Yesterday in the legislature I rose to speak strongly against Bill 30 — Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. In a desperate attempt to fulfill outrageous election promises, the BC Government does what it can to give away our natural resources with little, if any, hope of receiving LNG tax revenue for many, many years to come.

Below is the text of my speech. You will see that at the end of my speech I offered a Reasoned Amendment. In speaking to the amendment I looked across the aisle to the MLAs opposite. I asked them to ask themselves one question. How do they think history will judge them? I argued that the generation of tomorrow will look back and will say: “This generation sold us out.” They will look back at this government’s decisions here to pass this bill with disdain, with shock, with disbelief and ask why?

Both the BC NDP and I stood together in support of my amendment and against passing second reading.

Second Reading Speech

A. Weaver: I rise today to take part in the debate on Bill 30, the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act, or PDA. That I’ll refer to later. This is a bill that our Premier has indicated will have historic implications.

Before I begin, I’d like to acknowledge the Minister of Finance’s efforts to ensure that my office received the necessary briefings and had an opportunity to ask questions prior to debating this bill in the Legislature. I’d also like to acknowledge that, true to the Minister of Natural Gas’s word, we are indeed debating the PDA in the Legislature, providing MLAs an opportunity to examine and debate its implications. While I may not like what I see, I do feel I need to acknowledge my gratitude for the opportunity to voice my concerns publicly.

Now I’d like it make two confessions. First, I’m surprised in how the government is choosing to frame the debate on this bill. In her introduction of the bill, our Premier noted this: “It is not every day in this House that we get the chance to really make our mark in history.”

Those words ring oddly familiar to me, having heard similar remarks from a previous Finance Minister back in 2008.

“Or we can seize the opportunity before us to be the generation of British Columbians who made the right decisions, who chose to take action and who, by doing so, showed their respect for the earth, for the atmosphere, for those who came before us and for those who will follow in the decades to come. Let’s rise to the occasion, and let’s work together to shape the next proud chapter in the history of British Columbia.”

These are, of course, the words of Finance Minister Carole Taylor as she introduced the 2008 budget in British Columbia, which laid out a path towards a sustainable and resilient future for our province with the climate action plan.

It is in this that I must admit my surprise. I’m surprised at how far this government’s ambition has fallen, from striving to achieve a place of global leadership on the most pressing issue of our time — namely, the transition to a diversified, resilient 21st-century economy — to declare that we are “building our future” on the bedrock of a fossil fuel industry. I hope the irony is not lost on the government.

The second confession I must make is that I was wrong about the government. Three years ago, when our Premier began her all-in sales pitch on LNG, I was certain that the reality of the global market conditions, the uncertainty we see in neighbouring jurisdictions like Alberta — when they have tried to build a province around a single industry — and the greenhouse gas reduction commitments the previous administration had made, that this would force the government to dial back on the rhetoric and accept that it was unlikely that we would attract an LNG investment. But the rhetoric was never dialed back.

I couldn’t possibly imagine what this government was willing to give away in order to potentially land an LNG facility: our climate leadership; the ability of future governments to re-negotiate tax rates in the interests of the province; a fair price for the resource that belongs to the people of British Columbia.

Back in the fall of 2012, the then deputy minister of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas gave a presentation at the 2012 annual Clean Energy B.C. conference, entitled Fuelling Our Economy: British Columbia’s LNG Strategies. The government’s expectations at that time were revealed, and this was in 2012. At the time, Japan LNG was trading at $16 per million Btu, and the government was promising rising global LNG prices for many years to come.

So what’s happened to the global market since 2012? Well, we all know, and it was entirely predictable, given the fact that we are not the only ones in the world who have discovered horizontal fracking technology. Our shale gas reserves pale in comparison to those of other countries. There are massive reserves in Australia, in Russia, in Iran, in Qatar, in China and in the United States. Shale gas exists all around the world, yet somehow B.C. thought that it, and only it alone, was going to fill Asian market supply gas with our natural gas.

Well, as I’ve been pointing out for almost three years now, there is a global market oversupply, and we are latecomers to the game. Today the LNG East Asia index is trading July 2016 delivery contracts at $7.35 per million Btu. August 2015 contracts are even lower — $7.25 per million Btu. It’s more than a 50 percent drop from just three years ago, but it’s not going to end there.

Sanctions are about to be lifted on Iran, and with Iran being the home of the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves that are in order of magnitude that’s more than a factor of ten, that’s larger than Canada’s reserves — let alone British Columbia’s — it’s clear that downward price pressures will continue in the natural gas and LNG markets.

As the reality of this government’s irresponsible election promises became more and more transparent, the government became more and more desperate to land one positive final investment decision. That is why this legislation and the project development agreement it is meant to enable represent, as I outline below, a generational sell-out, a public display of affection between Petronas and the B.C. Liberals.

We may eventually get an LNG facility in this province, but at what cost? As Martyn Brown, former B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell’s long-serving chief of staff and the top strategic adviser of three provincial party leaders, so aptly noted in an article published on Monday: “The fine print of that deal will commit our province to a course that is environmentally reckless, fiscally foolhardy and socially irresponsible. I say that as someone who is generally supportive of the merits of LNG development, to the extent that it is invited without giving up more than we can collectively stand to gain.”

Please let me explore this cost in some detail to illuminate what this government is asking us to give up to ensure they deliver on an over-the-top election promise. Start with the LNG tax. In the fall, we passed the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, a bill that laid out the tax regime for LNG. With its introduction, we saw the LNG income tax slashed from a proposed 7 percent to only 3½ percent.

We also learned that companies would only be paying a 1.5 percent tax while they paid off their capital investment costs and that the tax they paid in that period could be applied as a credit on future taxes at the 3.5 percent rate. The LNG income tax legislation was a clear reflection of the unrealistic economics behind the government’s hyperbolic LNG promises.

In the spring, only a few short months after we passed the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, the government introduced the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act. At 109 pages, this amendment act was longer than the original act, and the purpose of the amendment act was to close many of the massive loopholes that were left open when the original act was signed.

The key point to acknowledge here is the very fact that the government had to introduce the bill in two stages. They couldn’t introduce the complete income tax legislation all at once because it wasn’t ready, and they were in a rush. The government had to get the skeleton passed so that LNG companies would know, more or less, what they were going to have to pay, but they were operating on such a tight timeline that they didn’t have the time to have the fully finished legislation available in the fall.

I appreciate that the government is acting swiftly to try to meet what it perceives to be a limited window of opportunity before the 2017 election as Petronas tries to firm up supply for its mid-2020s supply gap. My concern is that in trying to meet that window, we may be opening ourselves up to making colossal errors.

The truth is we have no idea at this stage if we have closed all of the loopholes in the LNG Income Tax Act. Our first-rate civil servants, of course, have been doing their best to remediate the act’s shortcomings, but it’s not uncommon for tax legislation to be amended in the future to account for unforeseen loopholes, even years after it’s been introduced. In this case, of course, we won’t have years to fix it. In fact, we won’t have any time to fix it. If we pass this bill, the LNG Income Tax Act will be locked in for 25 years.

Now, I know that the government would respond by saying it has reserved the power to make amendments for administrative and technical matters for enforcement measures and to respond to tax avoidance issues, but I’m not talking about tax avoidance. I’m talking about tax planning. I’m talking about an LNG taxpayer identifying and exploiting a legitimate loophole in the legislation such that they could, for example, pay tax at the 1.5 percent rate well past the originally intended period. If it deemed that the taxpayer’s actions are legitimate and therefore do not constitute tax avoidance, then under this agreement any change you make to close that loophole could trigger the indemnity clause, requiring the province to potentially pay that producer millions in damages.

If we pass this bill, we won’t get another chance to close those loopholes, so we’d better have gotten it right the first time. Given how quickly LNG income tax bills were developed and the manner in which they were introduced, I’m deeply concerned that we didn’t get it right the first time. In fact, I raised serious issues myself during the debates about potential loopholes.

Yet it’s not just about the loopholes. It’s about the legislation itself. This is an LNG giveaway designed to attract an industry that wouldn’t otherwise come to B.C. By passing this legislation, we are locking the province into LNG income tax rates that have been widely criticized as being too low, and we won’t have another chance to reconsider those rates for 25 years. What if the government got it wrong? Twenty-five years is a long time. It’s too long for British Columbians to wait to fix the government’s error.

Let me turn to the natural gas tax credit. The same is true for this. B.C. already has the lowest corporate income tax rates in the country, but apparently that wasn’t low enough for the LNG companies, so we gave them an additional 3 percent back through the natural gas tax credit. What makes LNG companies so special that they need an additional 3 percent corporate income tax cut on their corporate income tax? What makes them so special? Do they not make enough money to pay themselves, like all other corporations do? Are their profits so low that they need government assistance in the form of tax breaks?

Consider this. Petronas by itself funds 45 percent of the Malaysian government’s revenue, so why are we giving them an additional 3 percent off of their corporate income tax? My concern is that is inconsistent and an arbitrary policy that is a result of government negotiating from a weak position to fulfil a campaign promise that never should have been made. And British Columbians today and in the future will bear the cost.

Let’s turn to the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. The day the project development agreement comes into force is the day that we officially give up on our climate targets. There’s no debate there. Government can spin this any way they want, but there is simply no debate there. It’s a simple fact. We cannot have an LNG industry and meet our climate targets.

If constructed, Pacific NorthWest LNG alone, one company, would emit nearly as much carbon as the rest of our entire province, in every single sector, would emit in 2050 — one LNG facility — if we actually take those targets seriously. When we hear the rhetoric about “we have targets, and we will meet them,” let’s be clear: those targets, if we are to meet, mean we cannot have an LNG industry. You can’t have it both ways. The facts are clear.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a surprise. When we debated the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act back in the fall, it was clear that this government was no longer serious about addressing climate change. Instead of strengthening our policies, they repealed the cap-and-trade legislation and introduced a new focus on emissions intensity, a scheme that would allow you to pollute as much as you want so as long as you did so efficiently, a scheme directly out of legislation that exists in Alberta.

On Monday the government released further details on its environmental incentive program. The sellout continues. The program essentially gives yet more tax breaks to LNG companies to pay for the costs of their emissions offset. What’s particularly noteworthy is that the government’s new “environmental incentive program” has made it even easier for LNG companies to qualify for tax breaks by making the qualifying threshold higher. Originally under the GGIRC, a company had to have an emissions intensity of 0.23 to qualify for a tax break. Now the actual emissions intensity can be substantially higher than that because the company can discount all of its “entrained” CO₂ emissions before it is assessed for the tax break.

What are entrained CO₂ emissions? In any natural gas stream, there’s unwanted carbon dioxide that can now be freely released to the atmosphere — that’s fugitive greenhouse gas emissions — at the site of the LNG facility. Fugitive greenhouse gas emissions are not covered by the carbon tax.

So this is not the cleanest LNG in the world. This is the cleanest LNG if you have a whole bunch of loopholes and don’t account greenhouse gas emissions in the world. But nobody takes that seriously. It’s a bit rich for this government to continue the rhetoric that it is dealing with the climate issue and at the same time building the cleanest LNG in the world.

Emissions from the gas stream can be very large. They’re not subject, as I mentioned, to the carbon tax. Even those LNG companies that have emissions intensities well above 0.23, far from the so-called cleanest LNG of 0.16, now can qualify for an additional tax break. What even makes this worse is that once this bill passes, we can’t change it. Should we decide that low emitters that actually hit the 0.16 intensity mark deserve any kind of bonus, we would still have to pay those other higher emitters anyway under the indemnity clause. It makes no sense.

Similarly, should we decide that 0.16 is too high an emissions intensity, we’ll have to pay the LNG companies under the indemnity clause to lower it. So there’s no real point in improving those standards.

Contrary to what’s suggested by the name LNG environmental incentive program, by signing this agreement, we are giving away any incentive for these companies to actually lower their emissions under the GGIRC for the next 25 years because we won’t have a way of steadily and predictably increasing costs of emissions. That’s hardly encouraging the development of the cleanest LNG in the world.

As I’ve mentioned earlier, the current carbon tax applies only to emissions from combustive fossil fuels. A major gap is the methane and CO₂ leakages from upstream natural gas operations and pipelines which are not taxed but now could be because of audited information from British Columbia’s greenhouse gas–reporting regulation.

While I recognize that this bill specifically states that any indemnity only applies to regulatory changes specific to the LNG facility itself, my fear is that in eventually plugging the regulatory gap on methane leakage emissions, which will increase the cost of gas at the LNG facility, Petronas would litigate. Now, government will surely claim that this was not the intent of its agreement. Petronas is a powerful resource state-owned multinational corporation, and even the threat of litigation could frighten future governments from regulating emissions.

Perhaps most worrisome of all is the framework in which all these pieces are embedded: the project development agreement. With the PDA, the government is setting a new precedent for how it will manage investments into our province. I’m concerned that this may put British Columbia in a very weak negotiating position on any future negotiations.

Please let me explain. Under this PDA, companies have the ability to negotiate for more favourable deals and piggyback on those secured by future proponents.

If the province doesn’t have this ability, in fact there are only two options for the province: maintain the relatively low standards of this PDA and hope other companies agree to them or lower them further to attract other LNG investors, in which case we have to lower the standards for everyone. These are precisely the conditions that risk exacerbating a race to the bottom. Furthermore

Furthermore, while the province will be locked in for 25 years with no exit clause, the proponent can pull out at any time with 90 days’ notice. I understand, of course, that when a company is making a large investment, they would like to have added certainty. However, if we are to provide that added certainty — and I caution that, in my view, a 25-year time frame seems a bit rich — then I would expect significant concessions in return.

In essence, we are transferring risk from the company to our province, which, in turn, is de facto transferred to the British Columbia taxpayers. If British Columbians are to take on that risk, then we should be adequately compensated for it.

Yet with this PDA, we are locking in tax rates that have been criticized as being far too low, thereby limiting the revenue we receive from the industry while also establishing no guarantees regarding jobs, training or other — for the lack of a better term — non-monetary commitments.

This, unfortunately, isn’t surprising, because the market conditions aren’t there to support these commitments, and our government was never in a strong negotiating position to demand them to begin with. I fear what we’ve done is we’ve transferred risk to the province and to British Columbians without gaining a fair return in exchange.

In addition, what is particularly concerning about this approach is that there doesn’t appear to be a clear, consistent policy on when a company can get a PDA. Businesses and our economy prosper best under a level, transparent playing field and certainty. Yet here we have a new policy tool, a project development agreement, that’s being applied to one company with no clear criteria for conditions under which another company could apply for a similar agreement.

The government likes to tout Pacific NorthWest LNG as constituting a $36 billion investment. I’ve heard it time and time again through the debates. It states that the scale of this investment is the reason that it qualifies for a PDA. The PDA only applies to the LNG facility, though. There are separate, other long-term royalty agreements that govern upstream natural gas extraction, and other measures to govern the pipeline.

Let’s break down these numbers. Let’s unpack them for all those riveted to their television screens across British Columbia. If you actually break down the numbers, the LNG facility only counts for $11 billion in investment. And guess what — $8 billion of that will be spent overseas. They’re not going to build the facility here. They’re going to build it in Asia, bring it in on tidewater and put it in British Columbia. So really, we’re actually talking about $3 billion, maybe $4 billion invested in B.C.

Let’s put that in context. While this is clearly a significant amount, the northern gateway pipeline was a $7.9 billion investment. Should we be giving them a PDA? The Trans Mountain pipeline was a $5.4 billion investment. Should they get one? EDP Renewables, TimberWest and First Nations on Vancouver Island want to invest $1 billion today, not hypothetically in the mid-2020s, yet the government has turned its nose on that, and they’re walking. Should they get a PDA?

I don’t believe we should be bringing forward a new policy tool such as PDAs without first establishing how they’re used. The last thing we want is either an unfair playing field for business or a proliferation of PDAs that facilitate the fire sale of our  resources while constricting the ability of future governments to make necessary changes.

To First Nations. I’m disconcerted about how little we have heard from this government about its negotiations with First Nations. I’m left with many unanswered questions and a concern that we may be failing our fiduciary responsibility toward aboriginal people.

Is the PDA established even constitutional? Have we got legal opinion that section 35 of the Constitution Act — which limits provincial or federal government’s ability to legislate in a way that results in a meaningful diminuation of aboriginal or treaty rights — is not being violated? Would the law that we are debating today that would tie hands of future governments also purport to limit the aboriginal groups’ ability to negotiate the revenue they will receive from a project? Is this in line with what has been established in the Tsilhqot’in decision? There are many unanswered questions that we have yet to have answers given to us by government.

Are we setting up a regime where First Nations are partners in the development? Or are we foisting the development of an LNG facility on an ecologically sensitive island that would deprive future generations of the benefit of the land and the salmon that spawn, which the eelgrass nearby is critical for?

Signing agreements while committing to further engagement is not the way to reconcile relations with First Nations. It’s not rising to the challenge before us to chart a better path. We must instead engage and partner with First Nations, proceeding to sign agreements and move development forward when we can do so together.

In conclusion, I’ve lost track of the number of times the government has stressed that LNG is a generational opportunity. Indeed, the impacts of our decisions this week will be felt for generations to come. Yet I fear those impacts will not be positive. The fact we need this PDA should underscore how much this government has had to put on the table to buy this industry.

This legislation is highly illustrative of the shaky and desperate LNG climate that currently exists in B.C. and is embedded in the larger pattern of industry giveaways. We’ve already locked ourselves into long-term royalty agreements and changed municipal tax laws to allow for the special treatment of LNG facilities. We’ve dedicated years of government resources to develop a single industry, instead of investing in a diversified, resilient economy that is based on the multitude of strong, existing and up-and-coming industries we have in B.C.

For example, government proudly proclaims that if and when it becomes operational, the Petronas facility could — not likely but could — support 500 long-term jobs. Let’s put that number in context. Hootsuite, the rapidly growing Vancouver-based social media company, already employs more than 700. So 700 jobs and growing weekly, yet government is touting 500 jobs.

In the last legislative session, I voiced my concerns about Bill 12, the Federal Port Development Act. As I previously explained, on its own, Bill 12 is not inherently problematic. But when considered in conjunction with Bill C-43 federally, issues arose, as Bill 12 did not account for any of the regulatory holes left open by the federal bill.

As I continue down this path, it’s very troubling that the recently proposed Port of Prince Rupert liquefied natural gas facilities regulations put forward by Transport Canada and recently posted in the Canada Gazette, plan to put the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission in charge of regulation of LNG terminals on federal lands. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

Especially worrisome are the broad exclusions described in section 11 of these federal regulations now in the Canada Gazette. This is what they say: “Unless otherwise provided by these regulations, a provision of an incorporated law that imposes an obligation, liability or penalty on an owner, occupier, public authority, public body or unspecified person or entity does not apply to Her Majesty in right of Canada or to the Prince Rupert Port Authority”

It’s essentially saying that laws that would generally apply to the port will only do so if expressly required by regulations — regulations set by the Oil and Gas Commission. The effect of this provision would be that laws of general application would no longer apply to the port, making it above the law. It could mean that the port could operate nearly independently of the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

Deputy Speaker: We seem to be straying from the bill at hand. If the member could draw it back.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, I’ll bring it right back. I’m trying to give an example of the desperate efforts that this government has taken to actually land this, as embodied in the PDA. This desperate measure, one of them, I raised last session and is actually coming to fruition as we speak. In fact, it just came in the Canada Gazette, and it’s very relevant, hon. Speaker. I’ll finish with one sentence.

What I wanted to say is that it means now that the port could operate nearly independently of the Oil and Gas Activities Act, the Drinking Water Protection Act, the Environmental Management Act, the Species at risk Act and any other laws that could be required to protect the environment and public health. This is the extent of the giveaway embodied in the PDA, embodied in all the other pieces of legislation that this government has brought forward. And sadly, this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as these regulations are concerned.

Now with the passing of this bill, we will be locking ourselves into an untested LNG income tax regime and signing away our ability to fix any unforeseen problems. We will be solidifying tax rates demanded by industry in negotiations with a desperate government. We’ll be throwing away our climate targets and the commitments we made to them and selling out the next generation. An LNG export industry and our climate targets never could have coexisted. You don’t have to believe me. Government can ask its own civil servants, who’ve been advising them of the same thing for several years.

An LNG export industry, as I said, cannot coexist with our climate targets. We could have done more to mitigate the increased emissions. Instead, we saw the definition of “cleanest LNG” that we were pitched two years ago gutted to remove upstream and midstream emissions.

But still, you know, I’m an optimist, and still I’m a firm believer that it’s not too late. I still believe we have the opportunity to change directions. There’s still time to redirect our efforts into building a diversified, resilient economy, one that builds on our potential in clean tech, high tech and the creative economy, that embodies our strength in tourism and small business and that is based on the sustainable and thoughtful development of our natural resources, including forestry, mining, fisheries and natural gas, to name a few.

It is with this hope in mind and with these concerns laid out that I move a reasoned amendment on Bill 30, Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. I submit to the House the following motion.

[That the motion for second reading on Bill 30, Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreement Act, be amended by deleting all the words after “That” and substitute the words “be not now read a second time as Project Development Agreements inappropriately limit the ability of future governments to use their legislative prerogative to respond to the future environmental, social and economic challenges that will face both an LNG industry and our Province.”]

Text of my Speech to the Amendment

A. Weaver: Very briefly, on the amendment all I would like to say is I’ve laid the case out there. I look across the aisle to the MLAs opposite, and I ask them to ask themselves one question. When they open a history book 20 years from now, those of them who are still around, I will ask them this: how do they think history will judge them?

I will tell you how history will judge them. The generation of tomorrow will look back and will say: “This generation sold us out.” They will look back at this government’s decisions here to pass this bill with disdain, with shock, with disbelief and ask why. That is why I’m giving government a last chance.

Some of its MLAs…. There must be truly one or two Liberals left in the Liberal Party of Canada. For them to think that this can pass and for them to think that they are Liberals — it’s just simply not possible because Liberals, true Liberals, federal Liberals, would not do this. They would recognize the importance of meeting our climate targets. They would recognize the importance of working for a sustainable economy. They would not sell out the future generation, as this government is about to do.

Video of my Speech

Vote on the Amendment

Vote on Second Reading

Back in April I wrote a piece on the wisdom of dumping contaminated soils in the Shawnigan Lake watershed. I visited the region with Shawnigan Lake Area Director Sonia Furstenau. Together with a few other Shawnigan Lake residents, we hiked around on parkland owned by the Cowichan Valley Regional District. I took this opportunity to take a number of photographs. More importantly, I took the opportunity to collect water samples.

The results of these water samples, together with my observation that a significant amount of fill had over run Lot 21 and was on the neighbouring parkland, led me to subsequently ask the Minister of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Environment questions in Question Period.

As background, Lot 21 is the property located at 638 Stebbings Road and is owned by 0782484 B.C. Ltd. For several years, soil has been dumped Lot 21 for later use to backfill the quarry in lot 23. A photograph of the northern boundary wall of deposited soils is shown to the left. This photograph was taken from CVRD Parkland on the north side of Shawnigan Creek.

I outlined in my earlier post that it was apparent to me that substantial amounts of building materials had been placed on Lot 21. There was also clear evidence that runoff from this site failed drinking water standards at the point of entry with Shawnigan Creek. And visually, this water looked nothing like any other water in nearby surface and running water (see image to the right).

On May 15^th I went back to the area to get a better sense as to what metals were contained in the orange sediments under the orange water. Since the water runoff came from Lot 21, my goal was to determine if sediments in this stream were any different from sediments at a control location upstream of Lot 21.

Four different sediment samples were obtained. Two of the samples were collected upstream of Lot 21 in order to obtain a control sample. The first, termed FLOW, in the attached data, was taken in the middle of Shawnigan Creek (see Figure 1 below). FLOW data will be used as the control sample below. The second sample (BANK in the attached data) was located at the bank of Shawnigan Creek immediately adjacent to where FLOW was collected.

Figure 1: Photographs showing me collecting the control sediment sample in the middle of Shawnigan Creek, upstream from Lot 21.

The third and fourth samples were collected where the orange runoff entered Shawnigan Creek (Figure 2), The third, termed CREEK, in the attached data, was taken in Shawnigan Creek right at the location where the runoff enters the creek. The fourth sample was obtained about a metre upstream of the runoff stream. This is termed POOL in the attached data.

Figure 2: Photographs showing me collecting the sediment samples at the location where the Lot 21 runoff meets Shawnigan Creek (left) and in a pool a metre or so upstream of the creek in the covenant along Shawnigan Creek (right).

As in my earlier post, the metal contents in the sediments were determined using an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS). The method for the bulk analysis of acid extractable elements (that is trace elements not bound in silicate minerals) was as follows:

1) The vial was shaken to homogenize and all for the removal of an aliquot for analysis (2 mL aliquot for BANK and POOL, 10 mL aliquot for CREEK and FLOW).

2)  10 mL of 8 Molar Environmental Grade Nitric Acid was added and allowed to react overnight.

3) The sample was diluted to 50 mL with 18 mega ohm deionized water.

4) The mixture was shaken to homgenize

5) The sample was put in a centrifuge for fifteen 5 minutes at 3000 rpm to separate out any residual particulate.

All concentrations in the attached data are given in (μg/L). Since there were different amounts of sediments in the individual samples, it is not possible to directly compare their element concentrations. Rather, I will focus on what is called the enrichment factor for each element after normalization with the commonly occurring element Calcium (Ca).

By definition then, the enrichment factor of a mineral XX is:

Enrichment Factor = (XX[sample]/Ca[sample])/(XX[control]/Ca[control])

Here [sample] refers to the concentration in a collected sample (in μg/L) and [control] means the concentration in the control sample (also in μg/L).

The attached data clearly show the presence of an enriched industrial metal content of the POOL Sample.

The following elements were found to be enriched by:

Between three and four times the control values:

Magnesium (Mg), Vanadium (V), Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), Cobalt (Co), Molybdenum(Mo), Caesium (Cs), Barium (Ba), Hafnium (Hf).

Between four and five times the control values:

Lithium (Li), Scandium (Sc), Germanium (Ge), Zirconium (Zr), Tin (Sn).

Between five and ten times the control values:

Niobium (Nb) [enriched 5.29 times higher than control]; Lead  (Pb) [enriched 5.19 times higher than control].

Greater that ten times the control values:

Iron (Fe) [enriched 11.69 times higher than control]; Thorium (Th) [enriched 18.60 times higher than control].

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

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

Today in the Legislature I rose, pursuant to a seldom used provision in the Standing Orders, to call for an emergency debate on whether or not BC is acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change on our province. Below I provide the rationale for why I believed that holding such a debate was of urgent public importance. I further reproduce the media release that accompanied my speech, a backgrounder, and details concerning the Standing Order.

What is remarkable is that both the BC Liberal and BC NDP house leaders (Mike de Jong and Mike Farnworth) spoke against having such a debate. The Speaker eventually ruled against proceeding with the debate shortly before the house adjourned. It wasn’t a surprise that the Speaker ruled this way in light of the fact that both house leaders spoke against spending a mere one hour debating British Columbia’s climate policy. If fact she specifically cited their comments as being helpful in informing her as she wrote her decision.

My Justification

Madame Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35. As advised in Standing Order 35, I gave the chair advance notice and I have provided a written statement of the matter proposed to the clerk.

By leave, I move that this House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.

Namely, that in light of this year’s record temperatures, drought, lack of snow pack, and forest fires, and with a 90% probability that El Niño will persist into the winter exacerbating present conditions, whether we as legislators are acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change on our province.

To be clear, I am not calling for a debate on the impacts of climate change. Standing Order 35 excludes debating a matter of an ongoing nature, and there is no doubt that climate change will challenge every aspect of life in our province for decades to come.

However, as laid out in my motion, the matter of urgent public importance concerns whether we as legislators are acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change on our province.

I submit to you, Madame Speaker, and to the House that this session offers us no other adequate opportunity to have this debate, a debate that is urgent and in the public interest given the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change discussions that will be taking place at the 21^st Conference of Parties in Paris this December, a conference where our Premier will be speaking about B.C’s supposed climate leadership.

This debate is particularly urgent as the government plans to use carbon offsets through the protection of forests to help reach our legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets. Yet under UNFCCC rules, government cannot adopt this risky path unless it also includes emissions from forest fires in annual reporting.

As legislators, it is critical that we have the opportunity to have this debate prior to any representations being made on a global stage regarding BC’s planned response to climate change.

There will be no other opportunity to have this debate during the session. And with uncertainty as to whether we will have another legislative sitting in advance of this conference, it is critically important that this chamber turn its attention to our role as legislators in addressing climate change, providing the people of British Columbia an opportunity to hear where its government stands on whether it is acting appropriately and urgently in the face of the extreme weather-related events happening around us.

There are few debates that are more urgent or are of greater public importance.

Response from BC Liberal House Leader – Mike de Jong

Thanks to the member. I’m relatively certain of two things. One is we have certainly experienced some extreme conditions in the province these past number of weeks that have contributed to some challenging circumstances. We heard about that earlier from the minister. Nor do I doubt the member’s interest and commitment to addressing some of the underlying issues that may or may not be contributing to that.

Having said that, we are also bound and obliged to conduct proceedings in this chamber pursuant to the standing orders. The member has risen pursuant to Standing Order 35. It is very much the urgency of debate that the Chair in past rulings focussing on these matters addressed. Though I can appreciate that the member would prefer the dedicated time that Standing Order 35 would provide for addressing this matter, there are other opportunities during the time that the House is sitting to raise these matters and have them considered by members.

In my respectful submission to the House and to the member, the motion…. I listened carefully to the motion. I haven’t seen it yet, but I listened as the member read it into the record. I would suggest the motion falls short of the historic threshold for adopting and moving to a Standing Order 35 debate, but as always, I will anxiously await the Chair’s ruling on the matter.

Response from BC NDP House Leader – Mike Farnworth

I, too, have listened to the hon. member’s motion. There is much in the motion that I believe has merit.

I would also, I think, point out that at this particular time, given what the member has said about the Premier going to this conference in December, that a fall session, which we are all expecting, would be an appropriate time, with advance notice, for all members to be able to participate in such a discussion around an important issue such as this. I think it would be something that members of the House would want to do.

So I would suggest at this particular time that the Speaker might want to think about an appropriate time in a fall session for this very important debate to take place, before a Premier heads off to a major international conference. But of course, hon. Speaker, we will abide by your ruling.

Press Release

Media Release- July 13th 2015
Andrew Weaver Calls for Emergency Debate on BC’s response to Climate Change
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Today, Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, called for an emergency debate on how British Columbia is responding to climate change, arguing that the debate is “a matter of urgent public importance”.

“We are experiencing forest fires, fishing bans, water restrictions and air quality advisories all occurring at alarming rates. In the backdrop of everything that is going on right now, there are few issues more urgent or of greater public importance than the actions we need to take immediately to tackle climate change,” said Andrew Weaver.

To be debated, matters of urgent public importance must be approved by the Speaker and granted leave by the House.

Both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals spoke against having an emergency debate on climate change. The Legislature is waiting for the speaker to rule on whether the motion will be heard.

While 2015 may go down as an extreme year, these conditions will become more and more common and more and more extreme for the province as global warming worsens.

“It is sadly ironic that as our forests burn, snowpack melts, and frequency of severe summer droughts increase, the government is forcing through its generational sellout embodied in the 25-year LNG agreement with Petronas,” said Andrew Weaver. “The impacts and costs of climate change have never been clearer for British Columbians. It’s time we consider what kind of future we want.”

-30-

Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver, MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382
Email: Mat.Wright@leg.bc.ca

Backgrounder – Summer 2015 Extreme Weather Events

While climate scientists are careful to point out that individual weather events cannot be directly connected to global warming, changes in the frequency and intensity of such events can be detected and attributable to human-caused global warming.

Wildfires

• Between April 1st and July 12th, 2015 there have been 1,069 wildfires in British Columbia, with 221 fires currently active across the province.
• Over $108 million has been spent so far this year fighting forest fires.

Water

• Two areas of Vancouver Island, Parksville and The Regional District of Nanaimo, have introduced Level 4 water bans, the highest water restriction possible.
• Metro Vancouver’s reservoirs are being depleted at a far faster than normal rate in “an unprecedented dry year”.
• On June 15, Province-wide snowpack levels were only at five per cent of normal conditions for that time of the year. Other basins, including the Lower Fraser, Okanagan, South Coast and Vancouver Island saw their snowpack surveyed at zero percent of normal levels.

Fish

•Salmon thrive in water temperatures between 13 and 18 degrees Celsius, once water temperatures hit 19 degrees the fish begin to show physiological signs of stress and they slow their upstream migration. At 20 degrees, there are disease outbreaks and fish start to die.
•The Fraser River is currently around 19 degrees.
Rivers are so low and warm this summer that the province has suspended sport fishing in streams and rivers for southern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands.

Air Quality

• Health authorities say that Metro Vancouver’s air quality dipped close to levels found in major Chinese cities, such as Beijing, because of the forest fire smoke.

July 6th, 2015:
Beijing:                  144 μg/m³
Burnaby North:   112 μg/m³

Temperature

• The weekend of June 27th, 2015 saw 64 temperature records broken across British Columbia.

Standing Order 35

Below are the details of Standing Order 35 which was last used in 2008.

Adjournment on Matter of Urgent
Public Importance

Adjournment for special purposes.

35. (1) Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House, when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (Standing Order 25) has been concluded and before Orders of the Day are entered on.

Making statement.

(2) A Member wishing to move, “That this House do now adjourn” under this Standing Order, shall rise and state the matter briefly.

Written statement to Speaker.

(3) After the Member has stated the matter, he or she shall hand a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker.

Decision.

(4) If the Speaker decides that the statement is in order and is of urgent public importance, he or she shall read the statement aloud and ask whether the Member has leave to move the motion. If objection is taken, the question of leave shall be decided on division without debate.

Speaker may defer decision.

(5) The Speaker may defer the decision upon whether or not the statement is in order and of urgent public importance. The proceedings of the House may be interrupted later for the purpose of announcing the decision.

Debate may be deferred.

(6) If leave has been obtained, the motion may stand over until 4.30 p.m. on that day, or the Speaker may direct that the motion be set down for consideration on the following sitting day at an hour specified by him or her.

[ (7) not in use as per Consequential Amendment – Motion passed February 10, 2004 ]

Motion on Friday.

(7) If leave has been obtained on any Friday, the motion shall stand over until 4.30 p.m. the next sitting day, unless the Speaker shall direct that the motion be set down for consideration later the same Friday.

Time limits.

(8) The debate on the motion shall not exceed one hour, apportioned as follows:

Mover: 15 minutes
Other Members: 10 minutes each

Debate concluded.

(9) Upon expiration of the time limited for debate, the motion lapses and the House shall proceed to Orders of the Day or the next order of business, unless the House otherwise orders.

Restrictions.

(10) The right to move the adjournment of the House under this Standing Order is subject to the following restrictions:

(a) not more than one such motion may be made at the same sitting;

(b) not more than one matter shall be discussed on the same motion;

(c) the motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same Session;

(d) the motion must not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House, or with respect to which a notice of motion has been previously given and not withdrawn;

(e) the motion must not raise a question of privilege;

(f) the discussion under the motion must not raise any question which, according to the Standing Orders of the House, can only be debated on a motion under notice.

Interview on CKNW

This is the nineteenth in our series of stories celebrating the outstanding accomplishments of youth in our community. These inspirational young adults are enriching our lives with their passion and commitment to the betterment of society.

Jillian McCue

I first met Jillian in April 2013. During the election campaign a number of meet and greets were hosted throughout the riding. On this particular evening, we rented the Saanich Fusion clubhouse on Tyndall Road to provide a venue for Gordon Head residents to raise and discuss issues of their choice. Mid way through the evening, a nine-year-old girl entered the clubhouse and asked me if I could ask the audience to sign her petition. I had no idea who she was and I was of course a little leery so I asked the young girl what it was for. She explained that she wanted to petition Saanich to allow miniature goats in back yards like in Seattle. I was impressed by her passion and commitment and offered Jillian McCue the floor to pitch her cause to the crowd. By the time that she was done, every single person in the room had signed the petition. I had no idea that two years later this remarkable young girl would likely realize her dream. After presenting to Saanich Council and subsequently three of its advisory committees, last week Saanich’s Environment and Natural Areas Advisory Committee, chaired by Councillor Dean Murdock, recommended that a feasibility study be conducted and that a pilot project be set up in Jillian’s back yard!

Jillian is a Grade 6 student at Gordon Head Middle School. She is the youngest of 5 children in her family, with three older brothers and one older sister. Jillian has loved playing soccer since age 7 and will be playing in the Under 13 (Gold) division in the fall – the first year playing on the full size field. She also loves gymnastics and cross-country running.

Jillian is an 11 year old who has for over two years now embarked on a mission. Few youth her age are as engaged as Jillian is in her community and especially in municipal politics. She became keenly interested in miniature goats as pets at the age of nine after she was introduced to two backyard-dwelling goats that belonged to family friends who lived in San Bernardino, California. Jillian, who appropriately was born in the Year of the Goat, took an instant liking to the goats and thought it would be wonderful to have a goat or two in her own back yard. Discovering that Saanich municipal by-laws did not permit the keeping of goats in urban areas, Jillian set out to change that.

Jillian did her homework and undertook her own research. She learned that Seattle City Council had approved keeping miniature goats as pets in 2007. An article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted that “female and neutered goats do not generate significant odors”. Wanting to test this for herself, Jillian embarked upon her own scientific research with the “Goat Poo Smell Study”. The driving questions for her research were:

1) Do Victoria residents find that dog poo is more smelly than miniature goat poo?
2) How much more or less smelly is dog poo than miniature goat poo?

and her hypothesis was that goat poo did not smell as bad as dog poo.

Participants in the study (32 in total) rated from 1 to 5 (a Likert Scale) the smelliness of two bags (bag A or bag B) of unidentified droppings (one was from a dog; the other from a goat). Her survey data confirmed her hypothesis. On average, dog droppings smelled twice as bad as goat droppings. The survey was done at an ideal location – Beacon Hill Petting Zoo, a place Jillian loves to visit and play with the miniature goats.

Armed with her research study, a pro-goat petition signed by 132 people in her neighbourhood (including me from that April 2012 event) and a well put together powerpoint presentation that demonstrated her knowledge about goats, Jillian headed to a Saanich Council meeting in May of this year. Her thoroughly researched and powerful presentation addressed the common misconceptions concerning miniature goats; it also detailed the positive aspects of having backyard goats in urban areas. Jillian easily handled questions posed to her by Councillors after her presentation. After further deliberations,  Saanich Council referred the matter to three committees. Jillian had her work cut out for her in the lead up to the three additional presentations she gave in June.

Two years after undertaking this mission, Jillian has learned a tremendous amount about goats and municipal politics. She has met with elected politicians, learned how to execute a petition, conducted research, learned to give persuasive presentations to council and committees and garnered considerable media attention. Television, radio and newspapers all picked up the story, including CTV (twice), CHEK (twice), CBC, CFAX, Ocean 98.5, Times-Colonist and Saanich News. Having to give ten media interviews following an appearance before Saanich Council would be a daunting task for most adults, let alone an 11 year old, but Jillian handled it like a pro. She won’t give up and pledges to persevere with the hope for a positive outcome from Saanich at an upcoming Council meeting.

We were not surprised when Jillian told us she “always puts her hand up in class” and “likes public speaking and talking to adults”. Apparently, it takes her a long time to deliver papers on her paper route because she frequently stops and talks to people in their gardens along the way.

Jillian’s numerous other activities including babysitting (she has completed the babysitter training course), volunteering her time to help serve homeless people in the community and participating in fundraising events for Hospice and the Cancer Society. In one cancer campaign she shaved her head and raised over $1,000.00 by going door to door in her neighbourhood. Shortly after shaving her head, she was in the city finals for cross country and was mistaken for a boy and placed in the wrong chute – placing her in 58^th place when she actually came in 2^nd in her girl’s age category race. As the photo to the left illustrates, this was somewhat confusing for Jillian when she received her 58th place participation paper (instead of a 2nd place ribbon), but it all got worked out and, once again, she handled herself with maturity (and good humour).

Jillian loves to create videos and continues to develop her video-editing skills. She has her own website and YouTube channel where, for example, you can see her present an instructional video on how to bake Apple Crisp or her Easy Chocolate Cake. Jillian loves cooking and I must say, she is a great cook! When she heard about me breaking my nose (by walking into a glass window while texting!) she dropped by my house with some of Jillian’s home-baked chocolate cupcakes. Yum!

I guess that’s what’s special about Jillian. She is mature beyond her years. She is thoughtful and compassionate. She is determined and confident. And, she is just a wonderful kid. When asked what her dream job would be in the future, she almost immediately responded (in order) “a soccer player, Prime Minister or a singer”. After watching Jillian navigate the complexities of municipal politics we’re convinced that her determination, skills and ability to take on big challenges, could allow her to achieve all three.

 Read more >>   Options >>  

CBC is mentioned in: Alex Trebek (Game Show Host) Copyright © 2014 Answers Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   IP Notices   Disclaimer

This is the final installment of a seven week series examining the topic of child and youth mental health in B.C. As this is a complex and multifaceted topic, I will be narrowing my focus to a few popular beliefs and areas of concern that I have witnessed in my role as MLA. The purpose of this series is to debunk these beliefs, increase awareness of these concerns, end the stigma of mental health in our society and provide opportunities for you to impact what is happening in your community.

“Considering that the well-being of our most vulnerable children and youth is at stake, I expect more from government and I think most British Columbians do as well” – Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Representative for Children and Youth

Popular Belief Eight: The government is addressing the issue

Reality: While some progress has been made to promote and address issues relating to mental health, British Columbia has a long way to go. If we are to truly improve our child and youth mental health profile here in B.C. we need strong government leadership to guide us there. Something we are lacking in this province today.

A decade ago B.C. and the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) were seen as a Canadian leader in child and youth mental health services. This was thanks in large part to the 2003 Child and Youth Mental Health Plan – the first of its kind in Canada – which included strategies focused on providing treatment and support, reducing risk, building community capacity and improving performance. Even though the plan did not deliver as significantly as was hoped in all areas, a 2008 internal evaluation did find notable progress had been made in the area of preventative measures.

While the five-year plan arguably needed some tweaking, it was certainly a step in the right direction. Despite this, the plan was replaced in 2010 with the government’s new ten-year plan to address mental health and substance use in British Columbia, entitled Healthy Minds, Healthy People.

Though this new plan does respond to some of the concerns that have been raised around child and youth mental health services in B.C., it falls short of improving upon the 2003 plan. Not only is it not specific to children and youth – instead taking a lifespan approach with strategies for supporting children, youth, adults and seniors – it also does not contain any operational details of how the plan might be implemented. Nor does it specifically address any of the shortfalls found by the internal review of the 2003 plan. Thus leaving B.C. without a clear and measurable guide for providing substantive support to youth and their families.

Representative for Children and Youth

In 2006, B.C. appointed Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as its first Representative for Children and Youth. The Representative is an independent expert oversight body tasked with supporting children, youth and families who need help in dealing with the child-serving system.

Between the years of 2008 and 2013 the Representative’s office made a total of 148 recommendations to the provincial government to improve the lives of B.C’s most vulnerable children. While 72% of these recommendations have been acted upon, a number of the most important ones remain unfulfilled – including her recommendation for government to create a Minister of State of Youth Mental Health.

During this same five-year time period, MCFD’s budget was reduced by more than $37 million – this amounts to nearly $100 million when inflation is accounted for. While the current state of our mental health system is not solely a budget-shortage problem, it certainly plays a role. As the report points out “it is difficult to improve services on a shrinking budget.”

Furthermore, the fact that MCFD’s budget has shrunk despite the mounting evidence that our youth mental health system is in serious need of a redesign, shows just how misguided our approach thus far has been.

Where do we go from here?

Instead of cutting MCFD’s funding, we should be investing more in a Ministry that is mandated with providing crucial services to one of our most vulnerable populations. 

Instead of disregarding key recommendations made by an office dedicated to protecting children and youth in B.C., we should be working with the Representative for Children and Youth to ensure our mental health system is providing current, best-practice services for all levels of care.  

We need to understand that by investing in these services now, we lessen the need for more acute and expensive services in the future. And that by supporting the mental health of our children today, we are giving them the tools they need to support themselves tomorrow. 

It is time for the B.C. government to recommit to the mental health and well-being of our young people and to once again become a leader in child and youth mental health services. 

Weekly Action Item

I have always said that if you don’t like the way your government is addressing an issue – or not addressing one – then you need to get involved, you need to express your concerns and make your voice heard. In fact, that is precisely why I ran for office in the first place.

So this week, for our final action item, I am asking you to vote. I strongly believe that one of the most powerful tools we have at our disposal is our power to vote. With the Federal Election just around the corner and the next Provincial Election less than two years away now is the time to let your politicians know that issues surrounding Mental Health and Mental Illness are of top priority to you as a voter.

When you are contacted by campaigners, ask what their party is doing to address these concerns. Research your local candidates to find out their policies around child and youth mental health. Encourage your friends and relatives to do the same. And most importantly, when election day arrives get out and vote.