Yesterday the Premier held a press conference in the rose garden, where she stated: “This isn’t a working Legislature, and I haven’t seen any evidence that it could work.” She further stated: “There’s no effort on the part of either opposition party to work together.”
Today in the Legislature I was up in Question Period. I took the opportunity to ask the Premier why she made these statement when the majority of members in this House stand ready and willing to work together.
Below I reproduce the video and text of the exchange. You’ll see in the exchange that the BC Liberals were much more feisty than usual. The Premier was also made to withdraw a comment she made.
A. Weaver: Yesterday the Premier held a press conference in the rose garden, where she stated: “This isn’t a working Legislature, and I haven’t seen any evidence that it could work.” She further stated: “There’s no effort on the part of either opposition party to work together.”
Hon. Speaker, she implied that because her government, the government under her leadership, has been unable to advance its agenda — frankly, our agenda — the only option is to subject British Columbia to another election. For weeks, the Premier has delayed a confidence vote that she knows she will lose. Instead, her government has chosen to play political games that are designed to undermine cooperation and stability.
Let me be clear. Stability does not depend on this Premier holding on to power. The Greens stand ready to work with all parties…
Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.
A. Weaver: …once the government has demonstrated that it has the confidence of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Member, one minute.
Members, the Chair will hear the question.
A. Weaver: My question to the Premier is this: can the Premier clarify why she made this statement when the majority of members in this House stand ready and willing to work together?
Mr. Speaker: Premier — through the Chair.
Hon. C. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You know, that member campaigned hard in the election on saying that he was going to be different. Instead, what he’s done is decide to just be more of the same. That member campaigned in the election saying that he was going to be an independent voice in this Legislature, and instead what he’s done is decide to sit there and take orders from one of the major parties rather than making up his own mind.
That member said that he supported campaign finance reform and then refused to even look at it when it was proposed in this Legislature. And now that member stands up and says he’s willing to work with anybody. Nobody believes you anymore.
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s good to see the Premier acting like the Leader of the Official Opposition in response to my question here.
We’ve been very clear. This government needs to test the confidence of this House before this government can actually claim that it is not working. You know, again, yesterday the Premier told the press in the rose garden this: “I don’t see a path forward. I don’t see any evidence that it can work.” I think, more aptly, the Premier has found that there is no evidence that the B.C. Liberal government can work, as it lacks the confidence of this House.
The Greens again have made it clear. We are ready to work with all parties once government has demonstrated….
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The Chair will hear the question.
A. Weaver: It’s remarkable. They’re getting ready to be in opposition yet again.
Mr. Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the question.
A. Weaver: Thank you. We’ve got a feisty bunch on the other side.
Mr. Speaker: The question, Member.
A. Weaver: Again — once the government has demonstrated that it has the confidence of the House.
You know, it’s very clear to us. It’s very clear to the legislative press gallery. It’s very clear to the people in British Columbia that this Premier is trying to actually have an election because she knows she doesn’t have the confidence of the House.
Again, my question….
Mr. Speaker: Members, Members. Members, the Chair will hear the question.
A. Weaver: Again….
Mr. Speaker: And the question, Member?
A. Weaver: Again, I encourage the members opposite to read the columns in the paper today by the….
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Mr. Speaker: The Chair will hear the question.
A. Weaver: As I’ve said earlier…
Mr. Speaker: And could you move to the question?
A. Weaver: …it’s time for this lot to be put in a time-out. They’re acting like belligerent children who are kicking and screaming as they’re going into that time-out.
Mr. Speaker: Member, the Chair will hear a question.
A. Weaver: Thank you. My question, through you to the Premier: can the Premier please clarify why she made this statement again when the majority of members are here in the House ready and willing to work together?
Hon. C. Clark: That member, for the last seven days, or the days that we’ve sat, has rejected two pieces of legislation that during the election, he campaigned very hard and said that he supported, including campaign finance reform. He has stood in this House. We’ve seen the spectacle of the Opposition House Leader whispering orders to him and coming down and telling him how to vote.
We have watched as this member has steadfastly refused to work with members in this House on issues with which he said he profoundly agrees. And now he is saying: “Trust me. I do want to work with everybody — just not now.” And now he is saying….
Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.
Hon. C. Clark: After saying to his constituents: “I do want to work with everybody. I do want the Legislature to be different. I don’t want to be part of this arena where good ideas are rejected just for political reasons….” He wasn’t telling the truth about that then, and he isn’t telling the truth about what he is saying today.
Mr. Speaker: Premier.
A. Weaver: Can I ask that you…?
Some Voices: Withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Premier, can you withdraw?
Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The Chair heard the withdrawal.
Today in the legislature I was up in question period and I wanted to take the opportunity to question the Premier as to whether or not she was going to fulfill her constitutional obligations as First Minister.
Last week, the Premier stated that she doesn’t intend to give the Lieutenant-Governor any advice when she loses the confidence vote scheduled for Thursday. But as I note in the framing of my supposed question today, she has a constitutional obligation to do so should she lose such a motion. The Premier can do one of two things: 1) resign; 2) provide advice to the Lieutenant Governor. The advice to the Lieutenant Governor would be viewed as her seeking another election. Of course, the Lieutenant Governor does not have to listen to such advice.
The Premier reiterated today in a press conference at the BC Legislature that she was not going to be providing advice but would be willing to answer the Lieutenant Governor’s questions. In my view the Premier’s behaviour is disrespectful of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.
It’s pretty clear that the Premier is trying to trigger a summer election and to set the stage to blame the Lieutenant Governor, rather than accepting responsibility, if such an election is called. As I have reiterated many times before, the games the BC Liberals continue to play are never ending.
What was particularly disturbing about Question Period today was that I was hoping to question the Premier as to whether or not she was going to fulfill her constitutional obligation. Shortly after I rose, the Minister of Finance started calling on the Speaker to rule my question as being out of order.
As you’ll see below, my question was ruled out of order before I even asked it! You literally can’t make this stuff up.
The BC Liberals need to be put in a time out. They are clearly more interested in political calculation and the quest for power than they are in putting the interests of people front and centre. The BC NDP and the BC Greens have an accord that will ensure stability of the house and confidence in an NDP minority government.
A. Weaver: Last week, the Premier stated that she doesn’t intend to give the Lieutenant-Governor any advice when she loses the confidence vote scheduled for Thursday. Yet scholars have been very clear. The Premier has a constitutional duty to provide advice on how to proceed to the Lieutenant-Governor. It’s a long-standing tradition that the Lieutenant-Governor acts on the basis of advice from the first minister. For the Premier to refuse this advice is an abdication of her constitutional responsibility.
My question to the Premier is this.
Mr. Speaker: Member, the question is out of order. It has nothing to do with her ministerial responsibilities.
A. Weaver: The question is as follows, then. The Premier has refused to have a vote in the House on confidence. We’ve delayed after delayed after delayed. Will the Premier make public her recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor that will be put forward shortly?
Mr. Speaker: Again, that question is out of order. It has nothing do to do with her ministerial responsibility.
Today in the Legislature I took the opportunity to question the Premier about the letter that the Minister of Finance sent to the Speaker today. The BC Liberals were very feisty in their heckling during my questioning.
As is evident from the exchange below, it is pretty clear to me that the Premier’s commitment to working across party lines is predicated on her government being in power. The BC Greens and the BC NDP signed a “supply and confidence agreement” on May 29th. Seven weeks later the BC Liberals continue to delay the inevitable confidence motion.
Below I reproduce the text and video of the exchange today.
A. Weaver: The NDP and the B.C. Greens have already demonstrated their willingness to work across party lines. The Premier has stated….
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The Chair will hear the question.
A. Weaver: It’s good to see the government acting like an opposition party right now.
The Premier has stated she’s willing to do the same. Last week, the Liberals even adopted 30 B.C. Green and B.C. NDP policies, most of which we now have all-party agreement on. If the B.C. Liberals are being honest with British Columbians when they say they want to avoid an election and make this Legislature work, then the issues that the Minister of Finance raised today in his letter to you, hon. Speaker, will be the exception, not the norm, since we should all be able to cooperate to advance good public policy in the best interests of British Columbia. So….
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
A. Weaver: My question is to the Premier: will she reiterate to this House and to British Columbians her party’s commitment to work constructively across party lines to ensure stability regardless….
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The Chair will hear the question.
A. Weaver: Again, will she reiterate for this House and to British Columbians her party’s commitment to work constructively across party lines to ensure stability regardless of where she and her party sit in this chamber?
Hon. C. Clark: Thanks to the member for the question. Yesterday, our government introduced legislation which all three parties campaigned on supporting — on campaign finance reform. And the members of this House….
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The Chair heard the question. The Chair will also hear the answer.
Hon. C. Clark: In an effort to put forward legislation, again, that demonstrated that this House could work and work across party lines — campaign finance legislation — which all parties and British Columbians agree it’s time for…. Members of this House voted against it, including that member, before he’d ever even seen it.
In addition to that, yesterday in this House, this government introduced another piece of legislation which all parties, I understood, agreed on — a one-page piece of legislation that would have changed something like two words. Legislation that would have given him official party status. That member also voted against it. So he should be careful about talking about working across party lines. He doesn’t want to be a party. I guess we’ll only be able to work with one of them in this House.
A. Weaver: Well, the B.C. Liberals continue to act like that belligerent child going into a hissy fit, kicking and screaming as they’re put in a time-out that they don’t want to go into.
I didn’t hear the B.C. Liberals campaigning on the election campaign to give the B.C. Green party, party status. I certainly did not hear them campaigning to ban big money on the election campaign. This is revisionist history.
You know, if the B.C. Liberals are truly sincere about their desire to collaborate across party lines and work to implement legislation on the priorities outlined in their throne speech, the question raised in the Minister of Finance’s letters would be of limited relevance. After all, with all the policy agreements that we have in the last few days, there shouldn’t be many tied votes. The Liberals support both of our platforms.
Yet, the government….
Mr. Speaker: Members.
A. Weaver: This is remarkable. They truly are getting ready to sit in opposition. It’s remarkable.
Yet the government appears to unnecessarily be delaying the confidence vote, creating uncertainty and using every opportunity to raise the spectre of a possible election, which only the governing party seems to want.
Did you know that the idea of another election has a lower approval rating than Donald Trump?
My question is this. Assuming you are sincere, assuming….
Mr. Speaker: Members. We’ll hear the question.
A. Weaver: Assuming that the government is sincere about their intention to work constructively across party lines, why are they so focused on the games that they are playing to create uncertainty in British Columbia today?
Hon. C. Clark: So, what I understand from the member from Oak Bay is he thinks that the way to demonstrate that we are working across party lines is for him to vote against the things he campaigned on, because it didn’t come from his preferred party in the Legislature.
He campaigned on campaign finance reform. And then he voted against it. He campaigned in favour of his party and asked very clearly for his party to have third party status. And then he voted against it — in both cases, without even wanting to see the bill before it was introduced.
That is not demonstrating that you can work across party lines. That’s shown that the member opposite has put himself in an ideological box he can’t find his way out of. He isn’t willing to work across party lines.
If he does change his mind about that, though, I would be delighted, if he’d be willing to give leave for it, to offer those two bills to the House again so we can conduct the vote again and demonstrate that we can all work across party lines on issues where we all agree…
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. C. Clark: …because there’s no reason that the leader of the Greens should be working so hard to defeat legislation that he campaigned on.
Seven weeks after an election, the B.C. Liberal government continues to play games in a desperate attempt to hold onto power. Failing that, they are doing everything they can in an attempt to force another election in July.
Yesterday the BC Liberals introduced two bills that were defeated at First Reading. Had they not been defeated, the BC Liberals could have used their passage as evidence that they initially had the confidence of the house. Any subsequent non confidence vote would almost certainly have triggered another election. And such a vote is now scheduled on Thursday.
Rather than accepting the fact that they do not have the confidence of the house, today’s antics were in the form of a letter that Finance Minister de Jong presented to Honourable Steve Thomson, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, seeking clarification regarding the role of the Speaker in the B.C. legislature.
Later in the day, Mike Farnworth, the BC NDP House Leader, sent the Speaker another letter. In this letter he criticized the BC Liberals for preempting “the Lieutenant Governor’s deliberative process by providing what amounts to constitutional legal advice to the legislature, based on the insulting proposition that Members are not able to collect and assess their own information on this matter.” He further noted “The majority of the Members of the House could as easily ask for your opinion on whether 44 votes in the legislature amounts to a greater or lesser number of voting members than 43. We will not do so, out of abundant respect for the nature of your office.”
Let’s be clear: If the concerns around the speaker cannot be resolved, it will be because the BC Liberals have once again chosen to put their own political self-interest ahead of the interests of British Columbians.
The Liberals delayed recalling the legislature, and have delayed a confidence vote. Other than Carole James, John Horgan, and me, none of the other BC NDP or BC Green MLAs will be speaking in response to the Throne Speech. We have to endure four days of BC Liberal MLAs speaking in favour of the throne speech. But the irony is mind boggling. Two months ago, these same MLAs were campaigning against the very same policies contained in the Throne Speech. Time after time the BC Liberal MLAs also talk about wanting working across party lines to implement BC Green and BC NDP campaign issues.
Conventions is clear. If the B.C. Liberals lose the confidence vote, then the Lieutenant Governor should first see if another party can form government and gain the confidence of the house before going to an election.
Our Confidence and Supply agreement with the B.C. NDP demonstrates that an NDP minority government under Mr. Horgan has the confidence of a majority of members.
The only reason the Speaker concerns would have any merit is if the B.C. Liberals have been deliberately misleading British Columbians about their willingness to work across party lines. It is beginning to seem like for the BC Liberals, working across party lines means BC Liberals will say anything or do anything so long as they remain in power.
If the B.C. Liberals are being honest with British Columbians when they say they want to avoid an election and work across party lines, then we will have one of the most productive legislatures in history. If the Speaker is truly impartial in his role, then he will not step down when the B.C. Liberal government falls.
As this week plays out, it certainly appears that the BC Liberals are acting like a belligerent child kicking and screaming while refusing to be put in a time-out for poor behaviour.
Today in the Legislature I rose to speak to the BC Liberal Speech from the Throne. As I noted in my brief media statement following the Throne Speech, the about-face taken by the B.C. Liberal government is astonishing.
For the first time, we now have all-party agreement on major issues like banning big money, investing significantly in child care and raising social assistance rates. All three parties now support holding a referendum on proportional representation that will give British Columbians a legislature that reflects our province’s diversity.
The B.C. Liberals have been in power for sixteen years and until now actively opposed many of these policies. I am pleased to hear of their willingness to work across party lines. After all, what could be more stable than all three parties working together to advance major policies that will benefit British Columbians.
However, the Throne Speech vote is a confidence vote that is a matter of trust. We cannot have confidence in a government that for sixteen years has argued against these policies, and in the last few days has suddenly recognized that they are in the best interests of British Columbians. We will look to the Liberals to demonstrate a genuine willingness to follow through on these commitments regardless of where they sit in the legislature.
Leaders from all three parties have recognized that the results of this election present a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to work together. I look forward to collaborating with my colleagues on both sides of the house to deliver on the change British Columbians voted for.
Below I reproduce the text and video of my response to the Speech from the Throne.
A. Weaver: Mr. Speaker, please let me be the first to congratulate the members for Surrey–White Rock and Kamloops–North Thompson for their maiden speeches in this new parliament.
I rise to speak in response to the throne speech. Now, in the 2017 election, the B.C. Greens ran on a new vision for British Columbia that we will put at the very centre of all our decision-making in the months and years ahead. There are three central tenets that underpin our vision that we explained and took to British Columbians in the 2017 election.
First, the B.C. Greens believe that it is the moral responsibility of government to promote the health and well-being of British Columbians. Everything else that government does should serve this purpose.
Second, we believe that equity should be a fundamental value of government and that government should operate in the best interests of not only the present generation but, also, future generations to come. We, too, should leave a better world to the next generation, as our parents did for us. Frankly, this looked like we were heading to be the first generation in British Columbia where we would hand off to the next generation an environment and social systems and an economy that were not the same as we inherited from our parents. It was trending downwards. It is the future of our children and our grandchildren, not only our own well-being, that is at stake in the decisions that we make today in this Legislature.
The third central tenet is that the government should act as stewards of our public resources to ensure they benefit all British Columbians, both today and into the future. Our natural resources cannot continue to be harvested in a Loraxian fashion for the short-term gain and benefits of a privileged few.
A. Weaver: I was asked by the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast to provide an explanation of “Loraxian.” Well, I asked people to go and read the Dr. Seuss book called The Lorax. The Lorax quite beautifully illustrated what happens when you when you think not as to the consequences of your decisions today, where you focus only on short-term gain and the benefits of a few.
You know, our core central tenets may seem obvious. But they’ve been fundamentally lacking in our province in my view, in our view, far too long. The B.C. Greens offered a vision to restore these core values to government and to improve the lives of all British Columbians. Our vision included this.
Our vision was a vision to seize the opportunities in the emerging economy by supporting dynamic business development in a changing economy, to invest in early childhood education, not simply daycare, to give our children the strongest possible start, to invest in public education.
Over $4 billion was found in our budget, a fully costed budget, to invest in public education and lifelong learning, to ensure people had the knowledge, skills and abilities to be successful in the economies of today and tomorrow.
We had a vision to tackle climate change head on while positioning B.C. at the forefront of economic opportunities in the transition to a low-carbon economy. We had a vision to ensure that all British Columbians have their basic needs met by piloting basic income and increasing welfare rates, so that they never fall so far down that they cannot get back up again, that those less fortunate than many here are not stuck in a poverty trap that they can never escape from.
Our vision was to ensure that everyone has access to the means that support a healthy life. Our vision was based on the conviction that government should make decisions based on principles and evidence, not political calculation and political opportunism. Our vision was based on the conviction that government should put people’s interests first, ahead of special interests and corporate or union donors.
Our vision was based on the conviction that B.C.’s economy comprises and should benefit every British Columbian, not just the wealthy few. Our vision was based on the conviction that prudent fiscal management is essential. We cannot burden future generations with poor planning and short-term decision-making today. Our vision was based on the conviction that planning and government decision-making should extend beyond the next election cycle and that we need to consider the long-term effects of our decisions and actions.
As the B.C. Liberals have said many times, governing is about priorities. In considering the throne speech, we should do so in the context of how it lives up to our priorities and the values that we as B.C. Greens ran on. We ran our election campaign on many of the policies that the B.C. Liberals have just embraced in the throne speech.
Before this election, I spent four years in the Legislature pushing for action on these issues, as did other MLAs, advocacy organizations, experts and concerned citizens; pushing for issues like removing the influence of big money from our politics; pushing for issues like addressing our unacceptable rates of poverty in this province, raising social assistance rates and implementing a poverty reduction strategy.
We were pushing for action on investing in childhood education to address the childhood care crisis affecting families across British Columbia and to provide children with a strong basis for lifelong learning to enable them to succeed in the challenging economy of the 21st century.
We were pushing for discussions on issues to take meaningful action on climate change, to ensure that the world we leave for our children is no worse than the world our parents left for us.
The B.C. Liberals’ astonishing about-face in this throne speech raises the question: after 16 years of operating on one set of values, how can British Columbians trust that they — that is, the B.C. Liberals — truly believe in this new set of values?
How many of the members opposite, for the first time, when they heard the throne speech, said: “We stand for this now?” How many of the members knocked on the doorsteps in the last election, campaigning for child care, campaigning for increased education funding, campaigning for a poverty reduction plan, campaigning for basic income? I suspect none — certainly not in my riding and certainly not in the many ridings in British Columbia that I went to on behalf of the B.C. Green candidates running there.
I come back to this. How can we trust that this change, this change in principles and values so fundamental — not just “add a little of this, add a little of that” — a fundamental and structural change in values…? How can we believe — how can we trust — that this change was based on principle and integrity as opposed to pure cynical political calculation and the desire to continue to stay in power?
British Columbians have been calling on this government for years to ban big money. I’ve forgotten how many times the Leader of the Official Opposition has brought in legislation. Six it is. To that we could add a couple times that Bob Simpson and Vicki Huntington did as well. I would have done it too, had it not been done so many times before. Each and every time, this fell on deaf ears. Each and every time, nobody listened.
The B.C. Liberal response was: “We’re going to report out more often. We’re going to rub in the fact that we’re accepting corporate and union donations — outrageous donations — from companies that we have to make key strategic decisions on, on behalf of British Columbians, and we’re just going to just tell you about it a little more often.” Shocking.
British Columbians have been calling on banning big money for such a long time, yet the government has refused — until today. Now the B.C. Liberals have committed to banning big money, today, and yet continue to rake in millions from corporate donations. Witness: within three days of the election, the B.C. Liberals raised $1 million dollars from their corporate backers. Shame.
A government that is principled, a government that leads through conviction, is one that practises the behaviour that they expect others to model. I challenge the B.C. Liberals today to stop accepting corporate donations, as the B.C. Greens did in September of 2016. If they were truly committed to banning big money, they could follow our lead — the lead that we put to British Columbians in September of 2016, when the B.C. Green Party stopped accepting union and corporate donations.
Let’s go to bridge tolls. This one is remarkable. To this day, the B.C. Greens stand against removing the bridge tolls, but we recognize that as a budgetary measure, we would support the budget brought in by the new minority NDP government.
But let’s come back to the cynicism and political calculation. During the election, the Minister of Finance told British Columbians this: “The decision to forego all toll revenues in the way the NDP announced…will guarantee a credit downgrade. This decision in and of itself is sufficient to lead to a credit downgrade.”
So now, a mere six, seven weeks post this statement, we no longer have to worry about a credit downgrade. Is this about political conviction, or is it about political calculation?
That was April 10 that that statement was made. Now we’re talking about unexpected surpluses, and nobody is concerned about the credit rating anymore. Well, I am, and the B.C. Greens are, which is why we do not support removing tolls on the bridges that exist and have not supported, all along, in a consistent matter, because we believe it is good fiscal policy.
What are the revenue implications of toll bridges? They’re not a one-year budget consideration. It’s not something that you can change without long-term consequences. What justifies this change? We don’t know.
What about the sources of new money? Thirty of the 48 throne speech initiatives outlined in the government news release were nowhere to be found in the Liberal election platform. Now, I recognize, and I have respect for, the fact that the throne speech was offered with humility. They recognized that British Columbians had sent a message that the direction the province was going in had to change. But the government now has said that it can finally make these 30 of the 48 throne speech initiatives that weren’t there, because they have suddenly found new money.
Well, I’m not sure where the new money was found, because we haven’t had the fiscal year update yet, and that’s not going to be announced till either later this week or next year. I’m wondering where this money is coming from. Just two months ago, the Minister of Finance cautioned against many of the promises that the B.C. Greens and the B.C. NDP made. He said this: “The suggestion that these promises can be accommodated within a balanced budget, absent massive tax increases, is simply absurd.” Who do we believe now? Now they can be. They now suddenly can be found in the budget, at the 11th hour.
At the 11th hour of a government on its way out, they promised to implement many of those exact same promises that were too costly to do, yet they haven’t been clear on where the money will come from. The generally accepted accounting practices used by the government dictate that any unspent surplus from a previous fiscal year is allocated to paying down the budget — full stop. Has the government suddenly changed that policy to a policy that we haven’t discussed? That’s what the government is supposed to do: pay down the debt with any surplus that exists from the previous budget. We aren’t even through the first quarter of the fiscal year. So I’d be surprised if the government had reliable updated financials from this year yet.
This statement that suddenly there’s more money, frankly, is akin to promises that we’ve seen, historically, of 100,000 jobs, a $1 trillion increase in GDP, a $100 billion prosperity fund, debt-free B.C., thriving schools and hospitals — the famous unicorns in everyone’s backyard — as a consequence of an LNG industry that doesn’t exist. There was the elimination of GST, PST, and on and on. Within the fiscal framework of the budget they tabled in February of this year, there was no room for long-term planning to ensure that there is stable funding for these new promises — no room whatsoever.
How can British Columbians trust that this government has intention to follow through with these new promises, when they are premised on a surprise surplus? Is this just more politicking with the provincial budget, now that it has become politically expedient to invest in government services? I ask these questions because they get to the heart of the question of trust. Is this truly a genuine principled about-face? Or is this simply more of the same politics that British Columbians voted to change?
The initiatives that were announced in this throne speech should not be treated as throwaways, as treats to buy votes in an election year, in an attempt to retain a grip on power or as a surprise bonus when there’s an unexpected surplus. These policies need to flow from a principled vision for British Columbia and a plan on how to get there — principles and plans that the B.C. Greens offered in the last election campaign. The government arrives at this astonishing change; perhaps they did arrive at this genuinely. Who knows?
Either way, we cannot have confidence in a government that for 16 years has argued against precisely these same policies and that only in the last few days has suddenly recognized that these policies — put forward by the B.C. NDP for, say, 12 of the 16 years and by the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens for the last four years — are now suddenly in the best interest of British Columbians, without a clear demonstration that the change is driven by principles and not simply political expediency. Principles are demonstrated through action, and we simply haven’t seen the actions from this government to justify our confidence in it.
To see the faces on the members opposite as the throne speech was read out was truly a remarkable event. You know, I only had three words for the member from Chilliwack afterwards, after the throne speech was read, and it was these. “Well, well, well,” I said to the member from Chilliwack, who clearly was aghast, with his mouth near his chest, as he listened to the words during the speech from the throne. My colleagues here remember one too many well, well, wells over the years.
With all of that said, we have an incredible opportunity here. I do believe it’s actually an exciting opportunity. Never before have we had such potential for each and every MLA in this Legislature to represent their constituents before their party. That’s exciting. That’s exciting because we have a chance to put people ahead of party politics, backroom politics, and I hope that we can do that.
The Liberals, the B.C. Liberals, over the course of a 40-minute throne speech, did a 180. Actually they did a 720. They did a 320 and a 320, and it was dizzy on a significant number of their policies and priorities. I think that’s great. I think it’s great that they now believe that they should be able to work when those policies, those similar policies, are brought forward under an NDP minority government. They’ll work towards ensuring that they’re implemented in a manner that we can all support, and that is an exciting, exciting opportunity.
You know, I can just imagine. Today at first reading, we didn’t vote for two bills, because we have not tested the confidence of this Legislature. The first bill was a rather expensive bill for the B.C. Greens to not vote for, to grant us party status, but it was the principled thing to do. But more importantly, the second bill, on banning big money — I have had a chance to look at it briefly, because we were just given a copy — has elements that I think would be wonderful amendments to a bill or some of the bills that have been brought in historically by the B.C. NDP. There’s ground for a stable government moving forward, where we actually take the best ideas from both sides of this House.
Unfortunately, the B.C. Liberals have had 16 years of not listening to any of the amendments or ideas being put forward in the committee stage from bills, and now we have an opportunity to actually make that work. That is very exciting.
The B.C. Greens will work with every member of this House in good faith in the pursuit of good public policy. That is our goal. That is what we’ll focus on. The opportunity, as I said, that we have to improve the health and well-being of British Columbians is now bigger than ever, and we must proceed with respect for the electorate. I emphasize: we must proceed with respect for the electorate to make this government work and not play cynical political tricks in the desperate attempt, the desperate quest, to retain power. This is not about power. This is about respect for the electorate.
“The results that British Columbians delivered in the May election require cooperation,” the throne speech read. “Your government is committed to working with all parties in the Legislature,” the throne speech said — as are we. “British Columbians,” the throne speech said, “want a stable government, and in sending us this result, they expect us to listen and find a way to work together. They expect us to collaborate, while respecting the dignity, rules and traditions that govern our constitutional monarchy, our democracy and this Legislature.” I could not have said it better.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
That is precisely what British Columbians want, which is precisely why we need to get on with the business of governing this province, dealing with the issues that need to be dealt with and moving towards having a confidence vote in the present government as soon as possible.
You know, hon. Speaker, the throne speech also said: “With that in mind, instead of focusing on areas of disagreement, we should reflect on who it is that we are and what we share in common.”
Again, I agree entirely, and I’m excited and thrilled by the prospects of actually having everyone in this House work towards good public policy in the province of British Columbia, one that reflects the diversity of views, one that’s not artificially constrained between this dichotomy that has been artificially created between rural and urban areas.
It’s offensive to British Columbians to continue to hear this urban versus rural divide. It is only a divide because the B.C. Liberals have made it a divide. When you say, year after year, to rural British Columbians that they are somehow different from urban British Columbians, you create a divide. That’s irresponsible governance. It’s not putting the interests of British Columbians first. There’s nothing different between a person living in Kelowna, Fort St. John, Prince Rupert, Victoria or Cranbrook. They’re all British Columbians, and they all want the same thing — a quality education, quality health care, a strong and vibrant economy and to protect our environment.
The fact that this government, for 16 years, has been driving a wedge between rural and urban folk, frankly, is all the more reason why they need to be put in a time-out so that we can re-establish the trust between rural and urban British Columbia.
We’re starting this term with an unprecedented on-record level of agreement to cooperate and collaborate to resolve the most difficult challenges facing our province — a stable foundation from which to govern. We have all-party agreement on some of our core philosophies and key issues that were outlined in the throne speech.
If the B.C. Liberals are serious about these promises, if this is more than a political gambit, then this House can pass more legislation than ever before on the issues that matter to people, not vested union or corporate interests but people in British Columbia — issues like political and democratic reform, lobbying reform, childcare and early childhood education, solutions to the housing crisis.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we actually debated solutions to the housing crisis? I don’t know how many times the member for Vancouver–Point Grey brought forward solutions to the housing crisis that simply fell on deaf ears as it continued to get away from us.
When we get big money out of politics in B.C., the interests of people will return to the forefront, and we can restore people’s faith in government and show them that government is working for people because, ultimately, there’s a lack of trust in British Columbia that needs to be regained. We can and already are fundamentally changing how politics works in B.C. This is an incredible opportunity.
I will not be supporting the throne speech. I will be voting against the throne speech. But more importantly, I encourage members on both sides to move towards a confidence motion in this Legislature today so that we can actually get on with the business of governing.