Adam Olsen and I today announced that we will both serve as intervenors in the upcoming new National Energy Board hearings on the Transmountain pipeline project.

Below I reproduce our press release outlining our intentions.

We remain profoundly perplexed as to why the BC NDP government has not given the federal government the 30 days notice required to pull out of the equivalency agreement.

As I noted earlier, the BC NDP campaigned on using every tool in the tool box to stop the the Transmountain pipeline project. The recent Federal Court of Appeal ruling demonstrated that politics was put ahead of evidence and reconciliation in the federal cabinet approval of the project. This presented the BC NDP with a very powerful tool.

Given that the provincial cabinet’s approval relied on the same NEB report, and in light of the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling that the report was “impermissibly flawed”, the BC Government has every right to pull out of the Equivalency Agreement and conduct its own, independent environmental assessment.

This is particularly important in light of the “it will be built” rhetoric emanating from the Trudeau government. How can British Columbians trust an environmental assessment process when the final answer has already been prescribed? The answer is simple, it can’t.

We have yet to receive any compelling reason as to why the BC NDP are not withdrawing from the equivalency agreement.

Media Release

B.C. Green MLAs Weaver and Olsen to intervene in new Trans Mountain NEB hearings
For immediate release
October 3, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader, and Adam Olsen, spokesperson for Indigenous relations and reconciliation of the B.C. Green Party have applied to intervene in the new Trans Mountain National Energy Board (NEB) hearings. Weaver and Olsen were both intervenors in the 2014 certificate hearing for the Trans Mountain Expansion project.

“Although we are concerned that this is yet another rushed process engineered to facilitate a political win, unfortunately right now it is the only one we’ve got,” said Weaver.

“The Prime Minister vowed that all new projects would be put through a new NEB process. Three years into his government’s mandate, that promise has still not been kept. The NEB has not even confirmed that marine shipping – one of the key reasons cited in the unanimous federal court decision – will be included in the scope. My previous intervention focused largely on the issue of marine shipping and I was deeply dissatisfied by the lack of answers to my questions. The NEB must do better this time.”

Weaver is a climate scientist with a specialty in ocean physics. His office has spent hundreds of hours on research on the Trans Mountain file ahead of his previous intervention. Olsen, who is a member of the Tsartlip First Nation in Brentwood Bay, will focus his intervention on the issue of consultation, as he did previously. Both have applied for participant funding.

“The federal government promised to advance reconciliation, but the federal court decision shows that their actions on Trans Mountain were in fact a setback,” said Olsen. “I do not see how you can have meaningful consultation and approach Indigenous people as partners when you have a predetermined outcome for a project. Regardless, I will continue to sit at the table because I feel it is my duty to do everything I can to fight for a better future for my province and for my people.”

-30-

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

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

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

Text of Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) an employee of its institution, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video of Speech

Today in the BC Legislature I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Environment how the BC NDP could possibly reconcile their years of criticism directed towards the BC Liberals concerning LNG in light of their cheer leading of the same today.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: In 2016, the B.C. NDP concluded that plans for an $11.4 billion LNG terminal on Lelu Island would generate an unacceptable increase in the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. They filed a definitive position against the project with federal environmental authorities. The NDP noted in their letter to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that the project would increase the province’s entire carbon footprint for industry, transport and residential activity combined by 8½ percent.

This is what they said in the letter:

“The proposal fails to meet the condition of air, land and water protection with respect to both the threat to marine habitat and species as well as to climate through unacceptably high and inadequately unregulated greenhouse gas emissions.“

Here’s the kicker: the unacceptably high emissions cited by the letter are, in fact, lower than the emissions anticipated from the LNG Canada project announced today.

To the Deputy Premier: how does the Deputy Premier reconcile her party’s sharp opposition to the Lelu terminal development with the present investment in LNG Canada?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question, because it gives us on this side of the House an opportunity to talk about our serious approach to climate, an approach that stands in stark contrast to that of the previous government. When I talk to British Columbians, they want to be assured….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.

Hon. G. Heyman: British Columbians want to be assured that as we develop our economy, we do it in a way that’s environmentally responsible, protects our air, land and water and has a path forward to meet clear climate targets that meet our and the Canadian government’s commitment to the Paris accord.

I will differ with the Leader of the Third Party a little bit. I will differ with him in that the announcement that was made today and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with this development, this final investment decision, are 3.4 megatonnes, far lower than that associated with the project that the member references.

But I will say that the member has been working with me, working with staff in the climate action secretariat, to design, review and to provide input into a clean growth strategy that we will release later this fall. It will outline a clear path to our legislated emission reduction targets. We are factoring in the emissions from this plant in that plan, and I look forward to continued work with the leader and his caucus.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: In 2015, the B.C. Liberals signed a development deal with Pacific Northwest LNG in an attempt to spur the Malaysian-led project to become Canada’s first major LNG exporter. The now Minister of Environment was sharply critical of this decision. He said:

“An economy that isn’t built on sound environmental protections that include a solid plan to control, limit and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions isn’t in the economy’s interest….[or] in the interest of future generations“.

The Minister of Energy took this to another level. She said:

“They put themselves in such a desperate position” — they being the Liberals — “when it comes to negotiating for LNG that they had to say yes to any single thing that walked through the door. That’s exactly what they have done. This is the big sellout of British Columbia.“

— the words of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Now the NDP want to take that sellout to a whole new level through exempting LNG Canada from increases in the carbon tax, by eliminating the LNG Income Tax Act while they’re retaining the royalty giveaway, by deferring the PST, by exempting them from the steel tariffs and by burdening ratepayers with billions of dollars of debt to build Site C to sell LNG Canada power at half the price it costs to produce it. Talk about sellout.

To the Deputy Premier: how is the development of LNG Canada any different from the B.C. Liberals’ attempt to develop Pacific Northwest LNG? Do you not see the grand hypocrisy of what is unfolding before us today?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: There could not be a more different approach to the economy or climate than this government demonstrates every single day and will make absolutely clear this fall when we release a clean growth strategy for a diversified, modern economy that meets emission reduction targets — full stop.

With respect to LNG Canada, we are applying the same conditions that will apply to any industry in British Columbia. An industry that is world-leading in its emission reduction targets, to be reviewed periodically, can get up to 100 percent rebate of the incremental carbon tax — a carbon tax, by the way, that the former government had no intention of ever applying again.

We will work with the Third Party. We’ll work with the Leader of the Third Party and the leader’s caucus. We’ll work with industry….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. G. Heyman: We’ll work with British Columbians to ensure that we meet our targets and we diversify and create a modern, sustaining economy for all British Columbians, for First Nations, for every region of this province while we protect the environment and while we meet our climate commitments.

Today a positive final investment decision was reached on phase one of LNG Canada’s proposed LNG export facility in Kitimat. My office released the statement below in response to this announcement.

Media Release

Weaver statement on LNG Canada FID
For immediate release
October 1, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, responded to the news that the LNG Canada project has received a positive final investment decision (FID).

“I am deeply disappointed that the NDP minority government’s tax giveaway has resulted in the country’s single biggest source of emissions receiving an FID,” said Weaver.

“Adding such a massive new source of GhGs means that the rest of our economy will have to make even more sacrifices to meet our climate targets. A significant portion of the LNG Canada investment will be spent on a plant manufactured overseas, with steel sourced from other countries. B.C. taxpayers will subsidize its power by paying rates twice as high and taking on the enormous public debt required to build Site C. There may be as little as 100 permanent jobs at LNG Canada. I believe we can create far more jobs in other industries that won’t drastically increase our emissions.

“In opposition, the NDP were outspoken critics of the Liberal’s LNG regime, then rightly noting that it did not amount to a fair value for our resource and that the emissions were too high. Our Caucus was shocked when they turned around and delivered an even larger giveaway once in power. We did everything we could to deter them from making this decision, but we are only three MLAs up against the 84 whose parties support the heavy subsidization of this industry.

“It breaks my heart that the young people of today must watch as politicians who once professed to champion climate action and a hopeful vision for the future instead succumb to the temptation of short-sighted political wins. Young people deserve better and our Party will keep fighting for them.

“Our Caucus has been clear that we do not support the government’s LNG regime. The government does not have our votes to implement this regime and will have to work with the B.C. Liberal MLAs if they want this project to go forward.

“Despite our profound disappointment on this issue, we have been working closely in good faith with the government to develop a Clean Growth Strategy to aggressively reduce emissions and electrify our economy. The B.C. NDP campaigned to implement a plan to meet our targets and reaffirmed that promise in our Confidence and Supply Agreement. We will hold them to account on this. We will have more to say once that plan becomes public later this year.”

-30-

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

In the 2017 election the BC NDP campaigned on using every tool in the tool box to stop the the Transmountain pipeline project. Earlier this month I noted that the Federal Court of Appeal presented them with a very powerful tool.

Given that the provincial cabinet’s approval of the Transmountain project relied on the same NEB report as the federal approval, and in light of the recent Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling that the report was “impermissibly flawed”, the BC Government has the opportunity to pull out of the Equivalency Agreement and conduct its own, independent environmental assessment.

Today in Question Period I quizzed the Minister of Environment as to whether or not he will initiate a withdrawal from the equivalency agreement. Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: On August 30, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the federal cabinet approval of the Trans Mountain project. The court cited: “The board’s process and finding were so flawed that the Governor-in-Council could not reasonably rely on the board’s report. Second, the government of Canada failed to fulfil the legal duty to consult Indigenous peoples.” In particular, the court noted: “The board unjustifiably defined the scope of the project under review not to include project-related tanker traffic.”

The B.C. NDP campaigned on using every tool in the toolbox to stop the project from going forward. My question to the Minister of Environment is this. In light of the fact that the court ruled that the NEB process was flawed, my question is: will he use his authority to pull out of the equivalency agreement with Ottawa on the environmental assessment of this project for the next 22 weeks?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. I think this is a good opportunity to just take a brief look at history. There was a time when the official opposition, then in government, expressed concern about the impacts of diluted bitumen on our coast, expressed concern about failings that they perceived in the National Energy Board process, but as that process rolled on, the official opposition simply rolled over and accepted the conclusions of the National Energy Board.

But that wasn’t all. First Nations on the coast expressed concern as to their rights, their culture, their traditional economy. Thousands of British Columbians expressed concern about our environment, tens of thousands of jobs that were at risk, and this government stood up with them and expressed the same concerns. And what did the opposition say when we did that? They said that there was a decision, the project was going ahead, and we should simply accept it.

The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is significant and far-reaching for a number of reasons, but not the least of which is it validated the concerns of First Nations, it validated the concerns of British Columbians about our coast, and it validated the actions of our government in standing up for our coast, and that’s what we will continue to do.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I do recall, when I sat in opposition with my colleagues from the B.C. NDP — at a time when I heard them calling on the government of the day to actually withdraw from the equivalency agreement over the same concerns that I share today.

Our Prime Minister has signaled that the NEB has precisely 22 weeks on which to reassess the available information. That’s over Christmas. Interveners have to have given notice within the next couple of days if they want to participate.

It’s clear to me and those who participated as interveners in the prior assessment that the decision has already been made. How is it possible that the British Columbia government can have faith in a process where the decision is clearly made and where a prime minister has reiterated, time and time again, it will be built?

Again, to the Environment Minister: will he stand up for the interests of British Columbians and give the federal government the required 30 days’ notice to withdraw from the equivalency agreement today?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, thank you to the Leader of the Third Party, who raises some very significant points about the process that is underway. The decision of the federal court was complex. It’s far-reaching. We are reviewing it with both internal and external legal advice.

The federal government’s announcement about how they intend to proceed with the NEB now gives us an important context within which to assess our options going forward. We are well aware of the impending deadline. We are preparing our action in response to that deadline. But more importantly, we are preparing a range of options that are thorough, they’re well considered…. But I can assure the Leader of the Third Party this: we will defend our environment. We will defend our coast. And we will defend the tens of thousands of British Columbian jobs that depend on it.