like so many of these other miscellaneous statutes amendment acts, this act is a potpourri of changes to a variety of acts, with some additional transitional provisions attached to them, as need arises.

The act amends ten acts: the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which I’m sure the member for Saanich South will have some comments on; the Assessment Act; the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act; the Environmental Management Act, the Income Tax Act, the Insurance Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the Local Government Act, the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act.

Under the ALC, there are two amendments to the ALC Act. The first is an amendment that will require the ALC to obtain the owner’s consent before excluding land for the reserve. This is mostly applicable in boundary reviews.

The second, as the minister mentioned, adds a regulation-making authority so that the commission can provide clarity to farmers about agritourism activities — for example, a wedding on a farm. Regulations on these are expected this spring.

However, there is a clause that does raise some concern, and that’s clause 1.3 in this bill, which I’m sure we can explore further at committee stage. This seems to allow the commission to have a loophole so that the consent by owners is not actually required to remove land from the ALR. I’d be interested in exploring what the government has in mind with respect to the inclusion of section 1.3 further at committee stage.

In terms of the Assessment Act, the amendment for this will give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to prescribe assessed values for certain restricted use properties. The change is designed to ensure that Crown corporations, either provincial or federal, on Crown land are paying their fair share of property taxes. On this, I think there will be a broad agreement as these are fine changes.

Similar with the Local Government Act on page 5 of this bill, the amendment there fixes a mistake that was done in 2015 under the Statute Revision Act. It removes a contraction that exists presently.

Under the Environmental Management Act, there is an amendment which gives the flexibility to the minister to be able to update area-based management plans and improve permitting certainty within those areas. Specifically, a director is given the power to amend the permit after consultation with the minister. I, again, see no problems in support in this aspect.

Then we come to the Protected Areas of B.C. Act, page 7, which is troubling. The amendment here reduces the size of Finn Creek, of the park there, so that the Kinder Morgan expansion can continue planning its route. The proposed boundary adjustment will not be brought into force unless the NEB, of course, approves the project, the five conditions are met, and the province has issued an environmental assessment certificate, as the minister pointed out.

The park is reduced by a couple of hectares, but this reduction will cut a line directly through the northern section of the park. This follows Trans Mountain’s request to the province to amend various parks for its proposed route in 2014.

Obviously, I will be opposing this particular amendment. This is precluding…. Despite the fact that the minister is giving us the assurance of the government that this will not be brought into force unless the NEB and the five conditions are met, the reality is that we are putting it in place now, and frankly, that sends a signal that government is moving forwards to get to yes on a project that the majority of British Columbians realize is simply not reconcilable with their values.

To turn the port in Vancouver, through the Burnaby facility, into one of the largest shippers of heavy oil in the world. It’s simply not consistent with the values of British Columbians. This particular amendment is troubling in that it’s sending a green-light signal — that in its desperation to get to yes no matter what the question is, government is already starting to introduce legislation to amend parks.

Under the Income Tax Act, I find this very troubling as well. Here, there’s going to be provisions for a transitional period that will allow the film and television industry to adapt to the changes in tax credits recently announced. The amendments reduces the digital animation, visual effects and post production tax credit from 17 to 11 percent of the amount determined by the taxation formula.

In my view, this is troubling, because in doing this, what government is sending is a signal to an up-and-coming vibrant sector that: “You know what? You’re not as welcome as you used to be.” It’s early. It’s too early to be clawing back credits to an industry that is beginning to blossom. A 21st century economy industry in this province of British Columbia that we are known for internationally, beginning to emerge, and this government is now cutting out its heels, taking out its legs in the process.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The Minister of Health doesn’t think so, but I would like it hear the input that I’ve…. Rather, I’d be delighted to share the input I received from the industry with respect to this particular cut. It is troubling. It is troubling when we are doing whatever we can to literally give away our natural gas resources to foreign entities, who otherwise would not be here and still are probably not going to be here, even though we’ve given away the farm.

Here we have an industry — a home-grown industry, jobs in B.C. industry, distributed jobs in B.C. industry — and we’re saying: “You know what? Your time is over. We’re going to continue to double-down on the falling stock of liquefied natural gas.” Despite the fact that Australia is years ahead of us. Despite the fact that China is now a seller on the international marketplace. Despite the fact that not a single LNG facility has been approved. Despite the fact that each and every one of the promises made by this government leading to the 2013 election has been broken. Every one of them.

Instead of saying: “Plan B. We need to move towards a 21st-century economy that builds on the strength of what we are good at here in B.C. — innovation, creativity, tech, bringing tech together with resource sector….” No, no, no. What we’re going to do is actually is chop them down at the knees just as they’re getting going.

To the Insurance Act — there are some changes there as well and, also, to the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act, neither of which I found to be particularly troubling. Just a few minor amendments there.

We’ve got the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act here. The amendments clarify B.C. Housing authority to provide support services and manage multipurpose developments that include housing and non-housing components. It allows the ministry to include land development related to housing. It also expands the powers and duties of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission to include social and other housing services.

There’ll be some questions at committee stage. But because these amendments came under a natural gas development amendment section, they may be worthy of exploring in a little more detail. I’m wondering whether or not this is actually something to do with housing specifically for the natural gas industry, as part of our, frankly, continuing generational sellout as we try to do whatever we can, whatever it takes, to get to yes, no matter what the question.

Liquor Control and Licensing Act, page 15. This amendment is, again, one that I see no major concerns in. It gives the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch the ability to reconsider liquor enforcement decisions. The grounds, of course, for reconsideration are to be set out in regulations like much of what we’re debating.

This amendment means that the enforcement decisions will be reconsidered without the necessity of having to apply to the court for a judicial review. There are a number of guidelines and prescribed grounds that are to be established by the general manager for these amendments to work. Another piece of legislation there, an amendment, that I think will work well.

Taken together, there are a couple of troubling sections — notably, two in this overall bill. Obviously, I’ll be supporting the bill at second reading so that we can actually vote upon the individual sections at committee stage and vote them down accordingly.

Video of Speech

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 24 – 2016: Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act at second reading. As I noted earlier,  this Bill mirrors my private members Bill introduced on February 25 entitled Bill M204 — 2016: Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act. This represents the third of my private members bills that has been adopted by government this session. Below are the text and video of my speech supporting this bill.

Text of Speech

Near the end of February, British Columbia faced an issue similar to what other provinces have faced in the past. Robert Pickton, one of Canada’s most prolific serial killers, published a book entitled Pickton: In His Own Words.

This book was available on Amazon for a short while before it was taken down. As one expected, the situation outraged many people across the province and brought to light a gap in our current legal system. Prior to the introduction of this legislation before us, we had nothing in our province that prevented convicted criminals from financially profiting through the recounting of their crimes. That’s why my office and I delved deeper into this issue and identified a number of provinces that had already introduced legislation to address this issue.

On February 25, 2016, I introduced Bill M204 — Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act, 2016, which was based on similar legislation in Nova Scotia. I am strongly in support of the intentions of this legislation and look forward to its passage in the Legislature.

However, please let me take a few minutes to recount the other side of what we uncovered as we looked into this issue. It’s my hope that by doing so, I can contribute positively to making a strong piece of legislation that is applied appropriately to specific situations, such as the case with Robert Pickton.

Now, Ontario was the first to enact legislation that prevented criminals from profiting from the notoriety of their crimes through recounting them, typically through publishing books that retold their crimes. Ontario passed this legislation in 2002. Manitoba followed in 2004, Alberta in 2005, Nova Scotia in 2006 and Saskatchewan in 2009.

I think it’s important to note that, as far as I can tell, Canada’s Parliament has refused to bring in similar legislation for fears of impairment of the free speech of Canadians. This concern arose in 1996 when the Senate rejected Bill C-205, which would see amendments made to the Copyright Act and the Criminal Code in order to create a federal law. While the bill passed through the House of Commons, the Senate received legal opinions that cautioned that the legislation would cause an infringement to their freedom of expression guarantee in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is here that I’d like to highlight the work of Joanne Colledge, executive officer to the Chief Justice of Saskatchewan and the provincial judicial council, and John Whyte, an emeritus professor in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Regina. Their paper entitled Capturing Proceeds from Criminal Notoriety: A Case Study was published in 2012 in issue 2 of volume 17 of the journal Review of Constitutional Studies, pages 41 to 72. You can get the link on my website after today.

This paper provides an excellent overview of one of the most important debates we must undertake in advancing this legislation. It further shines a light on a potential pitfall for governments who seek to take this law too far or to prosecute a specific individual instead of an issue of public policy. The work by Colledge and Whyte explores the series of events that led to Saskatchewan’s bill being introduced in 2009 and their concerns that it represented a possible Charter violation. This was due to the way in which the bill seemed to target an individual specifically rather than a public policy in general.

The individual in question, Mr. Colin Thatcher, was in the press at the time in discussions about his attempt to publish a book recounting some elements surrounding his arrest and conviction. Please let me quote directly from the work of Colledge and Whyte:

 “While certainly not unique to Saskatchewan, the enactment of the Notoriety Act caused concern precisely because it was done so quickly, without due consideration for potential constitutional considerations; because it was targeted specifically to ensure that Thatcher’s book would be captured by the acts provision, including expressly making the Notoriety Act’s application retro-active; and because of all this occurred before anyone in the government or elsewhere had seen the book’s content. That the Notoriety Act may have been targeted to capture Thatcher’s book seems especially significant since, written into the Notoriety Act are two sections that were not applied by the Government. These two sections allow exceptions to the Act’s application when the content falls within certain statutory definitions.

What ultimately came to issue here was the language used by the Saskatchewan legislature. They created: “definitional layers and an indeterminate scope that served to frustrate a clear understanding of which writings will actually fall within the Notoriety Act’s expropriating provisions.” That was a direct quote from the same paper.

Now I know that the legislature will have ample opportunity to ensure that the language chosen in the government’s bill, the Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act, does not create a similar issue. However, I felt it was important to take an opportunity at second reading to ensure that the principle in question was expressed.

This bill and the similar legislation I introduced followed a specific case where an individual whose actions horrified British Columbians attempted to publish an account of these crimes for profit. While I’m convinced that we must address a glaring legislative gap, and I further stand behind the principle that this legislation advances, we must ensure that we are setting up a legislative framework that works to create a fundamental tenet: those who commit criminal acts should not profit from the direct retelling of their crimes. We must ensure that this is restricted to instances where the purpose of the individual was exactly this.

The concerns expressed in the Colledge and Whyte paper are that the individual in Saskatchewan, Colin Thatcher, who I mentioned earlier, was not attempting to publish a recounting of his crimes, but rather “to examine the police investigation and prosecution, and to analyze critically both the evidence and the theory on which his conviction was based.”

The central tenet expressed in their critique seems well founded. We must not allow this legislation to become a tool that represses legitimate forms of free speech. Whether or not a government likes something that is published should not be the determining factor, rather whether the text meets the specific requirements of the legislation before us should be.

This is why the words matter. Words matter. They must be able to diverge unpopular opinions from those where an individual seeks to recount their crimes for profit.

I look forward to exploring this in more detail when the minister brings this bill to committee stage and hope to get his perspective on where, in this balancing act, this particular piece of legislation lands. I commend the government for bringing the legislation forward. It’s timely, needed, and I thank you for your attention.

Video of Speech