On the day the judicial review of the process that led to the permitting of a contaminated soil facility in the Shawnigan Lake watershed begins, a new twist has occurred. In what has become the next chapter of the never ending saga, new information now reveals that as of February 5^th, the Crown is now the new owner of Lot 21, c/o the surveyor of taxes.

Recall that back in April of last year, when I first wrote about this issue, I highlighted some concerns regarding what could have been buried upstream of the orange runoff that I took water samples of. My concern was amplified when I tested the metal content in the sediments underlying the orange water in July, 2015.

After examining the elemental sediment analysis, I was left with a number of serious concerns. The enriched metal values in the sediments under the runoff suggested that their source came from somewhere upstream and likely within Lot 21 itself. The question I was left with was this:

What, if anything, has been buried on Lot 21 that could produce the Thorium, Lead and other heavy metal enrichment in the sediments?

In subsequent discussions with the Ministry, I asked if they would consider drilling Lot 21 to determine what is buried beneath the surface. Doing so would put an end to speculation circulating in  a prevalence of anecdotal stories. It would also allow the above question to be answered directly.

One of the reasons I was given that the government could not do this was that it was private land. Well now that is no longer the case. So the question is this:.

Will the BC Government drill Lot 21 to determine what, if anything, has been buried there?

The government has now simply run out of excuses for not doing so.

Media Release

Media Statement February 15, 2016
No excuses left: Lot 21 title change means Government must investigate Shawnigan site
For immediate release

Victoria B.C. – The recent news that the title for Lot 21 near Shawnigan Lake, next to the disputed contaminated soil dump site, has reverted from 0782484 BC Ltd. to the Crown means that the government no longer has any excuses to prevent it from thoroughly investigating the property.

Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay Gordon Head and Leader of the B.C. Green Party, is calling on the Ministry of Environment to drill to bedrock to determine what, if anything, has been buried on Lot 21 that could produce previously observed heavy metal enrichment in the sediments below runoff from this site?

The government has previously argued that drilling was not possible as the site was private property. Now that Lot 21 has returned to the Crown, Andrew Weaver is calling for drilling to ensure residents, local and provincial governments and First Nations know what is buried in the site. Doing so would put an end to speculation circulating in a prevalence of anecdotal stories. It would also allow the above question to be answered directly.

“The fact that Lot 21 has reverted to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia c/o Surveyor of Taxes means that the government now has no legal or legislative obstacle to thoroughly investigate what may be buried on that property. They own it. There is no excuse, the government should begin inspection drilling immediately.” says Andrew Weaver.

-30-

Media Contact

Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382
Mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
Twitter: @MatVic

Parliament Buildings
Room 027C
Victoria BC V8V 1X4

Two weeks ago I visited Prince George to meet with a number of key stakeholders in the region. The purpose of my trip was threefold. First, on my way to Prince George I passed through Kelowna where I participated in a panel at the Western Silvicultural Contractors’ Association (WSCA) 35^th Annual Conference, Tradeshow & AGM. Second, I had accepted an invitation by Spruce City Wildlife Association to participate in a political panel at the University of Northern British Columbia on hunting and wildlife conservation. Third, I arranged meetings with local councilors and business leaders to learn more about the existing and potential future economic opportunities in region. I also gave a lecture on carbon pricing, clean energy and LNG in Dr. Kyrke Gaudreau‘s Carbon Neutrality ENVS498/NRES 798 class, and accepted an invitation from the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions at UNBC to give a public lecture on science and politics in the evening of Friday, February 5^th.

Before proceeding I’d like to point out how unusual the weather was. It got as high as 7°C while I was there and the 10mm of rain that fell during the 5th was enough to clear away much of the snow. While not a normal Prince George winter’s day, it was perfect weather for driving my rented Toyota Scion iQ which seemed a little out of place beside some of the picture cars in the area.

As you will see below, we have an incredible opportunity in British Columbia for continued innovation in our resource and tech sectors.

1: WSCA 35th Annual Conference

The Western Silvicultural Contractor’s Association is an organization that represents individuals and companies that serve as contractors for the Silvicuture Industry — an industry involved in the growing as cultivation of trees. As noted on their website, these individuals and companies:

“grow seedlings, plant trees, tend stands, brush plantations, fight wild fires, prepare planting sites, survey forest regeneration, burn slash piles and restore forest and range ecosystems.”

I participated in the plenary panel: Forestry Policy Panel to answer: What’s the Big Idea?  The guiding question was “What is the forestry goal in the post-mountain-beetle-increasingly-intense-wildfire-season-pending-climate-change-looming-timber-shortfall world we are heading into and where does silviculture fit into it?”

Independent Forester Bill Dumont from the Forest Practices Board, Ian Meier, Director, BC Wildfire Services, and Bob Fleet, VP, Environment & Forestry, Tolko Industries Ltd, joined me on the panel. The goal of the panel was to stimulate big picture challenges and opportunities within the forest sector in the years ahead.

The focus of my presentation was on the challenges and opportunities arising from global warming. The conversation initially focused on the increasing likelihood of extreme precipitation, larger-area wildfires, summer drought, extreme temperatures and what this might mean for forestry. I pointed out that the challenges of global warming will also lead to opportunities. But if we want to capitalize on these opportunities BC and Canada need to invest more heavily in research within the government and academic sectors.

In addition, I outlined potential opportunities for innovation within the forest sector that could arise through partnership between the forest sector and BC’s vibrant tech sector (see more below). To conclude, I recommended that those interested in this area consider reading the book by Stefan Heck and Matt Rogers entitled Resource Revolution: How to Capture the Biggest Business Opportunity in a Century.

All in all, it was a fascinating event and I was honoured to have the opportunity to serve on the same panel as the other panelists.

2: Spruce City Wildlife Association Symposium

As many who follow this blog will know, I have written extensively about wildlife conservation, habitat protection, hunting and the rights of resident hunters over the last year. One of the issues I have been concerned with is the allocation of hunting permits between guide outfitters and resident hunters. I’ve also spoken out strongly against trophy hunting and I’ve introduced two private member’s bills in an attempt to end this practice.

Over the last year I’ve engaged in countless on-line conversations with hunters, environmentalists and regular folk just seeking clarification as to the intent of my bills and blog posts. What has become abundantly clear to me is that concerned urban environmentalists and hunters share more commonalities than they do differences. First and foremost is that both groups are committed to supporting conservation.

Second, I have found that the overwhelming majority of people I have spoken with support a science-based, ecosystem-based approach to wildlife (and forestry/natural resource-based) management. In so doing we end up as a society grappling with ethical questions like is it justifiable to kill one animal in the name of saving another? What if one of those animals is endangered? Predator management in certain cases is fundamental to wildlife management for it is unrealistic for us to think that humans have not disturbed the habitat in which the wildlife live. Some might argue that we should let nature take its course. I would respond that this would be inconsistent with a science-based, ecosystem-based approach to wildlife management as we have already disturbed all aspects of nature.

Third I have realized that the term “trophy hunting” has a different meaning to hunters compared to what is commonly understood in urban areas. For many, including me, trophy hunting means hunting exclusively for a trophy (head, skin or antlers) with no intention of packing out the meat to your home. Guide outfitters can offer foreigners the opportunity to come to BC and kill an animal. The meat could either be given away (or left to rot in the case of grizzlies) and all that the foreign hunter takes home is the trophy. It is this that the overwhelming majority of British Columbians, including resident hunters, abhor. But to many hunters, trophy hunting means hunting a trophy animal. It’s a bit like trophy fishing. The trophy fish is a big fish; it’s a keeper, not one you catch and release. Sure the antlers will come out, but so will the organic, free-range meat which will be used to feed a family for many, many months.

The purpose of the Spruce City Wildlife Association Symposium was to explore these issues more thoroughly with representatives from the four major political parties. Invitations went out at the end of November last year and I immediately accepted. Joining me on the panel were Katrine Conroy from the BC NDP, and Dan Brooks, Interim Leader of the BC Conservative Party. MLA Mike Morris (Prince George-Mackenzie) was also invited to attend but declined to do so just two days before the scheduled event. This was disappointing as he was in town on the day and no other Liberal MLA was dispatched to replace him either.

A number of the questions were given us in advance. These ranged from questions regarding grizzly bear hunting, to funding of wildlife management and restoration, to First Nation hunting rights. Neither Dan Brooks nor I prepared answers in advance. I was, however, disappointed to see Katrine Conroy read from prepared answers written and approved by the party. All in all it was clear to me that the audience was profoundly troubled with the direction British Columbia is heading both in terms of wildlife conservation and the rights of resident, versus foreign, hunters.

3: Technology and the Resource Sector in Prince George

During the morning I met with Oliver Ray, Executive Director of the North Central Local Government Association, Meghan Ginter, membership and events manager with the Prince George Chamber of Commerce and Prince George Councillor Jillian Merrick to learn more about the existing and potential future economic opportunities in region. We discussed how British Columbia could use our strategic advantage as a destination of choice to attract industry to BC in highly mobile sectors that have difficulty retaining employees in a competitive marketplace. In particular, we discussed the availability of our boundless renewable resources — energy, water and fibre — which could be used to attract industry that wants to brand itself as sustainable over its entire business cycle.

It’s just like what Washington has done. BMW announced an expansion to the Moses Lake carbon-fiber plant, which would see a tripling of its capacity. BMW uses the plant to produce carbon fiber ribbon employed in its i8 concept “sustainable car”.  There are two hundred 21^st century jobs from just this one investment alone. Oregon is also heading down this path. Google, a company that sees itself as a powerhouse of the 21^st century wants to ensure it has access to clean, renewable energy. Oregon was able to provide Google with price certainty and so the company invested $1.2 billion in the creation of a major data distribution centre in The Dalles. And that’s another eighty 21^st century jobs from another investment.

The cooler climate of Prince George, relative to other jurisdictions on the west coast, led me to ask if Prince George was exploring options like this. From our discussions, later reaffirmed when I met with Mayor Lyn Hall, Councillors Murray Krause, Garth Frizzell and district staff, it became clear to me that a barrier for this to occur is the lack of broadband redundancy in the region (see summary).

In our discussions I further emphasized that I believe it is critical that we bring the typically urban-based tech and typically rural-based resource sectors together. Innovation in technology will lead to more efficient and clever ways of operating in the mining and forestry industries. Earlier, Oliver Ray had also noted the importance and potential for the agricultural sector as well. And in addition to our natural resources, we would also have the potential to export innovation in the rapidly emerging knowledge-based economy. But once more, a barrier to building Prince George as a hub for natural resource/tech innovation is limited by the availability of broadband redundancy

Recently, for instance, I learned about the story of a BC-based technology innovator (Minesense Technologies Ltd.) partnering with a local mine to dramatically improve the efficiency and environmental footprint of their mining operations. Rather than hauling thousands of unnecessary tonnes of rock for processing, the new technology allowed the rocks to be scanned for ore content on site. This meant that prior to trucking, the company could determine if it was more cost-effective to simply put the rock to one side for use as fill later.

While in Prince George I was fortunate to be given a tour of the Carrier Lumber Ltd. Prince George mill by its president, Bill Kordyban. Carrier Lumber is a family owned business that was started by Bill’s father in 1951. It wasn’t until 1976 that the facility at Prince George was built. The Prince George mill currently employs around 300 people, with the majority of workers being members of United Steelworkers Local 1-424. Carrier is one of a number of mills in the Prince George area but what is remarkable about this particular enterprise is the fact that the company is diversified.

Carrier owns the Prince George Mill and another Mill in Saskatchewan. In addition, Carrier has its own fabrication shop situated in a 76,000 building a stone throw away from their Prince George mill. Being the largest fabrication shop in BC, the shop not only builds much of Carriers milling equipment, but it also builds for other industries in the area.  The 8000 acre Bar-K ranch with over 2000 head of cattle is also part of the Carrier group of holdings.

During the tour, Bill was quick to point out that the “thing about saw mills is that it’s all about flexibility”, and it was abundantly clear that Carrier lumber has figured out how to compete in highly competitive forest products sector. State of the art technologies are used throughout the mill in order to maximize recovery of wood products. Every bit of fibre in each and every log is used one way or another. Logs are maximized for lumber production with each resulting board being marked with a unique serial numbered. Hog fuel arising from stripping the logs of bark is shipped to Canfor for use as a biofuel. Wood chips end up being used for pulp and paper and sawdust is sent to Premier Pellet Ltd in Vanderhoof to be converted into wood pellets. And of course there is lumber, which is produced at a rate of about 300 boards a minute.

Like other mills in the area, there is growing concern that as government reduces the allowable cut in the near future due to pine stands devastated by the Mountain Pine Beetle beginning to run out, it is done so as to allow both family-owned and larger multinational mills to survive. In addition, as negotiations proceed between Canada and the US about extending the Softwood Lumber Agreement, there is ongoing trepidation within the forestry sector across all of Canada. Given the importance of forestry to our economy, it’s critical that government ensure that it does what it can to ensure this sector remains vibrant.

Innovation at the interface between technology and forestry not only extends to the production of lumber, but also to the value-added forest products sector as well. As Mayor Hall, Councillor Krause, and I set off to visit the Peaking Backup Energy Centre associated with the Prince George Downtown District Energy System, we stopped in to visit the award-winning Wood Innovation Design Centre (WIDC).

Completed on October 31, 2014, the WIDC is a six story building constructed entirely of wood, engineered wood and wood products. It is yet another marvellous example of innovation and creativity that arises when the resource and tech sectors are brought together. Upon entering the WIDC one is immediately greeted with the sweet aroma of wood and the stunning architecture. It would be an inspiring place to work and the University of Northern British Columbia obviously thinks so too.

The WIDC is the home of UNBC’s Master of Engineering in Integrated Wood Design program, with an objective “designed to enhance the students’ understanding of wood as a versatile and sustainable building component.” In fact, I had wanted to visit the WIDC for quite some time as I was first learned about the building while visiting the Structurlam manufacturing facility in Okanagan Falls, during my September 2015 visit to the Okanagan.

Structurlam is an outstanding example of a BC based business in the value-added forest sector. Their two main products Glulam and Crosslam are 100% engineered-wood laminations that can be used as replacements in building construction for steel and cement, respectively. Structurlam played a key role in supplying product for the building of the WIDC. For those on southern Vancouver Island or in the Vancouver region, you can see their beautifully engineered products in one of the buildings below. In addition, Structurlam is presently manufacturing panels for UBC’s 18-story Brock Commons Student Residence which when completed will be the world’s tallest wood building.

One of the things that impressed me during my tour of the Structurlam facility was their commitment to source  lumber from BC-based companies. During my visit last September, vast quantities of  ready-to-be-used lumber were on site. This lumber was used from Kaleshnikoff Lumber Co. Ltd., a family owned business located in Tarry’s BC (on Highway 3A between Castlegar and Nelson) that was started in the late 1930’s by the children of Doukhobour immigrants who came to Canada in 1911.

4: Clean Energy, Sustainability and Leadership in Prince George

Prince George is home to the University of Northern British Columbia which in 2007 branded itself as Canada’s Green University™. With a name like that, you can bet I was thrilled to visit the campus, give a lecture in a class and tour their bioenergy facility. In fact, in 2015, and for the fourth year in a row, UNBC was listed as one of the Top 100  Canada’s Greenest Employers. To say I was impressed would be an understatement.

UNBC was recently ranked #1 in primarily undergraduate category of the annual Maclean’s university rankings and it was clear to me that the university has worked hard to deserve this reputation. I was taken on a tour of the bioenergy facility by University of Victoria engineering graduate David Claus, Assistant Director of Facilities Management.

The bioenergy facility consists of a Nexterra Systems Corporation gasification system that became operational in May 2011. Powered entirely by wood waste (hog fuel) and housed in a LEED Platinum building, the bioenergy facility provides enough energy through its hot water distribution system to allow UNBC to reduce its consumption of fossil fuels for heating by 85%.

It’s not only UNBC that recognizes the potential to convert wood waste into heat. In fact, Prince George  has also introduced its own district energy system that connects buildings downtown with a bioenergy facility at the nearby and newly rebuilt Lakeland Sawmill. Heated water at the Lakeland facility is piped underground to the downtown Peaking Backup Energy Centre. There distributions pumps and backup natural gas heating boilers are housed.

We were given a tour of the Peaking Backup Energy Centre by Todd Angus, Engineering Assistant, Public Works/Utilities. There he explained the functioning of the both the main and peaking backup systems. What’s remarkable is that the the underground hot water pipes transfer heat to numerous buildings in the downtown core including City Hall, the Coliseum arena, the Civic Centre, the Four Seasons pool, the library, the newly constructed RCMP building, the Two Rivers Art Gallery and the WIDC. Not only is this district heating system considered carbon neutral, it is also more efficient. The hot water heat exchangers are 99.9% efficient compared to typical ~80% for natural gas boilers.

5: Summary

It became apparent from my visit to Prince George that the opportunities for the region are enormous. Real estate is still reasonably priced, the surrounding environment is picturesque, there’s a first rate university on site. Prince George is a hub for northern BC and on the rail line from the Port of Prince Rupert to Chicago, one of greatest, if not the greatest, rail distribution centres in North America.

So what is missing? Why would Google, for example, not jump at the idea of building a data distribution centre in Prince George? Why is there not a thriving and expanding hub of local technological innovation in partnership with the resource, forestry and agricultural sectors and capitalizing on the research expertise at UNBC? Why wouldn’t companies that are concerned about access to renewable energy, a skilled workforce and being able to attract and retain their workers not setup in Prince George? They’re located on the railway connecting Chicago’s North American rail distribution centre to Prince Rupert, a gateway to Asian markets.

The answer is simple. Broadband redundancy in the region precludes major investments in this area.

So what is broadband redundancy? The term broadband redundancy means that a community is not reliant upon a single high speed internet connect into their region. Prince George presently has a single high speed connection to the rest of North America via Vancouver. But if for some reason the line (between Prince George and Vancouver) goes down, Prince George is out of luck in terms of communicating at high speed with the rest of the world via the internet.

As you can see from the image to the left from BCNET, Kamloops has high speed internet connectivity to both Vancouver and Calgary. And so, if the Kamloops to Vancouver connection drops, redundancy is built in so high speed internet traffic can still go via Calgary. The fact that Kamloops has broadband redundancy is a a critical reason why TELUS recently built a $75 million data distribution centre there.

If government wants to stimulate the northern economy it should first stop throwing good money after bad ideas. I’ve been saying it for more than three years now, there will not be any significant development in LNG in BC anytime soon. The market is saturated; prices will remain low for many years; China already has more contracted supply than it actually need. China is now a seller in the marketplace. Add this to sanctions being lifted recently from the world’s largest natural gas reserve (Iran) and the proximity of the second largest reserve (Russia) to Asian markets with signed deals in place, and it should be clear that British Columbians have been misled by the government for quite some time about the future of LNG in this province.

In my view, perhaps the single biggest stimulus to the area would be for government ensure that broadband redundancy is introduced to Prince George. And this would not be very expensive. After a number of meetings it was clear that what was needed was timely investment to connect Prince George to Chetwynd via high speed broadband. At a cost of about 20,000$ to 25,000$ per kilometre, the 300km distance would cost between $6 million and $7.5 million to lay. Yet the potential benefits would be enormous.

So while I am calling on the government to show leadership in this area now and invest in this critical infrastructure, I can ensure people in the area that if I were premier, it would be one of my top priorities.

This afternoon in the legislature I delivered my response to the Speech from the Throne. I hope you’ll find it of interest to read the text (or watch the video) of my speech where I look at unfulfilled promise after unfulfilled promise that this government has made over the last three years.

Text of My Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in a debate that I suspect, honestly, will be going on for next year and a half — a debate that is about the direction the province is going; a debate about what the future could look like for British Columbia; a debate that I’m eager to participate in.

But this throne speech did not give us the ability to debate because there were virtually no ideas. Gone is the over-the-top rhetoric about LNG that has so defined this government’s approach. Replacing it, however, is a familiar drum beat that I remember hearing in 2012 before the last election. The world is a scary place. Only this government has prevented complete collapse.

And yet, to make such a claim would defy logic, given this government’s record over the last four years. I remember sitting here bright eyed in 2013, having just been elected, and listening to a throne speech that stated the government would “bring the liquefied natural gas opportunity home, creating tens of thousands of new jobs and leading to the establishment of the B.C. prosperity fund, which will be protected by law to eliminate our debt.”

Three years later, this is clearly an empty promise, an unfulfilled vision that was never based in reality, a history that this government is quick to forget. British Columbians are hardly going to feel assured that this government has a concrete plan, given the direction indicated by the Speech from the Throne.

The undercurrent of their retreat away from their highly rhetorical promises of 2013 is the idea that there was no way the government could possibly have known that LNG would be delayed. “Unforeseen global conditions are posing new challenges,” Tuesday’s speech read.

But these challenges, I would argue, were largely foreseeable, of course. For the past few years, experts from a variety of fields have been outlining just how unlikely it would be for this industry to come to British Columbia as promised.

Since 2012, I’ve been saying that this was nothing but a pipe dream. Since 2012, nothing has happened in this industry, because the world is oversupplied in natural gas. China now has excess gas. It is a seller on the international marketplace. And the price of future contracts would mean that, in British Columbia, we would literally have to pay people to take our natural gas.

Finally, Iran, the world’s largest reserve of natural gas — almost 20 times that of all Canada combined — has recently had sanctions lifted.

Is there anyone out there who still believes anything this government has to say when it talks about LNG? I think it’s important for us to look at just how much was promised in order to understand why the government’s refrain that “success is not for quitters” is not simply, yet again, empty rhetoric. But not only that. It’s a dangerous approach to the management of public resources.

In 2011, the Premier said that she planned to take an “aggressive approach to the development of the natural gas sector,” and she was confident that British Columbia could “create a prosperous LNG industry that would bring local jobs to our communities and deliver important dollars into our economy.”

Her office predicted that the Kitimat liquefied natural gas plant would be “operational by 2015.” Nothing much happening in Kitimat in the area of LNG.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: And, yes, I have been to Kitimat, and I have toured the Rio Tinto Alcan plan, and there is a lot going on there, certainly.

But, in fact, there is no LNG development going on in Kitimat. In fact, the pipeline that was being processed there has simply had construction stop, and yet again and again, final investment decisions are kicked down…. The can is kicked down the road for years to come.

The NDP, citing jobs for under-employment, communities and a “better market in Asia,” were quick to support the development of an LNG industry, initially. I will say, of course, that they have seen the light, and they too recognize the empty promises, that this government let British Columbians down.

I suspect, frankly, that “if we have a facility in Kitimat and markets in Asia, then the activity in the northeast is going to continue to be hot rather than flat,” said the Leader of the Opposition in 2011. “The risk to our coastline from LNG is insignificant. The benefit to British Columbians is quite significant,” he added a few days later

The B.C. Liberals continue pushing their LNG — and until recently, supported by the NDP. In 2012, for example, the NDP said they were comfortable with fracking and supported increasing B.C.’s greenhouse gases in the name of reducing those in Asia. “We have been fracking in British Columbia for a long, long time, decades in fact.”

In fact, that’s true. Vertical fracking has been going on in British Columbia for many decades but not horizontal fracking. Horizontal drilling is a relatively new construct both in British Columbia and the rest of the world, which is one of the reasons that there is no market for B.C. gas, because everyone in the world is using horizontal fracking now — not just British Columbia.

In 2013, the Premier’s “aggressive approach” morphed into her entire re-election strategy, one based solely on the LNG industry. Massive promises were made to British Columbians: a debt-free B.C. by the end of 2020s, a $100 billion prosperity fund, 100,000 jobs, elimination of the provincial sales tax, $4.3 billion in extra government revenue by 2020, $1 trillion in the new economic activity. The list went on and on. To quote again…. “This opportunity is very real for all the people of our province,” she said.

In 2014, this chamber once again heard that “LNG was a once in a lifetime opportunity to create 100,000 new jobs and a prosperity fund to eliminate the provincial debt.” Despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, we heard that this LNG fiction was the “greatest single step to fight climate change.” That’s almost a laughable quote.

As a climate scientist, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, and I spoke against the idea. Climate leadership aside, which this government is so sorely lacking, it was clear that the economics simply weren’t there to support an LNG industry on the scale of what was promised, and a number of energy analysts were voicing similar concerns. Nonetheless, onwards we go.

The Premier told us that her “plan to foster a competitive LNG industry was showing results.” She was so confident in her vision that by April 30 of 2014, she stated that her government was meeting with key investors to “take the last crucial steps towards final decisions.”

By the end of the year, her plan was, by any account, looking a little iffy. The deal with Petronas wasn’t going so well, despite the Premier’s assurance that they were “absolutely on schedule” and that they were “going to get there on the timeline that they had set.”

The 7 percent tax that was originally proposed had been cut in half. The imminent deals that were just around the corner were dwindling in number. I stated in this House that this was an industry of “high stakes promises and low stakes delivery.” I asked the government repeatedly about their backup plan, if the predicted LNG windfall did not materialize.

The response from the hon. Minister of Natural Gas was that they “know they will be successful on this file.” No backup plan. Not necessary. None.

Hon. T. Lake: Four balanced budgets. That’s a pretty good backup plan.

A. Weaver: And the balanced budgets are being done, as the Minister of Health is pointing out, on the backs of individual British Columbians through things like speculation in the real estate industry and medical service premium increases, which…. As we saw today, 65,712 British Columbians from around the province signed a petition saying: “Stop this.”

The government will listen or not listen, at their peril, because these 65, 712 voters will be there in 2017 to send this government a message, bringing ten or 12 folk along with each and every one of them.

Come 2015, the government was still touting the LNG promises, albeit those promises had diminished significantly. The price of oil had fallen to the floor, while the government looked the other way and continued to insist that LNG was a “generational opportunity.”

By this point, however, the government had gone quiet on the big-ticket promises, and our Premier’s timeline had changed. Having an LNG plant operational by 2015 clearly wasn’t happening. But she insisted now that they were on target to have “three projects by 2020 up and running.” That’s a bit like kicking the can down past the next election — desperate, absolutely desperate, to try to get one — not two, but one —final investment decision.

This government had a rare, unusual summer session for the sole purpose of legislating an agreement that ultimately amounted to a sellout of our resource — a desperate attempt to land an industry one final investment deal. That deal was and remains environmentally reckless, fiscally foolhardy and socially irresponsible.

It is undoing all of our climate leadership, as recently emphasized by a Canadian report on the environmental assessment in the area. Admitting what we already knew by the end of 2015, the Premier said: “Timelines were probably going to be different” than what she promised.

Running parallel to the government’s over-the-top statements on LNG was a continued advancement of the Site C dam. The massive undertaking is perhaps the clearest example of how irresponsible this government is with public resources. The whole reason for building Site C, as the Premier stated in 2013, was because it was needed “for powering up these huge LNG facilities.” Whoops. What LNG facilities?

This project was originally priced at $6.6 billion in 2010, $7.9 billion in 2011, and as of 2014, the estimate was set at $8.8 billion. I’m willing to stake a large bet today that it’ll come in around $13 billion when all is said and done, and this will be an example of public subsidy for an industry that is not going to come to B.C. anytime soon — all to power these LNG facilities that we’re not going to have, with none appearing to be close.

Now, we have with this apparent excess energy, whose production has crippled the clean energy sector in British Columbia, we hear that Site C may help to power Alberta. Well, there’s a new idea, and we’ll put more public money subsidizing a transmission line to allow us to do so. To me, this sounds like a desperate attempt to salvage a bad idea that anybody outside of government’s inner circles would have realized was not timely and not cost-effective and irresponsible. A bad idea that happened to support another bad idea.

Here is the critical point. We have not seen one single investment decision in five years of political rhetoric about how promising the LNG sector is for our province — not a single investment decision to help fund all those big election promises, not a single investment decision, period.

I want to return to this line we heard on Tuesday — “that success is not for quitters.” That success demands “steadfast attention.” I would suggest that success is knowing when to stop throwing good money after bad ideas and having the courage to admit that you were wrong — that is, after all, what a fiscally responsible government would do. That is what a fiscally responsible Green government would do.

Anybody who has ever been in the stock market knows, you don’t double down chasing a stock. Just ask anybody who invested in Nortel back in the day when it went from over $100 to pennies and change.

Despite the clear lack of progress in developing an LNG record, the Minister of Natural Gas stated last month that those who question this abysmal track record are “pessimists, short-sighted, reluctant to admit that LNG is making progress and securing long-term prosperity for all of us.”

Indeed, rather than switching tracks, they are switching to being derogatory and defensive of their failed strategy, while superficially referencing a diversified economy they have done little, if anything, to support. The Premier herself said the world is being divided in two: the people that will “say no to everything” and the people who would “want to find a way to get to yes.” I’m not sure what science the forces of no bring together up there, except that it’s not really about the science, it’s not really about the fish, it’s just about trying to say no. It’s about fear of change. It’s about fear of the future. It’s about derogatory statements like this Premier is making — a complete and utter lack of understanding of the fundamental issues facing British Columbians that she would have the gall to say that.

Is there any reason why voter turnout in recent by-elections was only 20 percent? The people of British Columbia are fed up with this political rhetoric. They will vote for change in the future, but they will vote for change like the federal government voted for change, like the American Republicans and Democrats are voting for change in their leadership, they will vote for change to get this government out of power. It has been in far too long. It’s sending the signals to British Columbians that they do not want to hear.

The arrogance of that statement is outstanding. There are very good scientific reasons to not support the LNG pipe dream of the government, not the least of which is the fact that pursuing the LNG strategy will throw our climate leadership out of the window. Plain and simple. You can’t argue it the other way.

Indeed, the continued rhetoric on LNG isn’t really about the reality of LNG in this province. It’s about trying to convince us that LNG promises are going to materialize, if we just trust government. Heard that before? It’s about fear of British Columbians actually remembering what they were promised and realizing it’s not what was delivered. It’s about a fear of losing the next election.

The Minister of Natural Gas Development once told me that my opposition to his LNG pipedream would leave me eating my words, just as the Minister of Advanced Education said today. Well, it hasn’t happened yet. I have to admit I’m getting hungry for real government leadership in this province. Furthermore, I must confess my confusion about how this government feels it can insinuate that Alberta is not an example of how to run a province, while at the same time being entirely focused on developing a carbon-based commodity market economy in the same low-price environment. It’s precisely that that’s hurting Alberta.

For three years, we’ve had a one-issue Premier, caught up in the political promises she had to make to win the last election. We’ve had a supportive opposition up until recently. We have heard plenty of promises, and they have rarely been based in reality. This is an approach to government that is, sadly, being repeated on a number of fronts.

For example, let’s take a look at the B.C. jobs plan, which promised thousands of new jobs and is now in its fifth year. It has done nothing to fuel job growth. In fact, the employment rate in B.C. has dropped, hon. Minister of Health. The employment rate in B.C. has dropped since this incarnation of the B.C. Liberals took office. The employment rate has dropped since the B.C. Liberals took office, despite their B.C. jobs plan. As Stats Canada reported this past December, B.C.’s unemployment rate has risen to its highest level since December ’13. The pattern of job losses in our province is troubling, especially when considered next to skyrocketing housing prices.

Again, mirroring the government’s outlandish LNG promises, the B.C. Liberals have repeatedly vowed that every British Columbian would have a family doctor by 2015. There’s another promise. Unfortunately, 2015 has come and gone, and there are an incredible number of people still in need of a family doctor. In fact, here’s another statistic. Fewer British Columbians have a regular doctor now than before the government made these lofty promises. Right now in British Columbia, it’s estimated that over 200,000 people are still actively looking for a family doctor.

The minister has gone quiet on that one. I wish he’d actually look at the statistics there and fulfil the promises his government made and sent in the wrong direction. Given this government’s complicated history with doctor shortages, however, what I find most concerning about the B.C. Liberals’ promise to provide every British Columbian with a family physician is not that they have failed. One only has to look back at the struggles Canada has, as a country, in maintaining the appropriate numbers of GPs to know that B.C.’s doctor shortage was never something that could have been fixed in two years.

What is most concerning is that British Columbians were repeatedly misled about what could be realistically achieved. British Columbians deserve better. They deserve real politics. They deserve real statements. They deserve statements in government that are grounded in reality, not political rhetoric that has no hope to ever transpire, simply because the government is concerned about winning, winning at all costs.

Now, I would ask all members of the government opposite to take a look and read the comments of the previous member, the member from the White Rock area, and what he was actually talking about there — talking about coaches, talking about winning. It’s pretty clear to me that that speech said a lot about this government and its approach to winning at all costs — saying whatever it takes to get through lunch, saying whatever it takes them to get through dinner, going into rope-a-dope to pretend issues don’t exist.

We’re beginning to see a pattern emerge with this government, whether it be promises of 100,000 jobs, a debt-free B.C., unrealistic job growth, a GP for every British Columbian, unicorns in the backyards for all kids by the age of 20. The government is long on rhetoric and short on the leadership required to truly make things better for British Columbians. Real leadership is desperately needed in this province.

Only when this government is honest with British Columbians about our strengths and weaknesses can it bring forward a real vision that positions British Columbia as a leader in the 21st-century economy. Such a vision starts by being clear about what our real strengths are as a province — our people, our place and our resources.

British Columbians are among the best educated in the world. Our high school students are consistently ranked near the top of global comparisons. The OECD program for international student assessment identifies B.C. as continually ranking at the very top in science, mathematics and reading.

The strengths go beyond academic comparisons. Travelling around this province for the past three years, I’ve found the same thing everywhere I’ve gone: British Columbians who succeed by bringing innovation into their work. Small and family-owned businesses are the heart of innovation. They know that the market is competitive, yet they are finding ways to succeed. In many cases, in most cases, this is despite the lack of government support, not because of it.

We have such an opportunity in B.C., the opportunity to grow our economy and sunrise industries like the tech sector and the renewable energy sector. These are rapidly growing economic sectors that we need to nurture in our province.

I recently attended the B.C. Tech Summit in Vancouver, kind of an afterthought by the B.C. government in August of last year.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I do know about the B.C. Tech Summit. I know that it was only thought of as a last-minute thing in August of last year, and staff were tasked to get it done. This is not a government that has put any long-term effort into some particular issue.

When I attended that, I had a chance to sit down with numerous entrepreneurs who are working in the creative community. I was able to hear firsthand their views on the challenges and opportunities faced by their industry. This is exactly the type of sector that has been largely neglected for the past three years by a government fixated on a windfall.

We have another: the agricultural sector. Government’s response? “Let’s have another conference on this.” Rather than nurturing this industry….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: First conference on this. Thank you to the member for Saanich South.

Everyone I have met with talked about the physical draw of our province.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I’m so glad that I’m working up some of the ministers opposite. It’s clear that I’m actually hitting a nerve there with some truth, which is getting them to be a little upset.

Everyone I met with talked about the physical draw of our province…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: …as one of the main reasons they remain here. Over the generations, the beauty of this province has attracted talent and investment from across Canada and, indeed, the world. The reason is simple. People want to live here. They want to take advantage of the lifestyle opportunities that exist. People move here and they stay here to be active and surrounded by unparalleled natural beauty.

Our province attracts and retains people who believe in creating a better society. We also have the natural resources that position us to be a leader in the clean tech and resource technology sectors. Our opportunity is more than just exporting physical goods. We should be exporting our best practices and cutting-edge technologies. Unfortunately, our government is no longer spearheading those values. We are not the climate leaders we once were. Instead, we are promoting fossil fuel development.

The government is subsidizing the destruction of ancient forests that should be saved. Other ecosystems are so poorly managed that we have to cull one species in the name of saving another, bringing B.C. into global disrepute. Wild salmon stocks are falling in many regions, while the B.C. government ignores the province’s role in their protection and dismisses the vital importance of these fish in sustaining the environment and First Nations culture. Instead of addressing these issues honestly and head on, we see a government kicking the can of responsibility down a never-ending road.

The government consistently says that they are world leading. They say it because they know British Columbians want to be world leading. We want to be ahead and modern. Simply proclaiming that something is world leading does not make it so. You cannot bestow such a title on yourself. Only with the hard work of actual leadership and vision does such recognition come from abroad. That leadership is lacking.

This is what I had heard from the tech entrepreneurs who dream of a new creative industry in this province and who believe in the potential for British Columbia. They want to live here. While they were encouraged that government is finally paying attention, as of August of last year, to what could be a powerhouse industry in the province, the challenges they face are the same that all British Columbians are facing.

Affordability. It’s hard to tell if this government merely took its eye off the ball with the crisis of affordability in the Lower Mainland. They do seem to have turned hyping an industry that they politically chained themselves to into a full-time job. I get that. Either way, this is one of the fundamental challenges our province must come to terms with if we are to create an environment that fosters the growth of resilient local businesses in the creative economy.

The government has ignored the low-hanging fruit available to solve some of the housing affordability issues, such as closing the bare trust loophole or ensuring that it has the data to make evidence-based decisions. Similarly to LNG, this government has ignored all the warning signs and expert advice along the way. That is not looking out for young families. That is not showing leadership. Frankly, that’s like standing as a deer in the road looking at the headlights of the car as the economy comes and crashes down on you.

Grounded in the housing affordability crisis is a strong sense that fairness is fundamentally lacking in our province’s approach. Vancouver is a city of people from all walks of life, but this government’s policies risk hollowing out that region by supporting the speculative industry rather than small business owners who give this city its heartbeat.

Making life affordable and fair for British Columbians means MSP premiums need to be eliminated. Why is B.C. the only province that perpetuates a fundamentally unfair system to help pay our health care services?

In our current system, someone making $30,000 a year pays the same premium as someone making $3 million a year. This unjust measure has been carried out year after year in an attempt for the government to show that they have lower taxes. But to lower taxes and then create specific fees that disproportionately affect the lower-income bracket to pay for health care services is hardly fair, and British Columbians are noticing.

In fact, it was my constituents who brought this concern to me. I visited a local seniors centre home to learn from my constituents what challenges they were facing. With fixed incomes, the almost annual increase in MSP rates has acted like a shadow tax taking a greater and greater share of their income — this from the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. And let me tell you, it is not one of the least-well-off ridings in the province of British Columbia.

The more I looked into this, the clearer it was that MSP premiums needed reform in the province. We’re the only jurisdiction that hasn’t found a progressive way to levy health care costs. We need to follow the step Ontario has taken and roll MSP premiums into our income taxes. There’s no cost increase here. It takes a shadow tax this government charges in fees, a head tax, and instead replaces it with a graduated payment on your income tax return, just like CPP and EI.

Reforming MSP premiums — not tweaking it slightly, to pretend that you care — is what real government leadership looks like. It’s a commitment to making the lives of British Columbians better.

Listening to the problems affecting those who live in this province is part of good governance. But when the people of Shawinigan Lake have voiced strong and valid opposition to a project, the government has ignored them. When First Nations oppose a project in their own territory, they are dismissed as the forces of no. This is not collaborative governance. This is not listening. It’s certainly not about reconciliation. This is not what British Columbians expect from their government.

The throne speech specifically states: “Getting to yes on economic development does not mean cutting corners or bowing to external pressure.” I’m wondering right now what the residents of Shawnigan Lake think about this. I’m wondering what First Nations think about this. And I’m wondering if First Nations believe this government is sincere when not once but twice the throne speech uses the possessive “our” to describe First Nations. Our First Nations — unbelievable coming from a government that suggests that it cares about the importance of listening to First Nations in British Columbia.

Our province is blessed with a mixture of human and natural resources that, with real leadership and deliberate action, are poised to take off. With the right policies and measures in place, combined with the right approach, we can have a cutting-edge modern economy while ensuring a just society. This is what building on our strengths rather than chasing political promises can bring us.

By leveraging our renewable energy sector — which, sadly, is hurting right now because of the irresponsible government decision on Site C, burdening future generations with public debt to provide power at below market cost to an industry that will never transpire here — our critical natural resource sectors of forestry, mining, aquaculture and agriculture have the potential to join forces with the tech sector and create new, innovative ways to sustainably harvest our resources at greater value than before.

Unfortunately, this vision cannot flourish if government remains tied to the political promises it made four years ago. As their previous dream of an LNG windfall hits the hard brick wall of reality, the government now seems directionless. Yes, they are taking a few commonsense steps to address a small number of real crises facing British Columbia, but they are ignoring the vast potential of what this province and its people can do. With this approach, they are saying no to leadership. They are saying no to a prosperous future for British Columbia and no to what B.C. could be.

With heads in the sand, it would appear that the forces of no are not just on this side of the House. They are, frankly, on the other side of the House. With that, I thank you, hon. Speaker, for your time and will say to you that I will not be supporting this throne speech in the House.

Video of My Speech

Today in the Legislature I offered a number of practical steps that government could take to address Vancouver’s growing affordability crisis. It’s been more than two years now since I first raised these issues. As noted below, there are at least three dimensions to the problem: 1) government incentivized speculation; 2) preponderance of vacant homes; 3) non-enforcement of illegal realtor transactions.

First, I reintroduced a Private Member’s Bill entitled Bill M201 Land Title Amendment Act, 2016. If enacted, this bill would amend the Land Title Act to reintroduce and expand provisions that were previously in the Act. Such provisions will help determine who is purchasing property in BC. It would allow the government to determine foreign investment flows, the role corporations are playing, and whether we are seeing speculation in our market coming from other regions of Canada.

Second, while government has finally committed to take action to ensure enforcement of the Real Estate Services Act, nothing is being done to address the growing number of empty homes in Metro Vancouver. It’s beginning to happen here in the CRD as well. In addition, government has allowed a speculative tax loophole to remain open. Previously I’ve referred to this as a loophole so big you could drive a bus through it.

During question period I asked government about both of these. I asked about closing the Bare Trust loophole and whether government will introduce legislation that taxes vacant properties in urban areas in a revenue-neutral fashion to ensure that the money becomes available to pay the social costs associated with the lack of affordable housing. This would also incentivize the renting of vacant homes, thereby increasing affordability by increasing rental supply.

As you will see from the response I got from Minister de Jong (ignoring the banter with Minister Andrew Wilkinson who was heckling me), I am cautiously optimistic that we will see something in the budget to address at least some of the issued I raised. I’ll be reporting back on this after the release of the budget next Tuesday.

Below I reproduce the Question Period exchange. Following that I append the text and video of my speech as I introduced Bill M201 Land Title Amendment Act, 2016. Finally, I include a copy of the media release that we sent out today.

Text of Question Period Exchange

A. Weaver: I must admit I found that rather entertaining, if not…. I’m searching for an answer within the rebuttal there. But for more than two years now I’ve been raising the issue of affordability and speculation in the housing market.

There are at least three dimensions to this:

(1) incentivized government speculation;

(2) a preponderance of vacant homes, and

(3) non-enforcement of illegal realtor transactions.

I just reintroduced a bill to amend the Land Title Act, thereby providing government with access to critical information needed to understand who is actually buying properties in our province. Government inaction plays a substantive role in fostering speculation. The bare trust loophole that I’ve raised several times in this House for several years allows wealthy individuals and corporations to avoid registering at the land title office and so avoid paying B.C.’s property transfer tax.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The Minister for Advanced Education clearly does not understand fundamental real estate, or he would actually understand here a little bit more about where I’m going with this.

Will the Minister of Finance introduce legislation to close the loophole — that we are the only province in the country that still allows to exist — by following the lead of Ontario to actually apply the property transfer tax upon change in beneficial ownership instead of change in title? And if not, why not?

The Minister of Advanced Education should know better than to actually pretend this is not an issue in British Columbia, because it is. I speak to real estate developers, I have spoken to mortgage lenders, and I know that this loophole is being used in British Columbia for speculative purposes and to avoid paying property transfer tax.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think there are two issues, and to be fair, the member has raised them at various times and today used another tool of the Legislature to highlight one of them: the collection of information. I’m going to be a little cautious about what I say today except to acknowledge that the unregistered transferring of interests in real property in British Columbia does have an impact. It also does have an impact on the amount of property transfer tax and the mechanism by which we collect the property transfer tax.

I am cautiously optimistic that when the member has an opportunity to see some of the provisions of the budget that will be tabled on Tuesday of next week, he will find at least some aspects of that document to find favour with that will respond to some of the concerns that he’s outlined today.

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: I hope on that day when I see that, the Hon. Minister of Advanced Education will eat some humble pie, but I suspect that may not happen.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, I have to respond. The minister suggests I have a PhD in climate change. I don’t. I have a PhD in applied mathematics. This points the fact that the members opposite clearly are not able to get their facts right on so many issues.

When I was door-knocking in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain in one area a few weeks ago, I passed empty houses — empty house after empty house. I went so far as to estimate that one in three of the homes that I knocked the door on were empty. Houses, townhouses and condos that remain empty are driving up the price of real estate, making housing less and less affordable for far too many British Columbians.

Will the Minister of Finance introduce legislation similar to what’s being considered elsewhere — in particular, Sydney, Australia, where the exact same problem is happening — that taxes vacant properties in urban areas in a revenue-neutral fashion to ensure that the money becomes available to pay the social costs associated with the lack of affordable housing?

Hon. M. de Jong: I feel like a spectator at the Cambridge-Oxford regatta here.

Let me say this. I will say candidly I’m not entirely drawn to the specific example that the member cites, with respect to the Australian jurisdiction.

I will say this. I think the idea that is captured within the private member’s bill that he has tabled earlier today has merit and relates to the need and the advisability of beginning by ensuring that we have a reliable database that tells us more about what is taking place in the market.

Beyond that, I’ll have to ask the member to be patient for a few more days.

Video of Question Period

Text of my Speech

A. Weaver: It’s with great pleasure that I move introduction of a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be reintroducing a bill that offers government one of the tools it needs to begin to properly assess and act upon the affordability-in-housing crisis affecting Metro Vancouver and emerging here in the capital regional district as well.

There’s been significant conversation in the past few months about the role that speculation is playing in our market. The government came out with a number of documents purporting that foreign investment wasn’t a factor. These studies were vague and lacked any links to clear, rigorous evidence that supported the claim.

It’s with this in mind that I bring this bill forward today. The bill amends the Land Title Act to provide the government with the means of determining who is purchasing property in B.C. This includes both foreign investment flows — the role that corporations are playing in purchasing property — and if we have significant speculation coming from other places in Canada.

To be clear, this bill is not about identifying what specifically is driving housing prices to unsustainable rates, but, rather, to ensure that the government is informing itself so any future policy measures are based on a better understand of what is happening with our provincial real estate industry.

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 M201, Land Title 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 Speech

Accompanying Media Release

Media Release – February 11th, 2016
Andrew Weaver questions government action in the housing market
For immediate release
 
Victoria, BC – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head, says that government policy is contributing to the rampant speculation in Vancouver’s housing market and that it could take simple steps to start addressing the issue now.

“Speculation in Vancouver’s housing market is not a new issue” says Weaver. “Suddenly, with the potential of fraud occurring the Premier has called on the Real Estate Council to take action. However there are a number of steps the Provincial government could take right now to clamp down on this out-of-control problem.”

Earlier today Weaver introduced a Private Member’s Bill titled the Land Title Amendment Act. The legislation would allow government to track the source of home purchases throughout the Province to better understand the effects that foreign and domestic speculation is having in BC.

“Tracking who owns property through a simple amendment to the Land Title Act would give government the information it needs to see the role foreign ownership is actually having in our marketplace.”

Weaver also used question period to probe the Minister of Finance about whether the government would act to close a loophole that contributes to incentivizing the speculative real estate market in B.C.

“Legal entities like the bare trust, whether by design or by omission, are helping drive the speculative real estate market in B.C.,” said Weaver. “It is essential that we begin to ratchet down on these practices so that houses aren’t simply treated as commodities, but as essential building blocks for healthy communities.”

The bare trust loophole allows wealthy individuals and corporations to avoid registering at the Land Title Office and so also avoid paying BC’s Property Transfer Tax.

Weaver also probed the Minister of Finance about any action that will be taken to follow what other jurisdictions are doing, and explore the use of a tax on vacant properties, in a revenue neutral fashion, in order to help pay for the costs associated with the lack of affordable housing.

“There are at least three dimensions to this problem in Metro Vancouver: government incentivized speculation; preponderance of vacant homes and non-enforcement of illegal realtor transactions,” said Weaver. “While it is great that this government is finally starting to pay attention to what is happening in the Lower Mainland housing market, their first step has been to call upon others for action. The reality is there are a number of actions that this government could take to address all three aspects of this issue. I’m am calling on them to take these steps.”

-30-

Media Contact

Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382
Mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
Twitter: @MatVic

Today in the legislature I introduced a private member’s bill entitled Bill M202 University Amendment Act, 2016. The purpose of this bill is to halt the creeping government interference in university governance, an issue I have previously raised in the past.

In a recent article in the Georgia Strait entitled Arvind Gupta, Andrew Weaver, and the future of B.C.’s Universities, author Charlie Smith threw out a challenge. It was a challenge that I accepted.

The independence of a University Board is critical. The purpose of a university is to educate people who can critically assess information to allow them to participate in an informed manner in a democracy. It’s a place that allows for innovation and creativity to flourish. It’s not a place for government to impose a top down imposition of its ideology. Unfortunately, under existing legislation the government has the potential to interfere in ways that could undermine that autonomy.

The potential of political interference is unacceptable for our institutions of higher learning. My hope is that the government takes my suggestions for solving this issue seriously and takes action on this issue immediately to preserve the independence of our academic institutions.

Below I reproduce the text and video of the speech I gave as I introduced the bill. I also include the accompanying media release.

Text of my Speech

A. Weaver: It’s also with great pleasure that I move introduction of a bill intituled University Amendment Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m sure members are aware of the two significant controversies that have plagued two of our universities recently: the controversy between the UBC board and the past president of UBC, Dr. Arvind Gupta, and the recent controversy concerning the decision to appoint James Moore as chancellor of UNBC.

In both these instances, the conflict arose because of the decisions the board made or in how the board acted. While the role of a board of governors is essential to the functioning of a university, the governance of a university must also be independent of any potential real or apparent political interference. It’s with this in mind that I bring this bill forward today.

This bill amends the University Act to ensure that appointees from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council cannot unilaterally set the tone and direction of a university board through having a majority of votes and that university boards cannot unilaterally appoint a chancellor for their university.

This bill will bring British Columbia to the same university governance standards employed by much of the rest of Canada.

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

———

Bill M202, University 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 Speech

Media Release

Media Release: February 11, 2016
Andrew Weaver – University Boards Need More Independence
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the BC Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, is offering concrete steps for how the BC Government can remove the potential of political interference in University Boards.

“The independence of a University Board is critical. The purpose of a university is to educate people who can critically assess information to allow them to participate in an informed manner in a democracy. It’s a place that allows for innovation and creativity to flourish. It’s not a place for government to impose a top down imposition of its ideology” says Weaver. “Unfortunately, under current legislation the government has the potential to interfere in ways that could undermine that autonomy.”

Today Andrew Weaver introduced a bill in the BC Legislature that, if passed, would remove the ability of a Board of Governors to appoint a Chancellor, and that would reduce the number of provincial appointees on University Boards.

“It is highly troubling to me that the majority of University Board members at universities in our province are appointed by the provincial government. Equally troubling is that the University Board of Governors appoints a university’s Chancellor.”

In 2008 the BC Liberals amended the University Act to allow the University Board of Governors to appoint a university’s Chancellor. The BC NDP started this trend in 1997 by allowing the Board of Governors at the Technical University of BC to appoint its Chancellor.

“At UBC we’ve seen the Board of Governors interfering in a behind-the-scenes way to push out the University’s President,” says Weaver. “At UNBC we’ve witnessed the highly controversial appointment of a Chancellor. Even the Board itself was highly divided on the appointment – it only passed by one vote.”

The main concern with what has occurred at UBC and UNBC is that politically appointed members on both University Boards may have taken intrusive actions into the direction that these universities are taking. This in turn has huge implications for the governance of universities across the province.

“The potential of political interference is unacceptable for our institutions of higher learning. My hope is that the government takes my suggestions for solving this issue seriously and takes action on this issue immediately to preserve the independence of our academic institutions.”

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