For the past 15 years, the BC government has been unable to provide Francophone children in Vancouver with the quality of education they are constitutionally entitled to. Today in the legislature I questioned the Minister of Education about why that is and when he will relocate the children to a facility that meets their Section 23 rights.

In 2010, a group of Vancouver parents with children attending the Rose-des-vents primary school took the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique (CSF) and the provincial government to the BC Supreme Court. They petitioned the court to declare that lack of equivalency between the Rose-des-vents school facilities are those offered to English parents living in the same catchment area constituted a breach of section 23 of the Canadian Charter which guarantees that people whose first language is French, or who have received their schooling in French, have the right to have their children educated in either English or French. The court ruled in their favour but that ruling was subsequently overturned in the BC Court of Appeal by the province.

In an April 2015 Supreme Court of Canada reinstated the BC Supreme Court ruling and declared that a Section 23 infringement had taken place. It was the parents hope that this would bring all parties to the table to find a solution, but the province has continued to fight the rulings. The Province is  now seeking a Section 1, “reasonable limits”,  justification of a Charter breach.

After 15 years of frustration, parents whose children attend l’école Rose-des-vents are still being forced to send their students to a school with unacceptable conditions despite the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that their charter rights are being infringed upon.

L’école Rose-des-vents was established in 2001 as a temporary primary school that was intended to house 199 students. For the 2015/16 school year there were 357 students enrolled. The school has limited outdoor space, inadequate washroom facilities, classrooms without windows, and has been forced to lease additional facilities from surrounding buildings, including a church basement.

What is particularly frustrating is that parents have gone out of their way to avoid drawing out the process, only wanting to bring all parties to the table to address the infringement of their rights. It is unacceptable that they are still caught in a back and forth between the government and the School Board.

Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees minority language rights, giving parents who fall under this right the entitlement to have their children taught in an equivalent educational facility to what they could receive in the majority language. Infringements of this right require urgent action on behalf of government. The Supreme Court of Canada Judgments noted that “…for every school year that governments do not meet their obligations under s. 23, that is an increased likelihood of assimilation and cultural erosion”.

In many cases, these children’s french-speaking parents have been recruited for jobs in Vancouver because they are bilingual. They bring a valuable skill-set to the city, but have to fight to have their Francophone children educated in the language they speak at home. The problem is only getting worse.

Francophone student numbers are going up, while enrollment for english-speaking schools in the rest of the city is going down.

In the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique (CSF; School District 93) “School District Facilities Plan”, dated November 2015, the board notes that one school is no longer sufficient. There is such a demand for elementary schooling that two catchment areas, each with its own elementary school are now required to ensure that the CSF is offering education that is of equivalent quality to that offered by the Vancouver School Board (School VSB; School District 39) – something they have failed to do for 15 years.

As you will see from the question period exchange reproduce below, while it is encouraging that the Minister of Education’s recognizes the problem, I did not get the sense it is being addressed with the sense of urgency it deserves. Given excess capacity in Vancouver School Board schools, perhaps the Minister can help facilitate timely discussions between the Conseil scolaire francophone and the Vancouver School Board to move decisively to ensure and agreement is developed, and that parents at Rose-des-vents finally see their children taught in a acceptable facility.

We’ve faced similar challenges in Greater Victoria over the last few years. Last year the Victoria School Board leased the recently closed Sundance Elementary to the CSF to meet growing demand. The CSF École Victor-Brodeur, located on the grounds of the old Harbour View Junior Secondary School, also expanded in 2012 into Lampson Street Elementary School that was closed in 2007.

Video of the Exchange

Question

It’s far too long now since parents at l’École Rose-des-vents have been trying to get this government to address their Charter rights to have their children receive a comparable public education in French.

For 15 years now, primary school students have faced unacceptable conditions — a school with a capacity of 199 teaching 357 students, in the 2015-16 school year, classrooms without windows and inadequate washroom facilities, all as part of sharing a program with the secondary school. After years of frustration, francophone parents went to court, arguing that section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being violated. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of parents.

Let’s be clear. For the parents, this wasn’t about assigning blame. In fact, their petition to the court specifically avoided the question as to who was to blame. Yet, despite the Supreme Court of Canada ruling, parents still don’t have any answers about when the infringement of their rights will be addressed.

My question to the Minister of Education is this. Surely, this is exactly the type of red tape that this government purports to want to do away with. Why, after over 15 years, has this government not stepped in to ensure that these children are getting the educational experience they are constitutionally entitled to?

Answer

Thank you to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for the question. As I believe he’d be aware, because there is a court case going right now, I’m unable to talk about any of the specifics around that. What I can talk about is our support for school district 93 and for a Conseil scolaire francophone.

When you look around British Columbia right now, there are 290,000 French-speaking people in British Columbia. We have 40 francophone associations. Our French immersion in our school system has increased by 40 percent. I agree with the member opposite that there’s lots that can be done to continue to support the French-speaking students in our school system. We have 53,000 French immersion students in 273 school districts around the province. We also have school district 93, which has school districts right around the province. We continue to work closely with them.

I agree. There are opportunities that we have. We’re going to continue working with them, as we have been within my ministry, for the school, Rose-des-vents, to make sure that they have the best education possible for all students. Every student in British Columbia deserves the same educational opportunities.

Supplementary Question

It’s important to acknowledge that section 23 infringements require urgent action on behalf of the government. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the judgment, stated specifically: “For every school year that the governments do not meet their obligations under section 23, there is an increased likelihood of assimilation and cultural erosion.”

This is especially true in the case of École Rose-des-vents. In November of 2015, in the CSF school district facilities plan, the board notes that one school is no longer sufficient. In fact, francophone elementary schooling is in such demand that two schools are now required.

I don’t think it’s much to ask that after 15 years, parents be given more than just a commitment to study options and work with others. What is the timeline that the minister expects to see children relocated into a facility that meets their section 23 constitutional rights?

Answer

We have two challenges here. We have a school district based mostly in Vancouver that is looking for space. We have the Vancouver school board, which has lots of empty space. I think that we have a great opportunity here to put the two groups together. When you look at the school district, the growing enrolment….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please wait, Minister.

Please continue.

Hon. M. Bernier: As the member opposite pointed out, we do have growing enrolment in CSF. It is one of the areas we do have growing enrolment, while we continue to see declining enrolments in the rest of Vancouver. One of the things that I think that needs to happen — and I will work on this — is making sure that we get that message out there, that we can have these opportunities for the school districts to work together.

If we have empty classrooms and we need those, then let’s start using those classrooms for students and have great education in Vancouver.

Today in the legislature I had the great pleasure of introducing Denis Canuel. Denis runs a professional gardening business here on southern Vancouver Island. He was the recent victim of a vicious dog attack featured in the Saanich News.

Later in the afternoon I introduced my private member’s Bill M212 — Animal Liability Act, 2016. Based on similar legislation in Manitoba, this Bill will ensure that owners of animals are held liable for the actions of their animals. Below I reproduce the text and video of my introduction of the Bill. I append our media release at the end.

Text of my Introduction

A. Weaver: I move introduction of the Animal Liability Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Animal Liability Act. Earlier this year a number of vicious dog attacks occurred in the Lower Mainland. Over the years, British Columbians have called on B.C. legislators to act.

According to the Canada Safety Council, more than 460,000 dog bites occur in Canada each year. Just last week, there was a case of unprovoked dog attack reported in Saanich, an attack that nearly left an individual without his employment for years to come. In this case, the dog was a repeat offender.

Here in B.C., we do not have adequate laws that ensure owners are liable for the actions of their animals. Indeed, we only have liability being imposed on the basis of scienter doctrine, negligence or, in some cases, the occupier’s liability act.

This bill would ensure that owners are liable for any damages resulting from harm that the animals cause to a person or property. This bill, based on similar legislation that exists in Manitoba, is designed to ensure that owners of animals take their ownership seriously and are held responsible for the actions of their pets.

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.

Motion approved.

Bill M212, Animal Liability 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 my Introduction

Media Release

Media Release: April 6, 2016
Andrew Weaver – Legislation needed to ensure responsible pet ownership in B.C.
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Today Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, tabled legislation that would ensure pet owners are held responsible for the actions of their animals.

“Thousands of people are bitten by dogs in B.C. each year,” says Weaver. “While provinces like Ontario and Manitoba have enacted legislation to ensure that public safety is put first, BC is falling behind. We need appropriate measures in place to hold the owners of dangerous pets to account.”

Weaver introduced the Animal Liability Act, 2016, which is modeled on Manitoba’s legislation, to make owners directly liable for any damages caused by their pets. The Bill would not apply to damages caused by livestock.

“As it currently stands, when someone gets bitten by a dog the options available for legal recourse hinge on the dog having a previous history of violence. That’s simply not enough,” says Weaver. “This legislation does not affect the vast majority of caring, responsible pet owners. It targets negligent pet owners who are not appropriately socializing, training, or restraining their animals in public places.”

“In most instances I would expect this legislation to be used in situations where an irresponsible owner fails to take appropriate precautions and their violent dog attacks someone. If someone happened to have a particularly aggressive cougar, llama or emu and they let it run around biting people, however, it would certainly apply,” Weaver added. “We need clear liability legislation so that owners are required to ensure their pets behave safely and are held to account if their pet does behave in a dangerous manner.”

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

Today in the legislature I introduced Bill M214 — Local Government Amendment Act, 2016.

If passed, this Bill will ensure that municipalities in BC cannot be incorporated without first ensuring that there are residents actually living in the area at the time of incorporation. This might seem like an unnecessary bill as it would seem obvious that a municipality, governed by a Mayor and two Councillors, should actually have people and property to govern. Well that’s not the case in the wild west of British Columbia politics.

Back in 2012, the BC Liberals amended The Local Government Act to allow mountain resort municipalities to be created that have no residents. In particular, this was done in support of the proposed Jumbo Glacier Mountain resort that I have written about earlier.

Given opposition to the resort by the Ktunaxa Nation, the fact that the environmental assessment certificate has expired, and that the project has not substantially started, it seemed timely to close the loophole for good as it sets a dangerous precedence.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my introduction of the Bill. I append our media release at the end.

Text of my Introduction

A. Weaver: I move introduction of the Local Government Amendment Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I am pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Local Government Amendment Act.

In British Columbia, we have a municipality that has no houses, no infrastructure and no people. The Jumbo Glacier Resort is designated as a mountain resort municipality, and despite having neither any people nor any buildings, it is governed by a mayor and two councillors and funded by the province.

For the existence of a municipality to make any sense, it needs people. The Local Government Amendment Act would ensure that this be the case across British Columbia. This bill would close a glaring loophole created in 2012 by this government solely to support a project that has not substantially started. It’s opposed by the Ktunaxa Nation — and whose environmental assessment certificate has expired.

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.

Motion approved.

Bill M214, Local Government Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Video of my Introduction

Media Release

Media Release: April 6, 2016
Andrew Weaver – Municipalities in B.C. should not be created without people.
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, today introduced a Bill that would ensure municipalities could not be created unless there were people actually living in the area first.

“Normally you might assume that you would need to have people living in an area before you could form a municipality,” says Weaver. “That was the case in B.C. until the government made an exception a few years ago. In 2012 the government introduced a loophole that allowed Mountain Resort Municipalities to exist without any residents.”

Today Andrew Weaver introduced the Local Government Amendment Act, 2016. It is a bill designed to repeal the changes made in 2012 to the Local Government Act under the B.C. Liberals.

“The whole reason this ridiculous loophole exists in the first place is because this government has a pet project that it wanted to succeed, despite huge opposition from the local community and First Nations,” says Weaver. “Now a municipality exists that has no people, and to top it off it also has a mayor and councillors and the whole system is being funded by the British Columbian taxpayer. It’s an absurd situation and the bill I introduced today would close that loophole.”

“The approach to the Jumbo fiasco reminds me of how this government approached the Petronas deal last year. Not only are they choosing winners in the economy, they’re creating laws specific to helping those projects succeed. The laws of this province should not be used to help specific projects succeed or fail.”

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

Today in the legislature I rose to speak at second reading to Bill 19: Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016. Bill 19 is 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. In addition, BC is years behind other jurisdictions which either have vastly larger reserves or infrastructure already in place. The supposed market that BC LNG is targetted, China, already has over contracted supply for the foreseeable future. China is a net seller (not buyer) of LNG.

What’s more, fully 71% of British Columbians do not support horizontal fracking, the source our our gas.

This Bill will allow new entrants in the LNG industry to have “flexible options” for their initial operations. The first 18 months of a new operations existence will “allow for time for testing and other initial activities that may affect emissions and production levels.” The bill also opens up the BC Carbon registry to non-regulated operations (companies and municipalities).

Below are the text and video of my speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Thank you for allowing me to rise and speak in opposition to Bill 19, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act. I’d like to start off, first, by acknowledging that in British Columbia there used to be a lot of leadership on the climate file. I do acknowledge what the Minister of Health said in his particular role in that leadership over the years to come.

The carbon tax is lauded internationally as one of the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, British Columbia has been singled out as a leader in that regard. Again, that is for the initiatives of the past administration, not the present administration, so it’s a bit rich for the present administration to claim credit for the introduction of measures by a previous administration that have led to British Columbia being lauded for its efforts in climate change mitigation, which have had a real effect, a measurable effect in terms of reducing per-capita emissions until very recently.

It is at that time that this government decided to switch direction, to switch priorities and to move down the direction of trying to encompass an LNG industry. At the same time, the government stopped the increase in the carbon tax, which sent a signal to the market that we’re no longer moving in that direction any longer. And at the same time again, it started to introduce loopholes to allow certain aspects of the market to no longer be subject to the carbon tax.

I do also want to recognize the issue of climate…. The present Minister of Environment put together what I will describe as a blue-ribbon panel that came out with a very, very fine set of recommendations prior to Christmas. Those are bold recommendations that, actually, I think many people would agree would be leading if this government were adopt them.

Honestly, I don’t know how they can adopt them in light of the fact that we have the former Minister of Agriculture putting out petitions, calling people to actually fight against his own government during the actual consultation period where we’re supposed to be listening to the public, not listening to rogue MLAs telling the public that they shouldn’t support the government’s efforts in terms of listening to the public on carbon pricing. I wonder whether the government can follow these recommendations, because they are so very bold and so very inconsistent with the approach the government is taking with respect to LNG.

Back when the first version of this bill, the original Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, was brought in, I suggested an unusual amendment that was amending the title to something like the greenhouse gas industrial reporting and increase act. The reason why, of course, I did that at that time was that it was a very clear movement away from a direction government had towards greenhouse gas reduction.

This included the repealing of the cap-and-trade regulation. It included a move towards emission intensity targets, as opposed to real reduction. Here, in what I’ve historically called a generational sellout to the LNG industry and then a multigenerational sellout, we see that we haven’t quite gone far enough on our sellout, so we’re going to weaken the rules still more.

Now, back in February 2008, I sat on the floor of this Legislature when the government started down the direction of actually taking climate change seriously. I watched them introduce not one, not two, but a whole pile of policies and regulations that acted like knobs, buttons and switches that would allow government to actually send a signal to the market and move a little bit here and there to start to take emissions down, and they were coming down.

Then along came 2012, when the government recognized that it was not doing so well in the eyes of the public, and it needed a different vision. Everybody thought that the government was going to fall, so they needed to offer British Columbians a vision of hope and prosperity. What was that hope and prosperity? It wasn’t continued leadership on the climate front. It was that we’ll all be wealthy, we’ll all be able to drive Maseratis in our home, because we’re all going to come and benefit from this wonderful opportunity called LNG.

Now, I’ve been saying the same thing now for not one year, not two years, not three years, but over three years. The market did not, does not and will not support an LNG industry in B.C. then, now or any time soon. The reason why is because there is a glut on the market. Right now, landed LNG in Asia in 2019-2020 is trading at $4 and change. China, whose supply gap we were building our LNG to meet, is actually a seller in the market. Why? Because they have contracted excess supply over what they need for years to come.

What do we do? We watch BP move on, and we watch Shell slow down, even though we’ve signed long-term contracts to provide them fixed-cost, cheap electrical power through the construction of Site C. Given that that’s fallen apart, we desperately seek an energy market in Alberta and a plea to the federal government that they add infrastructure funds to get our energy there. But the government said no federally, as did the Alberta government.

We continue down, and we watch so-called LNG plant after so-called LNG plant move away until now we hear only about four that may be. We’re starting to get really shaky firms involved. We’re not talking about the multinationals, the globally traded, highly responsible corporate citizens of today. Some might argue about the level of corporate citizenship. The reality is we’re talking about big players, but players based in nations like Malaysia, places like Indonesia, where the owners are mired in scandals. Yet we’re getting into business and negotiating with them in a position where we have no negotiating power, in a position of desperation. We really think that this is for the benefit of British Columbians? No.

There is no market now for our LNG. Australia already has got so much LNG that they can’t keep up. They don’t have a market for it. Australia and the United States. The first shipping of LNG out of the ports in the Gulf of Mexico has occurred.

The U.S. government recently told a proposed Oregon establishment of an LNG facility: “No, you’re not going ahead, because there’s no market for LNG, and you can’t make the economic case to build an LNG facility on the U.S. west coast.” But in B.C., what do we do? We continue on down this path, this path of folly.

India has just announced that it will look to have all cars on the road be electric within 15 years. What signal is that sending to the market? What market signal is that sending? It’s saying that the new technology of tomorrow is the clean technology that’s emerging.

The minister who spoke previously talked about the opportunity of assisting others in reducing their greenhouse gases.

I agree this is an opportunity British Columbia should be meeting, but we’re meeting it the wrong way. We cannot compete by digging gas out of the ground and trying to sell it to markets that don’t exist. What we should be doing in British Columbia is investing in our strengths that no one else has.

We have three such strengths that no one else in the world has. Without a doubt, we are the best, most beautiful place in the world to live. [Applause.] Thank you for that. That’s assuming that we don’t have too much more of that government to actually destroy it. No more claps there. We are the most beautiful place to live. The second thing we have that no one else has is: we have access to renewable water, we have access to renewable fibre, and we have access to renewable energy like nobody else in the world. The third thing we have is a highly educated, highly skilled workforce that is able to be there for business that wants to actually come to B.C.

Why do I say we should be focusing on those three things? Because we can attract and retain business here in British Columbia. Because of the quality of life we can offer the workers who are there. Highly skilled, highly mobile workers can go anywhere in the world. If you can offer them the best place in the world to live, they’ll stay here.

This is what we should be doing to help those other jurisdictions get off their dependence on fossil fuels — investing in our clean-tech sector and exporting that technology worldwide. We could be leaders there, and we used to be leaders in this area under the previous administration when that started to take off.

Now we see it collapsing. We see the Canadian Wind Energy Association pack up their bags and move to Alberta. We see the Canadian Geothermal Association throw up their hands and say: “We give up. B.C. is the only jurisdiction on the Pacific Rim with no geothermal energy. We give up.” What are we doing? We’re doubling down on natural gas.

Talk to the people around Fort Nelson. Ask them how this is playing out for them. Ask them how this double down focus on natural gas is playing out for them when all the drills shut down and move on because there’s no market for natural gas.

There are some people in the Fort St. John region still taking natural gas out of the ground and then putting some of it back in because there’s no market for it. Fortunately, there are some liquids that are still in some desire there. Instead of doubling down, we should be diversifying our economy there.

This bill is about giving any proponent, in yet another desperate attempt to land an LNG industry here, 18 months in which they can actually not really have to worry too much about their greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me talk to you a little bit about some of those emissions. In the 2014 B.C. Reporting Regulation — that’s the emissions report summary table — from fugitive emissions and venting of methane, a full 2.15 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent is released a year. That’s in the form of methane. About 0.1 billion tonnes come from fugitive methane emissions and 1.3 million tonnes from venting CH4. That 1.3 million tonnes is deliberate venting, not venting that happens through leaks. That’s the fugitive emissions.

What we’re saying here is: we’re going to continue to be climate leaders, but we have 2.1 million tonnes of CO₂ a year. That’s an underestimation, very conservative. Some of these are kind of best estimates. We’re going to say another 18 months where you don’t have to worry about it. We have legislated targets that we’re supposed to reduce emissions in B.C. by 33 percent by the year 2020. Those are legal legislated targets.

This government needs to stand up. I know it won’t do it, but it needs to stand up now, not after the next election but now, and actually repeal that legislation, repeal the legislation that says we will meet 33 percent below by 2020. Because we can’t. We simply can’t. The government has missed the boat. Even its own Climate Action Team has told them they have missed the boat.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give up, but it certainly means we shouldn’t double down on an industry that is from the 20th century and try to chase this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow by giving away as much as we can, reducing regulation after regulation, desperation after desperation. Here, just the latest one is giving business another 18 months to actually really do nothing and worry about greenhouse gases down the road.

What we should be debating here in this Legislature…. It’s not about further giveaway. It’s about repealing the Petronas development agreement. That legislation is bad legislation for British Columbia, bad legislation for this generation, bad legislation for the next generation and bad legislation overall, because it sets a maximum bar, a really bad maximum bar that we’re actually saying you can do LNG industry here in B.C. It’s a giveaway, a generational sellout to meet irresponsible promises made during this past election campaign.

We’re supposed to have a couple of LNG facilities up and running right now. What do we have? A lot of smoke, a lot of rhetoric and the Minister of Natural Gas hopefully eating humble pie, or crow, at some point, as he told me I would be doing this time, when I’m still not.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Why would I hope for him to eat…? No. The economy in B.C. will grow, but the economy in B.C. is not going to grow through natural gas. It will not grow through natural gas. We’re dreaming.

Look at Australia, which tried this kind of desperate attempt — a natural gas giveaway. It didn’t help them much. Ask the Australians what they think about the price of natural gas that they’re paying right now there today. Ask them how much it cost them in terms of the social cost, the environmental costs. I don’t think you’d find Australians rah-rahing to the same extent as this government seems to be doing here.

On October 23, 2014, when I spoke against the implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act for the first time, I argued that just one LNG plant would emit 12 million tonnes of carbon pollution into the atmosphere. I argued against the bill at that time because it would place us into the somewhat laughable category of not actually reducing our emissions but only our emissions intensity, a change that we’ve seen in other jurisdictions which actually increased the overall magnitude of emissions.

As I said at the time, essentially what we did is we took a card from the Harper playbook, and we said: “We’re going to play this emissions intensity card.” This is yet another example of why I repeatedly point out that today’s B.C. Liberals, as they like to call themselves, are nothing more than yesterday’s Harper Tories.

I argued against the bill because the climate system does not care about the intensity. It does not care about cleverly worded policies or trick loopholes. It cares about actual reductions of emissions. Now, I recognize that some over there on the other side of this are in a delusional sense that we’ll ship LNG, and the world will be saved because China will buy it and switch off coal, despite the fact that China is already contracted with oversupply for years to come and are sellers on the market.

It’s not going to happen, and just because you wish it so does not mean it will be so.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I missed that from the Minister of Health. Sorry. I love the banter back with the Minister of Health. I actually thought he did a very fine speech just before I got up to stand — and when he said that we’re going to disagree on this. Indeed, we do disagree on that. The point that we’re disagreeing upon I would say is rather fundamental in terms of disagreement.

I would argue that it is reckless economics to invest in yesterday’s technology, to double down on a stock that’s falling, to buy Nortel at $50 and say: “Look, everybody. I’ve got Nortel stock, and I only paid $50 a share.”

I would say that the proper way to approach the economy would be to view the new opportunity, that new dollar stock in a sector that’s about to go crazy — the biomedical sector — buying the stocks young and watching them grow. But we’re not. We’re buying the Nortel stock and missing out  those biomedical stocks. We’re missing out Apple at $10. Instead, we’re buying Nortel at $50 — with respect to those involved in both Apple and Nortel.

Back in October, I spoke against the bill because there was simply no way we could meet the legislated targets, our 2020 and 2050 targets, with the LNG plants that were being proposed.

I honestly believe this government should stand up and look British Columbians in the face and be truthful to them, because you cannot meet our 2020 target. You cannot meet our 2050 target with an LNG industry. It just can’t happen.

When are they going to stand up and say that it can’t happen? I would have far more respect for this government if they actually were honest with British Columbians and said: “We have decided to give up on our climate leadership, because we’re going to go all in on LNG.”

I know the former minister, or the member for Peace River North, would be happy about that. I suspect half of this end of the Legislature — the members from the Fraser Valley hither and wither — would also be very supportive of that. It’s honest. It’s truthful. But the government doesn’t do this.

The government is trying to have it both ways. We’re going to be leaders in climate, and we’re going to be leaders in LNG. I don’t know who you’re kidding, but you’re not fooling anyone outside of the British Columbia borders. You may be kidding yourselves, but nobody takes that seriously.

It does a disservice to British Columbians. It does a disservice to us in the international eye. While United Nations members might pull in the Premier to special meetings and give British Columbia praise for what it has done, let’s be very clear, that is praise for what it has done — not what it is doing, but what it has done.

There is an opportunity before this government. There is an election in 2017. There is a Climate Action Team that has made very bold recommendations. Let’s see if this government will listen to those recommendations. Let’s see if this government will tell the member for Peace River North that: “You know, we don’t like the direction.”

I mean, this petition has been going out for days. There was like 900 people. I could phone up 900 friends and get a petition signed. Clearly, not a very strong petition that this member for Peace River North was doing, despite the fact he got a fair amount of media coverage on it.

What does that tell this government? If he can only get 900 signatures in the heart of natural gas territory, it’s telling me that there is no support for the LNG industry, horizontal fracking and everything that’s going.

British Columbians want us to move to the new economy of tomorrow, not more generational sellout; not more give out a loophole here, a loophole there; not more tax breaks for the LNG industry that’s not going to happen. And not more: “Let’s find even shadier characters we can get into bed with to set up an LNG facility.”

No. British Columbians want leadership from this government in tomorrow’s economy — the economy that brings the tech sector together with the resource sector; the economy that focusses in on our strengths, not on someone else’s strengths; and the economy that builds hope for all British Columbians, not just those today, but those tomorrow and the generations after that.

I have been saddened to watch this government over the last three years on this file. I’ve watched them go from promises of wealth and prosperity, to struggling to give away a resource, to desperation to land one LNG facility, which is where we stand now. One LNG facility. Just one.

We don’t care who it is. Despot dictator in some country somewhere in the world — you want an LNG facility, we’ll roll out the red carpet for you. That’s what this government is so desperate to do, and that’s a shame, because this government was a climate leader. This government had a diversified economy building. This government is watching that diversified economy move on.

It lauds its balanced budget, but that budget is moving. It’s being balanced now not on a healthy, diversified economy, but on a Scottsdale-like, Arizona-based economy fuelled by investment by afar in a highly speculative housing market that only ends in one place, and that is an economic crash.

I do not want to say I told you so. For the last couple of years, I’ve been pointing out that this affordability crisis is not going to end well — that we should be investing in the tech sector, bringing the tech sector together with the resource sector, diversifying economy.

Now, the government lauds balanced budgets, thinks the B.C. citizens are not really looking this through carefully, but the reality is this balanced budget is very, very shaky. We have no revenues from LNG. Where are the revenues from natural gas? Ten years ago, there were healthy revenues from natural gas. Now they’re pretty dodgy. It is really dodgy, in fact.

So, what are we doing? We’re incentivising building. Can you see it happening here? Scottsdale economy. For those of you who don’t know where Scottsdale is, type in “Arizona, Scottsdale,” and you’ve got it there. Watch what happened there. This is what’s happening in B.C.

What happened there? Of course, it was a massive housing crash in Scottsdale. People lost their homes. They lost their shirts. Their mortgages were worth multiples over their housing values. That was because this was a bubble market.

It saddens me when I see the Canadian Wind Energy Association leave British Columbia. We should be, actually, using our existing dams and bringing intermittent sources of power together with these dams to actually stable the base demand.

It saddens me when a $1 billion investment of U.S. money walks from British Columbia, walks from Vancouver Island — a partnership between five First Nations, TimberWest and EDP Renewables to put wind capacity on Vancouver Island close to the requirement for electricity, reducing substantive transmission loss. It’s an intermittent source that partners First Nations with private land, TimberWest land, with EDP Renewables and brings foreign money — a $1 billion investment — into B.C. It saddens me when they walk.

Why do they walk? Because: “We don’t need you anymore because we’ve got Site C.” We’ve got Site C why? Because we irresponsibly, as part of our platform of giving away our resources, signed long-term contracts with Shell to provide them fixed power to actually liquefy their natural gas using electric compression from electricity that we did not have.

What we should be doing right now is saying, “Okay, Shell, we can’t make that because we’re not going to move forward with Site C,” not having silly announcements about turbine contracts being given. “We’re not moving forward with Site C right now because it’s killing our clean tech sector. We know you’re not going to come here anyway, so this contract really doesn’t make much sense.”

But they’re not. It’s still LNG — yet another bill to give it away. Right now we probably won’t be coming to a fall session. We have so little agenda on this session. But if we do, I’m sure it’ll be another emergency because there’s yet another giveaway.

I’d love to be sitting in the Petronas board room right now, thinking: “Heck, let’s go negotiate some more with British Columbia. They don’t know what they’re doing. Come on over here, B.C. I know you’ve got an election in May. We just need one more giveaway before the election.”

If I were in Petronas, I’d know I have you just completely. The expression I was going to say was probably not appropriate in this Legislature. But I would say: “Look, I’m not going to sign anything now. I’d be mad to sign anything now, because I know there’s an election in 2017, and you’re desperate” — the government. They’re desperate. “I’ll come back in the fall and say: ‘I’ll make a final investment decision, maybe — maybe if you do this, that and the other.'”

The government will say: “Emergency session. We need to do this, that and the other, because it’s for the best interests of British Columbians. And we’re going to put our trusted Minister of Natural Gas negotiating on behalf of all of us for future generations, in the best interests of those future generations.”

It is a sad day in British Columbia that we continue to debate this bill. With that, quite clearly, I will be voting in opposition to this bill. I certainly will be joining my colleagues on this side of the House in voting in opposition to that bill, resoundingly so, as this government has lost credibility on the natural gas front, and it continues to actually give away a resource that, frankly, is not in the best interests of British Columbians.

Video of Speech

Introduction

Genetically modified (GM) foods are widespread in Canada, with the potential for further expansion. Though the majority of studies show no negative health effects from consuming GM foods, there is controversy regarding the validity of these studies, and many significant concerns and unanswered questions regarding their effects on the environment.

Background

Genetic Modification (GM) refers to the introduction of new traits to an organism in a way that does not occur naturally, by making changes to its genetic makeup through intervention at the molecular level.

The first GM crops were approved for sale in Canada in the mid 1990s, and they have since become pervasive: they are found in more than 70% of processed foods sold in North America. More than 90% of canola and sugar beets, 80% of corn and 60% of soy grown in Canada are genetically engineered.

While genetic modification can be undertaken for a variety of purposes, including nutrition improvement, virus resistance, and drought resistance, virtually all GM crops on the market today are engineered exclusively for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance.

Herbicide tolerant crops have been engineered to withstand application of herbicides: most common is Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” corn, which tolerates glyphosate. Crops engineered for insect resistance produce their own pesticides. The most common are Bt crops, such as Bt Cotton and Bt Corn, which are engineered to synthesize Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) endotoxin in their cells, making them toxic to some insects. Many GM crops are “stacked” with both herbicide tolerance and insect resistance.

There is a strong “right to know” movement advocating mandatory labelling of GM foods in the US and Canada. Polls show that 90% of Canadians support mandatory labeling, and 64 countries around the world have mandatory labelling. Going further, some countries have banned the cultivation of GMOs altogether. Some US states have passed mandatory labelling laws, but a bill is currently under consideration in the US Senate, which would mandate that any such labelling takes place only at the Federal level, and only if health and safety is shown to be at issue.

Some of the Key Issues

GMO foods have been widely consumed for 20 years. The majority of scientific studies undertaken suggest no negative health effects from consuming GMOs (see here and here). However, there are a number of criticisms aimed at these studies, including their short-term nature and the fact that industry funds a large proportion of them.

Some studies have shown negative health effects of GM foods, including toxicity, immune responses, hormonal effects, and allergenicity, but their results are also contentious within the scientific community. Many of the studies showing negative health effects focus on the effects of glyphosate, which the World Health Organization has listed as a probable human carcinogen, and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which are present in GM crops but are also used in conventional, and, in the case of Bt, organic agriculture. It is debated whether the levels at which Bt is found in GM crops are higher or lower than in conventional or organic crops, and whether there are qualitative differences in Bt, with human health and environmental implications, depending on how it is used.

The environmental effects of GM crops are a second key issue. Herbicide resistant plants – so-called “super weeds” – are on the rise, resulting from the widespread use of herbicides, particularly glyphosate. Herbicide use has increased significantly since the advent of GM crops; one study estimates a 15-fold increase between 1996, when glyphosate-resistant crops were introduced, to 2014. Many draw a direct link between herbicide-resistant GM crops and the increase in herbicide use (see here and here, for example). In response to weed resistance to glyphosate, chemical companies are developing new herbicides and engineering crops to resist them, such as 2,4-D resistant corn and soybeans, grown with Dow’s Enlist Duo, which combines herbicides 2,4-D and Glyphosate.

The other major GM crop, modified with Bt to resist insects, has led to a reduction in the use of chemical insecticides in the US (the Canadian government does not track the impact of Bt crops on insecticide use). However, it is debated whether the GM plants have more or less pesticides present than those used in conventional or organic agriculture. Furthermore, since Bt has been used so widely in GM crops, insects are becoming resistant to it, thus farmers may have to switch to other, more toxic pesticides (see here, here and here).

In terms of contamination, GM crops have the ability to contaminate organic farms, which prohibit the use of genetic modification, thereby making organic farming difficult or impossible in regions close to GM agriculture. There is a largely unknown risk of transgene transference from GM crops to wild gene pools: some instances of transference have been reported, but the extent and future potential is unknown.

A Canadian expert panel put together by the Royal Society of Canada noted that the uncertain environmental impacts of GM crops could justify mandatory labeling. Independent research is lacking, as research is primarily funded by industry. The Canadian government doesn’t undertake an independent review process of industry studies on the health and environmental safety of their products before approving them.

Underlying discussions of the health and environmental effects of GM crops is a problem with treating GMOs categorically. Genetic modification is a process that can be used for different purposes and to a wide variety of effects. As noted, while herbicide resistant GM crops are associated with increased herbicide use, pesticide producing GM crops, such as Bt crops, have reduced the use of chemical insecticides. Genetic modification can potentially improve nutrition, such as “Golden Rice” with vitamin A added, or GM potatoes that release fewer carcinogenic acrylamides when cooked; it can make crops virus resistant, by inserting virus proteins into the DNA, as with the GM papaya; and it can help plants become drought resistant, potentially improving global food security. A key point of criticism of mandatory labelling is that it does not differentiate between the types of modification taking place, and their associated effects on human health or the environment.

Mandatory labelling has a significant amount of public and political support, advertised as a means to give customers the ability to know what they are eating. The effect of mandatory labelling on consumer demand is debated: some argue that it will be widely perceived as a warning, thereby decreasing consumer demand for GM products. In response to consumer demand it is predicted that producers will shift away from GM products and source non-GM ingredients. The costs of labelling to the consumer in Canada are debated, but a large study in the US estimated that mandatory labelling would cost US$2.30 per person annually, not incorporating potential behaviour changes.

Another significant issue is the role of chemical companies and large corporations in agriculture. A small number of large corporations exercise ownership over a large and growing amount of food. Farmers cannot save and replant GM seeds; they must purchase them from the manufacturers. There are fears seed diversity will be negatively impacted, impacting food security.

Several Questions

Whereas today GM foods are primarily present in processed foods and animal feed, there is potential for the commercialization of many other GM crops. Efforts are underway to commercialize the non-browning “Arctic Apple”, GM alfalfa, wheat, and some species of fish. What would the effects be of the expansion of the kinds of GM crops being grown, especially for our ability to grow organic produce?

GM crops have only been on the market since the 1990s, so the long-term effects on health and the environment cannot yet be conclusively known. Given the concerns regarding industry funding of scientific studies and the lack of long-term independent studies, many questions remain regarding the chronic and long-term effects of GM crops on human and animal health, and the environment.

Evaluation and Summary

Given the number and the extent of the unknowns associated with GM crops, precaution would suggest, at a minimum, mandatory labelling, an independent, peer-reviewed process to ensure the safety of GM crops before they are approved by government regulators, and long-term, well-funded independent studies on the effects of GM crop on human health and the environment. Mandatory labelling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients would enable people to choose if they want to consume GM foods and support GM technology through their purchases. It would also have the likely effect of decreasing demand for products containing GM crops, moving producers away from sourcing GM crops.

Labelling that specifies the nature of genetic modification (e.g. genetically modified for insect resistance; herbicide tolerance; vitamin A added) would differentiate between kinds of genetic engineering and make the information conveyed through labels more meaningful for consumers. Investigating the extent to which specific labelling is possible, what its challenges and costs would be, and whether there are best practices elsewhere, is suggested.

Industry is a significant source of funding for scientific studies on the health and environmental effects of GM crops, and the Canadian government does not independently review company studies on the safety of GM crops. Funding independent and long-term research on health, environmental, and other effects of GMOs would provide a trusted scientific source of information to inform policy going forward. The establishment of a national research program to monitor the long-term effects of GM organisms was recommended by the Royal Society of Canada expert panel to the Canadian government in 2001, but has not yet been realized.

It seems that many of the strongest motives for concern regarding GMOs come less from an issue with the technology of genetic modification itself, and more from the context in which it is taking place. Regulation and independent long-term research are lacking, and a small number of large chemical companies are driving forward a huge expansion of GM technology in the midst of many uncertainties and unanswered questions regarding its potential effects on our health and the health of our environment.

Let us know what you think.