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

Today I had the honour of addressing the delegates to the 2017 Convention of the Union of BC Municipalities as Leader of the BC Green Party. Below I reproduce the essential elements of the speech. You will see in the text a number of sections where I spoke freely. I tried to link to articles on my website that give the essence of what I was referring to in my speech.

Video of my UBCM Speech

Text of my Speech

Please let me start by thanking the Union of BC Municipalities for providing me with this opportunity to speak to you today.

Last year I stood before you as the Leader and lone elected MLA of the BC Green Party. This year so much has changed. I’m thrilled to be now joined by my two caucus colleagues: Adam Olsen, the MLA for Saanich North & the Islands and Sonia Furstenau, the MLA for Cowichan Valley.

Both Sonia and Adam come to the BC Legislature with experience at the local government level. Adam was a former Central Saanich Councillor and Sonia was a Regional Director in the Cowichan Valley Regional District. While our caucus is small, it is certainly mighty.

The world is changing there is a growing agitation for change borne out of an overall dissatisfaction with the status quo, career politicians, and conventional economic assumptions.

Simultaneously, we are experiencing major disruptive threats due to the mounting effects of climate change and technological advancement.

Many of these trends are present in the sociopolitical landscape of B.C.

The affordability crisis, caused by a combination of runaway real estate prices due to speculation and the desirability of B.C. as a place to live, and incomes that have failed to keep pace, in particular for young people, have left many people feeling hopeless and anxious about their future.

British Columbians are also simultaneously environmentally conscious, as well as cognizant of our province’s historical dependence on resource development for economic growth.

We are not afraid to acknowledge that there are many challenges, such as climate change and technological disruption, facing the world.

But with every challenge, comes an opportunity. If we make smart choices based on a long-term vision for the province, we can seize the exciting opportunities arising and build a dynamic province where British Columbians enjoy a high quality of life for generations to come.

In that, the provincial government, needs to recognize the crucial leadership role for municipalities and empower your members to pursue solutions that work for your unique communities. Your knowledge and expertise are needed now more than ever.

Rather than hanging onto, or trying to go back to, the economy of the last century we should be positioning ourselves as leaders in the 21^st century economy and that may look different for every community.

We have a unique opportunity in British Columbia because of three strategic advantages that we have over virtually every other region in the world.

1. The quality of life and natural environment allows us to attract and retain some of the best and brightest from around the globe —we are a destination of choice.
2. We have a highly skilled and educated work force. Our high school students are consistently top ranked — with the OECD specifying BC as one of the smartest academic jurisdictions in the world.
3. We have access to renewable resources — energy, water, and wood — like no other jurisdiction. We have incredible potential to create a clean, renewable energy sector to sustain our growing economy.

But for British Columbia to actually capitalize on our strategic advantages, we must ensure we protect them.

A quality public education is not the luxury of a strong economy. A quality education is what builds a strong economy.

And we must start thinking about the long-term consequences of our decisions, decisions that put people, rather than vested corporate or union interests or re-election goals first and foremost.

Last year in my UBCM speech I spoke about the need for leadership that placed the interests of the people of British Columbia — not organized union or corporate interests— first and foremost in decision-making. In that speech I announced for the first time that the BC Green Party would no long be accepting corporate or union donations.

“Leadership means leading by example,” I said. “And the BC Greens commit to doing just that.”

One year to the day later, I’m proud to say that we have had our last provincial election under corporate and union rule. I hope that in the weeks or months ahead, we will see the same corrosive influence removed from municipal politics as well.

If we are going to make BC a more prosperous place for ordinary people, we must:

• Work to provide everyone with economic security,
• Ensure our province’s resources are managed sustainably, and
• Make equity a fundamental value of a government that operates in the best interests of this generation – and future generations.

During the election the BC Green platform set out a bold plan to achieve this vision. It was grounded in economic security and sustainability in their full and truest sense. And it provided clear steps – based on evidence – to move us towards greater wellbeing for all British Columbians.

This is what we ran on. The NDP ran on something different. As did the Liberals. All parties presented ideas that resonated with certain people and communities.

But none of us got it perfectly right, as the election results indicate.

The BC NDP didn’t win a majority. The BC Liberals didn’t win a majority. And the BC Greens didn’t win a majority. Instead, we have a minority government. And I truly believe it has the potential to become far more than simply the sum of its parts – if parties choose to work together.

All parties have something to offer on behalf of the British Columbians that voted for our vision for the province. We have many shared priorities, goals, and values.

The interim budget presented two weeks ago is a wonderful starting point. It is a budget that includes initiatives from all three parties:

It was built on the foundation of the BC Liberals’ February budget and retained a number of positive initiatives started by their government.

It includes some important new NDP priorities. And it featured some BC Green led initiatives, such as the Innovation Commissioner, Emerging Economy Task Force, and Fair Wage Commission.

The BC government is working towards a new more collaborative form of governance and I am feeling very optimistic that this shift will lead to the creation of stronger public policy.

On child care, for instance, there are multiple proposals on the table. The Confidence and Supply Agreement our caucus signed with the BC NDP caucus set up structures for consultation so that we can collaborate to develop sound, evidence-based policies that will put people first.

In a minority government, we have an opportunity to collaborate to deliver the best public policy outcomes for British Columbians.

Childcare should be accessible, affordable and include a strong focus on early childhood education. We agreed with the BC NDP on these values, but had had slightly different ideas in terms of how to implement them.

Going forward, I believe we can develop a child care policy that features the best aspects of each proposal. Both proposals are a starting point upon which we can further improve.

We are not going back on this commitment – we are taking it further.

Our cooperative mindset can’t be confined to the legislative chamber, though, it must extend to each of your communities.

Given the challenges our province is facing – climate change, the opioid crisis, housing prices, homelessness, poverty, the automation of jobs, the decarbonization of our energy systems – we need your leadership.

Each community will have different challenges and opportunities in addressing these problems, no one knows this better than you.

The province needs to support your work.

Throughout my time in the legislature I have heard from countless communities who have innovative and ambitious plans in their jurisdiction. They’ve gone the distance, but the provincial government won’t step in to take it any further.

And, as we all know too well, the development of resources without proper engagement, consultation and consent has been a major source of conflict in communities across BC.

This approach is disrespectful, damaging to the environment, First Nation communities, municipalities and damaging to cross-governmental relationships.

My colleagues and I believe that we need a different approach to resource development: one that is inclusive, truly collaborative, and does not come with a pre-determined outcome.

One that respects the principle of free, prior and informed consent.

One that is bottom-up rather than top-down.

My favourite example of this concerns the ski resort proposals at Jumbo and Valemont.

Talk about Jumbo vs Valemont process

Another pressing, cross jurisdictional issue is, of course, housing.

We currently have an endless supply of demand. British Columbia is a beautiful province and wonderful place to live. Understandably, people want to move here to retire, study, work, and raise families. In many communities, the housing available is bursting at the seams.

Thanks to inadequate provincial policies and a lack of leadership on the housing file, municipalities have been forced to do more with less.

As we head into this new governance chapter my Green caucus colleagues and I stand with your communities and hope to amplify the solutions you are calling for.

We must protect the values of houses and apartments as homes first, not investment commodities.

Despite the barriers that have been blocking innovation and adaptation in BC, I have heard incredible success stories from companies and municipalities:

Talk about Penticton, Structurlam

Talk about Prince Rupert, container port

Talk about Terrace/Burns Lake, manufacturing

Talk about Prince George, broadband

To close I’ll end my speech much the same way as I did last year when I announced the BC Greens were going to stop accepting corporate and union donations on the eve of an election year:

Real leadership doesn’t come from doing what is easy. It is built on doing what is right.

In the year ahead this sentiment will continue to guide our work. Thank you again for having me.