Today in the committee stage I engaged in a series of questions and answers with the Minister of Environment during committee stage of Bill 19 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016. As I noted earlier at second reading, Bill 19 represents the latest in the ongoing litany of BC Liberal giveaways in a desperate attempt to land a single LNG final investment decision despite that fact that there is a global glut of natural gas on the market.

Below are the text and video of my exchange with the Minister of Environment.

Text of Debate

A. Weaver: I’m wondering, with respect to the implementation of this, what timeline the government is thinking that LNG facilities will start to develop and whether or not they expect any LNG facility to actually trigger a compliance period before 2020.

Hon. M. Polak: In terms of implementation, we anticipate having regulations completed and drafted late 2016, early 2017. With respect to the member’s other question around the likelihood of operations being in place, I’ll leave that for the Minister of Natural Gas Development. We’ll retain our role as the regulator.

A. Weaver: My question back to the minister is this. Legislation will be ready and regulations will be ready — 2016, 2017, say. Does the minister expect there to be an LNG facility taking up these regulations before 2020? It’s a very clear question.

These regulations would not be put in place if there was not a very specific reason to put them in place. The specific question is: why are we doing this now? Who is coming, and what is the timeline by which government thinks an LNG facility will make a final investment decision such that these regulations will be triggered?

Hon. M. Polak: As the regulator, I’m not involved in discussions with respect to final investment decisions that industry players may make.

We have seen, in terms of the realm of approvals…. We know that Tilbury is certainly on its way. We know that Woodfibre has received both a certificate from ourselves and also from the federal government. We don’t know what the federal government position is going to be with respect to PNW.

Again, we operate from the regulatory side. In terms of what decision-making is occurring around boardroom tables, that’s not in my purview.

A. Weaver: The answer was, clearly, that the senior minister within government doesn’t really know. That leads me to the next question then. If the government is putting in place regulations along this line and is expecting — perhaps maybe, but we don’t really know — some proponents to take it up, my question is this. Will the minister be introducing legislation to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act this session? If anybody takes this up, they will need to do that.

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize. I was listening, but I don’t quite understand what the member is asking about repealing.

A. Weaver: To clarify, if a proponent were to take up this new legislation and the compliance period were to be enacted or a transitional compliance period were to be entered into, then we know that the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target that is a matter of law in British Columbia — that we are to reduce emissions by 33 percent — will not be possible.

In introducing this legislation, it’s critical that the government introduce parallel legislation to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which is currently a matter of law. The question to the minister is this: when will she be introducing legislation to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act? You can’t have your cake and eat it to. You introduce this. You repeal that. When will that be occurring?

Hon. M. Polak: There’s no intention at this stage to introduce such legislation, and here’s why. Firstly, the member knows from the climate leadership team report that we’re well aware that we are not on track to meet our 2020 targets. That’s no surprise. It’s something that myself and the Premier have spoken about many times in public.

But we’ve also talked about the importance of considerations around the current climate leadership team’s recommendations. Those recommendations are modelled on the premise of having two operating LNG facilities newly operating in British Columbia. They present a very challenging set of recommendations, but those recommendations are being wrestled with.

To the question of if the answer to not meeting the 2020 target is to repeal the legislation, the best example I can provide is what happens when there are challenges faced in the world of budgeting. We have a law in British Columbia that requires us to balance the budget. When we don’t manage to do that, and occasionally, that occurs — it certainly occurred when we had the financial downturn most recently — we don’t repeal the balanced budget legislation. We have to work to get back on track.

How will we address the existing 2020 target in law? I’m not aware of any decision with respect to that having been reached. It’s something that we will have to determine as we proceed with our new climate action plan.

A. Weaver: It’s not only the 2020 target; it’s the 2050 target. And with respect, hon. Chair, through you to the minister, you cannot meet the 80 percent reduction by 2050 with two large LNG plants. Unless everybody in the province of British Columbia simply stops driving cars, it is factually incorrect to argue that you can, and the Climate Action Team did not say that you could.

The reality is that these targets need to be repealed. The reality is that this government is misleading British Columbians, inadvertently, maybe — I wonder — and this government needs to be honest. It needs to be honest with them that this legislation, continuing the generational sellout, is essentially throwing aside our plans to reduce greenhouse gases by yet another loophole, the transition period.

If any proponent were to take up this transition period and have a free rein, essentially, on greenhouse gas emissions, the 2020 target is out of the window. The government has yet to say what they are going to do with greenhouse gases to meet some other 2020 target. The government has no plan on greenhouse gas reductions. The government is full of hot air about the climate file, and the government is an embarrassment internationally in terms of what it has not done anymore on the climate action file.

My question to the minister, one last time, is: when does the government believe that proponents of LNG will actually make final investment decisions, and is the government actually stalling any climate leadership because it’s waiting to see whether an LNG facility will come or not?

Hon. M. Polak: Well — a lot to cover there. Firstly, there is no free ride. There is no free ride. They will still have to monitor and report and be responsible and pay for their emissions over that time period. The first reporting period is simply allowed to extend for a maximum of six months more. There you go. That’s all the magic in it. They don’t get a free ride.

With respect to the Climate Leadership Team’s recommendations, they’re there for all to see, and they certainly would put us on a path to meeting our 2050 targets. And they do include the operation of LNG facilities.

We also had, in terms of our climate file, some rather good news just delivered to us, and it was a little unexpected because we know that our trajectory recently has been more challenging in emissions. But on April 14, I believe, the National Inventory Report came out and actually showed that we have seen a slight decline in our emissions. So that’s a positive. But we still have an awful lot of work to do.

The fact is, though, that this change, the new entrant period, does not change the obligations that these companies have to comply with their requirements. I know that the member certainly is not supportive of the industry, and that’s fair enough, but it’s wrong to say that what this does is give companies a free ride. It does not.

A. Weaver: I’ve never said I’m not supportive of the industry. What I have said is I’m not supportive of hype and giving away a generational resource to foreign international companies at essentially no benefit to British Columbians.

My question on this topic, then, directly to the minister, is: which reporting are you talking about for fugitive emissions? The federal number or the B.C. number? They don’t match. Are you talking about the national inventory fugitive emissions or the B.C. fugitive emissions? Nobody quite knows, when the B.C. government talks about emissions reductions, which one number they are using, because the numbers don’t match up.

Hon. M. Polak: In this case, I’m not talking about simply the emissions from fugitive emissions. I’m talking about the National Inventory Report with respect to British Columbia’s overall emissions.

A. Weaver: But that number depends on an overall reduction based on a number. One of those numbers is fugitive emissions, and the fugitive emission number federally is different from the number used provincially. So my question is: which number is the right number, and which number does the province use when it’s actually doing its calculations in terms of greenhouse gas reductions?

Hon. M. Polak: The member will know that this has been a long-standing problem, not just for British Columbia but other provinces as well. There is a different set of numbers that is utilized by the federal government, by various provinces.

In fact, it is one of the important pieces of work that is being undertaken currently within the federal process, our officials meeting with federal officials — it’s happening between other provinces and the federal government as well — to arrive at a standard means by which we can measure and report emissions across all sectors.

In this case, what I was pointing to is completely the federal numbers and their report that shows we have seen a slight decrease recently in our emissions.

A. Weaver: The minister just admitted that the minister does not know which overall number should be used in discussing emissions reductions. In essence, what we’re hearing is that the ministry is essentially saying: “We don’t know what we’re reducing because we don’t know what number we should use.”

My question to the minister is: when are we going to have the answer to this?

Hon. M. Polak: The difference between the two is based on the fact that the federal government has a different threshold for reporting, for one. Theirs is 50,000; ours is 10,000. Therefore, we capture more of the data, which is likely the reason why it appears we have more accurate information with respect to our emissions from these facilities than the federal government would have. Their data set doesn’t capture those below 50,000, so they then must project what those might be.

Now, it’s a recognized problem and has been for some years. We’re hopeful that through the current process in which we are involved with the federal government that that will be resolved. I know we have made significant progress discussing this at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

A. Weaver: Just to summarize then, the minister has talked about the climate leadership team’s recommendations, and the climate leadership team’s recommendations, apparently — not what I read — will allow for two large LNG facilities to come in place. I guess we’d all have to have negative emissions — everyone else.

Let’s come to that, because the climate leadership team recommended a $10 per year increase in the carbon tax every single year. My question then is: if the minister is going to evoke the climate team’s response, is the minister here today willing to say that she accepts the $10 per tonne increase in the price of carbon, and does she not think that this will immediately preclude any LNG industry from existing in B.C.?

Can she look British Columbians in the face and say that we support a $10 per tonne increase in emissions pricing and we honestly think that an LNG facility will develop here in B.C.? Does the minister honestly think she can have her cake and eat it too?

Hon. M. Polak: No surprise to the member, I’ll save pronouncements on taxation activities related to the carbon tax for the time when we’re debating that bill in committee.

A. Weaver: Just to clear up the record for British Columbians who are riveted to their TV screens today, the answer is simple. You cannot increase carbon tax $10 per tonne per year and expect there to be an LNG industry. The reality is you can’t, unless you exclude all LNG emissions.

The reality is we are witnessing yet another emperor with no clothes. It’s about time, frankly, that British Columbians be levelled with honestly — that we cannot have climate leadership and an LNG industry, and until such time as this minister levels correctly, honestly, with British Columbians, they will continue and remain to have zero credibility on the climate file.

Video of Debate

Today in the legislature I tabled a private member’s bill: Bill M221 — Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016. This bill is intended to start a public dialogue about the rules we need to make ridesharing a reality for British Columbia.

Provinces and cities across Canada and throughout North America have been using ridesharing technology for years. But BC struggles to articulate a vision for promoting innovation in the tech sector. In fact, 22 CEOs and founders from Vancouver’s tech industry recently wrote an open letter to the BC government stating “we are compelled to express our concern regarding the provincial government’s long-standing inaction on ridesharing regulation in B.C. and how we now find ourselves falling behind the rest of the world.”

British Columbians have only heard mixed things from the government on the topic of ridesharing. When the cabinet minister responsible for developing regulations for ridesharing services calls these emerging companies ‘pushy’, it doesn’t set the right tone.”

The BC Green Party will be launching a public survey on their website today that will give British Columbians a chance to take part in a conversation about ridesharing and the evolving creative economy. Results will be published later this spring.

In my view, it’s time the conversation was more transparent and engaged  British Columbians  about what they want to see happen with these innovative new services. There are numerous voices calling for this government to truly support the emerging tech sector. For some reason, they are having a hard time being heard by this government.

Below are the video and text of the introduction of my bill together with our accompanying media release.

Text of Bill Introduction

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

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Ride-Share Enabling Act, 2016. Ride-sharing is a key component of the new and emerging creative economy in British Columbia. While numerous jurisdictions around the world have passed legislation to allow for the introduction of ride-share technology in their markets, British Columbia is quickly falling behind. In fact, Vancouver is now the largest city in North America without an operating rideshare company such as Lyft or Uber.

Legislation is needed to provide provincial standards that must be followed for any for ride-sharing program to exist in our province. The Ride-Share Enabling Act, 2016, details the process by which a transport network company can operate in British Columbia.

It builds upon best practices in North America to outline the required driver and vehicle records to be provided by ride-share drivers. It further details the required ride-share driver background check and ride-share vehicle inspection and insurance requirements.

In January of this year, 22 CEOs and founders of key B.C.-based tech companies signed and released an open letter. The letter stated:

“We are compelled to express our concern regarding the provincial government’s long-standing inaction on ride-sharing regulation in B.C. and how we now find ourselves falling behind the rest of the world.“

This bill is aimed at ensuring that British Columbians remain at the forefront of innovation in the technology sector.

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

Bill M221, Ride-Share Enabling Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Video of Bill Introductions

Media Release

Media Release: April 11, 2016
Andrew Weaver – Legislation needed for rideshare technology application in BC
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – The Rideshare Enabling Act was introduced today in the BC Legislature by Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

“The sharing economy exists and it’s going to get bigger,” says Weaver. “Rideshare technology is a part of that new economy and we need to create rules so that these industries don’t operate in a vacuum.”

Ridesharing, a driver using their personal vehicle to accept a trip request from a rider using mobile technology, is an international phenomenon with dozens of technology companies participating. Governments around the world and across Canada have embraced ridesharing to increase transportation options, encourage less personal car ownership, reduce impaired driving, create more income opportunities, and facilitate more efficient transportation. To date, over 70 states and cities across the United States and many more around the world have adopted ridesharing regulations.

Today Weaver introduced his private member’s bill with the intention of starting a conversation about what legislation would best meet the needs of British Columbians. This process needs to involve intensive consultation with municipal governments, the BC Taxi Association, and British Columbians across the province.

“Public safety must be a priority as we move forward with ridesharing in this province and to do so we need to legislate certain common standards. We need to ensure that anyone participating as a driver in rideshare technology doesn’t have a criminal record or history of reckless driving. Refusing to discuss the issue is not helping.”

“I’m hopeful the government takes a look at the bill I brought forward and realizes that they need to address this situation soon and cannot continue to keep their heads in the sand. We need smart regulations that don’t create an unfair market.”

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

MLA Town Hall: Sexual Violence on BC Campuses

On Wednesday, May 4th 2016 we will be hosting an MLA Town Hall on sexualized violence on BC campuses with a panel of frontline speakers and experts. The event will start with a talk from MLA Andrew Weaver about his legislative efforts to address this issue, as well as an update on the progress of his bill, the Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies Act. Following Dr. Weaver, each panelist will speak about their connection to the issue as well as their ongoing efforts to prevent and address instances of sexual assault.

Panelist will include:

• The Victoria Sexual Assault Centre
• The UVic Student Society
• Trauma Therapist Barbara Allyn
• TRU Student Jean Strong

Plenty of time will be reserved for questions, comments, and discussion about how we can tackle this incredibly important issue and what the legislation will mean for BC post-secondary schools and students. This is a topic that effects everyone in our community, and everyone is welcome to attend.

The event will take place from 7:00pm to 9:00pm at the University of Victoria, Student Union Building (3800 Finnerty Road), in the Vertigo Room. Doors will open at 6:30pm and seating will be on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Please feel free to circulate this invitation to other people or groups who may also have an interest in joining us. And for more information, don’t hesitate to contact our office by email: andrew.weaver.mla@leg.bc.ca by phone: 250 – 472 – 8528 or on facebook.

Background

One of the fundamental issues that motivated me to get into politics was that in my view, far too many of our political leaders are shortsighted in their decision-making. That is, too often political opportunism and the quest for re-election are the determining factors and primary motivators in a prevailing short-sighted and short-term political agenda. But that does not serve society well in the long run.

Let me give you three concrete examples.

1. Recently, our premier suggested that the solution to the underfunding of public education lay with growing the economy. Fundamentally the B.C. Liberals have it backwards. A quality education is not the luxury of a strong economy. A quality public-education system is what builds a strong economy. Our society has thrived through innovation precisely because of the emphasis we have placed on education. The doctors, engineers, nurses and skilled labour of tomorrow — those who will take care of us  as we age — are in the school system today. Surely it’s in all of our long term interests to ensure substantive short term investment in the society of tomorrow.
2. We’ve all heard of the Dr. Suess book The Lorax, in which the Once-ler destroys the Truffula forest in a short-sighted quest to produce Thneed garments (“A-fine-something-that-all-people need”). In the end, with the forest gone, the Once-ler’s wealth and prosperity collapses and he lives a depressed life of solitude. The Lorax, published in 1971, beautifully articulates the result of short-sighted and unsustainable resource management. A Loraxian approach to resource management does not protect our renewable resources, natural environment or build public support. Yet this is the approach we are far too often taking in British Columbia, or frankly more broadly in Canada as a whole. It’s a bit like being given a great big inheritance, using that inheritance to throw a huge party, and then waking up the next day broke, with a wicked hangover and asking oneself “Now What?”.
3. Right now, it is in every person, in every household, in every municipality, in every city, in every province, in every country in the world’s best interest to do precisely nothing about global warming from a traditional cost-benefit point of view. That is because the costs of action are borne by the individual and the costs of inaction are distributed over 7 billion people in the next generation. Global warming is literally a textbook example of the Tragedy of the Commons with the atmosphere being the shared natural resource.The decisions we make today as to whether or not we put an increasing price on emissions will have profound consequences on the climate, natural and built environment, biodiversity and availability of water over the next century. Yet those making the decisions today will not have to live the consequences of the decisions they are making.

To summarize, most of the grand challenges of our time require decision-makers to look beyond the next election cycle and instead reflect upon the long-term consequences of their decisions. Dealing with poverty, homelessness and the increasing income disparity between the wealthy and the poor, or sustainable resource development, global warming and other environmental issues, or envisioning ways and means of moving towards more steady-state, diversified economies that aren’t subject to wild boom and bust cycles all require us to reflect upon the importance of intergenerational equity. This leads me to pose the following question:

Should the present generation also consider future generations in
the fiscal, social and environmental decisions we make?

I happen to think we do.

Yet herein lies the fundamental problem. Today’s decision-makers don’t have to live the long-term consequences of the decisions they make and those who do are either not allowed to, or are not participating in, our democratic institutions.

As shown in the figure above, upwards of 70% of seniors over the age of 65 have voted in our recent federal elections. Only around 40% of youth between the ages of 18-24 voted (age-related demographic data likely won’t be available until May for the 2015 federal election). Is it any surprise that many of our political leaders target their promises and messaging to a demographic that they know will vote. I’d wager that when the results become available, we’ll see that the youth participation rose in the 2015 election as it was clear that Prime Minister Trudeau and his Liberal team were discussing values that mattered to the youth of today.

Voting Age History

The voting age was not always 18 in British Columbia and Canada. In fact, it wasn’t until 1970 that the Canada Elections Act was amended to drop the voting age from 21 to 18. In British Columbia we made the jump in two steps. First, in 1952 we dropped the voting age from 21 to 19, but it wasn’t until 1992 that we made the subsequent change to lower the age to 18.

Around the world more and more jurisdictions are openly discussing the notion of dropping the voting age to 16. In fact, a growing number have actually done so. The most recent and notable example of this occurred in Scotland.

Scotland experimented by lowering the voting age in their September 18, 2014 independence referendum.  They viewed it as being so successful that they subsequently permanently dropped the voting age to 16 in all future Scottish Parliament and local government elections.

The voting age in Brazil has been 16 since 1988; Austria changed its voting age to 16 in 2007; Argentina dropped the voting age to 16 in 2012. These are but a few of the growing number of jurisdictions that are either considering or already have dropped the voting age to 16 around the world.

The Justification

As I noted above, there has been a disturbing trend of low youth voter turnout in Canadian elections. The non-profit US-based NGO Fair Vote has noted that there is empirical evidence to suggest that “the earlier in life a voter casts their first ballot, the more likely they are to develop voting as a habit.” So while youth turnout might remain low, there is evidence to suggest that there will be increased participation. What’s more, each and every student in the province of British Columbia is required to take Social Studies 11 (or Civic Studies 11 or BC First Nation Studies 12) to fulfill their Social Studies graduation requirement. Unit 1 of the four-unit Social Studies curriculum in the 2005 Integrated Resource package is Politics and Government. While not yet finalized, Politics and Government remains as Unit 1 in the draft 2015 Integrated Resource package.

Social Studies 11 is a class taken when students are typically sixteen years old. It is an ideal time to engage students on the history and importance of voting. And this sort of experiential learning, wherein direct experience is inserted into the learning environment, has a rich history of validation since the early work of John Dewey in the 1930s. So giving students the ability to vote at the time they are learning about its importance, and knowing that the earlier a voter casts a first ballot, the more likely they are to be lifelong voter, almost certainly will lead to greater voter participation.

As I noted earlier, today’s decision-makers don’t have to live the long-term consequences of the decisions they make and those who do are either not allowed to or are not participating in our democratic institutions. We can do something about the former by reducing the voter age to 16. After all, the youth of day are the leaders of tomorrow and they should have a say in the direction we are heading as they will inherit what we leave them in the years ahead.

Having spent many years as an educator and having presented to, or engaged in discussions with, high school students and classes across British Columbia on numerous occasions, I find it difficult to accept an argument that students are not mature enough of informed enough at age 16 to vote. Students today have access to information like never before; they are tech savvy and they know where to go to get information if they need it.

And of course, there are numerous other arguments, one of the strongest of which is that many youth work and so pay taxes. Taxation without representation is generally counter to our democratic principles. That is, youth must pay the taxes but they are not allowed to vote for those who put in place laws that create them. Other compelling reasons include the fact that we already trust youth to drive at 16, they can get married at 16 (with parents’ permission) and you can drop out of school at 16. These are all pretty major life responsibilities that are entrusted upon our youth.

What do you think?

So tell me what you think? Should we lower the voter age to 16 in the province of British Columbia? There is a trend happening worldwide in the area. Should we lead the way or not? And if not, why not? If so, why?

Since introducing my private member’s bill Bill M212 — Animal Liability Act, 2016 earlier this month I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of individuals and my office has been in contact with various organizations and concerned constituents.

There has been overwhelming support for the notion that BC  needs some sort of legislation to encourage responsible pet ownership. Dog attacks happen every day and for the most part it is from irresponsible owners. To begin the conversation as to how we can more effectively deal with irresponsible pet owners I introduced a bill in the Legislature on April 6.

We’ve received numerous emails and comments on our proposed bill and while virtually all the correspondence is from people supporting the bill, a number raised some important concerns.

One concern has been around provoked attacks. Obviously pet owners may feel concern that they would be held liable if their dog was provoked into attacking someone. While ultimate liability would still rest with the owner,  the bill I introduced clearly states that  the actions of the plaintiff must factor into any decision. Section 2 of the bill I introduced states, “the court shall reduce the damages awarded in proportion to the degree, if any, to which the fault or negligence of the plaintiff caused or contributed to the harm.”

Simply put, this does not, nor is it intended to, put full liability on pet owners if their dog acts out of self defence or in response to aggression. The context that led to a bite is as important as the fact that a bite took place.

There are an untold number of circumstances that could occur and I think it is preferable to allow the court to figure out the degree of liability based on the circumstance.

As with any piece of legislation, the regulations behind this bill are integral to its operation. The bill itself assigns liability but should also be considered enabling. For example, regulations could provide more context around defining important terms such as an “unprovoked attack” or whether specially-trained dogs could limit their owners liability (such as guide dogs for instance). Regulations could change the rules around pet ownership, and there is ample room to have the regulations address dog-training programs to encourage more responsible ownership. There could also be increased penalties for repeated offenses of irresponsible pet owners.

Indeed, regulations, if developed properly with consultation and forethought, could address many if not all of the gaps in this legislation. Pretty much every piece of legislation introduced has a number of regulations that are behind it, and if enacted this bill would be no different.

One final concern that has arisen is how this legislation might affect the adoption of rescue animals. Some might see this bill as increasing the barriers to adopting an animal, however, I think it ensures that animals that need additional support and help are going to families that understand their responsibilities and are prepared to provide what is needed. In my view, this is a positive step as I don’t think it is wise for irresponsible pet owners to adopt rescue animals.

Ultimately I brought this issue forward because there is a gap in our legislative framework in BC regarding pets and pet ownership liability. Other provinces have addressed it, and while I don’t think it is wise to follow Ontario’s lead in banning certain breeds, we do need something to ensure that pet owners are responsible for the behaviour of their pets and that there are stiff penalties for not being a responsible pet owner.

Since introducing the bill my office has reached out to a number of organizations and we have been in contact with the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development as a way to move this issue forward.

I welcome discussion on this topic and I am hopeful that the interest that this bill has generated gives the government the push it needs to start working towards a solution for British Columbians.