In January I sent a letter to Minister Anton seeking clarification as to whether or not legislation was going to be introduced to regulate the debt settlement industry. Similar legislation exists in other provinces (e.g. Ontario and Nova Scotia as well as in a number of US States). I received her response in February.

In her response, Minister Anton stated:

“Although I am unable to provide specific details regarding the development or timing of legislation at this time, I can assure you that government is committed to enhancing consumer protections against deceptive practices. To this end, ministry staff continue to work through policy issues that are necessary to regulate debt settlement agencies“

With the introduction of Bill 6, Justice Statutes Amendment Act 2015, the debt settlement industry in BC will now be regulated. This is good news for British Columbians struggling to get themselves out of debt.  Today, I spoke strongly in favour or this bill at second reading. Below is the text of my speech.

Text of my Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to congratulate the government on introducing at least the aspect of this bill that concerned me. That’s with respect to the debt settlement. As the minister will recognize, I contacted her about this earlier this year.

As we know, debt settlement companies typically offer to negotiate on behalf of a consumer lump sum settlements with creditors for amounts significantly less than the consumer’s outstanding debt. Consumers are often required to pay excessive, largely non-refundable fees up front and are encouraged to stop paying their debts and instead save up for a lump sum settlement. This differs from traditional debt-pooling services, which set up reduced-interest repayment plans and assist consumers with eventually paying off their full debts.

Many people are unable to save enough for the lump sum settlement amount and subsequently drop out of the program, losing any money they have already paid to the debt settlement company. There’s no guarantee a creditor will accept the lump sum settlement, although this risk is often not communicated to consumers. This can negatively affect credit scores and further accumulate debt as late fees, missed payments and penalties build up.

The proposed changes, developed with the advice from a debt collection industry advisory group and in consultation with Consumer Protection B.C. would help prevent the negative practices and also modernize outdated provisions to ensure B.C.’s debt collection laws both reflect the present day collection and credit industry and align with other Canadian jurisdictions.

On January 5 of this year, after a rather large number of e-mails I received from people in the greater Victoria district, I contacted the minister and pointed out that in July of 2012 CTV News reported that the Minister of Justice at the time said: “In order to better protect consumers and families living in poverty, the B.C. government will provide legislative changes to regulate businesses that provide debt consolidation services and regulate advance fees paid.”

As I pointed out in the letter, since that time there had been little information from government about when we could expect to see such legislation. I pointed out in that letter on January 5 that debt management companies prey upon some of the most vulnerable British Columbians. Rather than providing a solution to an individual’s debt issue, these companies seek to profit off the situation.

A number of provinces, as I pointed out and as was mentioned by other members here — including Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, which I hadn’t realized until a member brought it up recently — have passed similar legislation to end these predative practices within their jurisdictions. At the time I pointed out that I believed it was past time for British Columbia to pass our own regulations in this regard. I asked the minister if she could reply to me with an update as to where we were heading in this direction.

I was delighted to receive a letter from the minister on February 12, which I communicated back to my constituents and others, pointing out that debt collection in British Columbia is regulated under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, pointing out that the legislation was designed to protect consumers by prohibiting deceptive practices and requiring debt industry professionals to be licensed.

At that time, the minister pointed out:

“The emergence of new types of debt repayment professionals has resulted in a need to ensure that they are also bound by the act’s rules. Although I” — being the minister — “am able to provide specific details regarding the development or timing of legislation at this time, I can assure you” — that is, me — “that government is committed to enhancing consumer protections against deceptive practices. To this end, ministry staff continue to work through the policy issues that are necessary to regulate debt settlement industries.”

It is with great pleasure that I stand to see that, in fact, this has entered into Bill 6, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act. I look forward to exploring some of the details further as we get into committee stage. In particular, I have some questions, obviously — and I’m sure other members will too — with respect to 127(3), which talks about a debt repayment: “A debt repayment…must not charge fees or disbursements in excess of the prescribed amount.” We’ll be questioning, obviously, what that prescribed amount may or may not be and what the minister has in mind in terms of subsequent regulations.

I’m also pleased to see that the bill actually does include this entirely new category called the debt repayment agent. It’s very reassuring to see regulations and guidelines put in place as to what a debt repayment agent may or may not do. So with that, I’m very pleased to stand in support of Bill 6, at least the two components that I’ve spent some time working on — the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act subcomponent as well as Collection Agents and Debt Repayment Agents.

With that, hon. Speaker, I’ll thank you and look forward to committee stage of this bill.

In mid January, after receiving numerous emails from British Columbians across the province, I wrote to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to ask a number of questions concerning the rationale for the wolf cull in the South Selkirk Mountains and the South Peace of British Columbia. I have now received a very detailed, comprehensive and thoughtful response to the questions that I posed. I encourage you to read the Minister’s response.

As noted in the response, the situation in the South Selkirk has changed since Steve Wilson wrote his 2010 report entitled “Estimating the Short-term Benefit of Wolf Management to Mountain Caribou Herds”. The Selkirk caribou population dropped from 46 to 18 caribou from 2009 to 2014 after increasing from 2004 to 2009. Few wolves were in the area during the earlier period while increasing numbers have been present in recent years and “the most recent confirmed mortalities on the South Selkirk herd are due to wolf predation”.

The Minister’s letter also outlines steps that have been or are being taken to preserve the caribou’s natural habitat. In addition, it outlines several predator management projects that are being developed on a trial basis.

The Minister also provided me with both a report plan and a  peer review of the report plan. A key finding of the report was:

“The South Selkirk caribou population is declining by 30% to 40% per year (as demonstrated by the  population numbers listed in the operational plan. Based on this rate of decline, the caribou population will likely be in a state of quasi-extirpation within a year.”

It’s clear from the evidence that the South Selkirk caribou population is near extinction and that predation by wolves is a leading cause of most recent mortalities. As a society, I believe we have a responsibility to protect endangered species. It is clear that a choice needs to be made. Not dealing with the growing wolf population would mean almost certain extinction of the caribou herd. Dealing with the growing wolf population gives this herd a fighting chance.

Not withstanding this short-term emergency measure that needs to take place, and the government’s recent efforts to create and preserve increased habitat for the caribou, I will continue to monitor government’s 2008 “Interim Strategy for Predator/Prey Management Actions in Support of Mountain Caribou Recovery”, where it notes that “habitat loss and fragmentation is largely the ultimate cause of mountain caribou declines”.

During the committee stage of Bill 12, The Federal Port Development Act on Thursday afternoon, I put forth a number of amendments in an attempt to protect the British Columbia coast from the expansion of thermal coal and heavy oil (diluted bitumen) exports. These were the amendments mentioned in my earlier post on Bill 12.  All amendments were defeated. Below I provide a brief excerpt from Hansard.

First Amendment

A. Weaver: With respect to the minister, the reason I have troubles with this legislation is…. We are not debating the Canada Marine Act. I will come to that.

Under the Canada Marine Act, the federal government can sell federal land in a port to a port authority, which could be administered by the province of British Columbia. In selling the land to the port authority, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act no longer have any jurisdiction because the land is no longer owned by the federal government. It is now within the port authority, administered by the province of British Columbia.

My concern, therefore, with respect to an undertaking is that heavy oil or thermal coal experts would then no longer have to worry about Species at Risk or Canadian Environmental Assessment Act implications in any development there. The problem with that is that we don’t have anything in the province of British Columbia as a Species at Risk Act.

In essence, what’s happening in accepting an agreement like this, through an undertaking involving either coal or heavy oil, as we will discuss in section 3, is we are essentially saying that we in British Columbia can exempt such development from the federal Species at Risk Act and we have nothing to fall upon here in British Columbia. We can fall on the Environmental Assessment Act.

Frankly, with respect to what we’ve seen with Kinder Morgan and Enbridge, the province has done an admirable job in terms of representing the interests of British Columbia. I have not seen that with respect to thermal coal, and for this reason I do have two amendments I would like to bring here to specifically exclude from ‘undertaking’.

[To amend as follows:

By adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 1

“undertaking” means an undertaking, or an undertaking in a class, designated for the purposes of section 64.1(2)(a) of the Canada Marine Act; excluding an undertaking, or an undertaking in a class, relating to the import or export of thermal coal.]

That is the first amendment I so move.

The Chair: The amendment was proposed by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. It reads: “‘undertaking’ means an undertaking, or an undertaking in a class, designated for the purposes of section 64.1 (2)(a) of the Canada Marine Act, excluding an undertaking, or an undertaking in a class, relating to the import or export of thermal coal.”

Amendment negatived on the following division:

The Chair: Hon. Members, stay in your seats. The member is going to move another amendment.

Second Amendment

A. Weaver: As I mentioned earlier, I have a legal backgrounder from West Coast Environmental Law, which talks about the passage of Canada Marine Act, which we’re talking with respect to the “undertaking” definition here.

That would significantly increase the powers of port authorities, allow the federal government to off-load its responsibility over shipping in federal ports, etc. The changes now allow port authorities to buy federal land and infrastructure from the government and then lease those lands to companies or authorize companies to use them for as long as the port authority has control over them.

Once sold, those lands would no longer be federal property, meaning they would not be subject to terrestrial species protection under the Species at Risk Act.

Seeing as we have no species at risk act here in British Columbia, this raises some concern, which is why I move, again, an amendment to amend as follows:

[By adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 1

“undertaking” means an undertaking, or an undertaking in a class, designated for the purposes of section 64.1 (2)(a) of the Canada Marine Act excluding an undertaking or an undertaking in a class relating to the import or export of heavy oil.]

In light of the fact that we do not import heavy oil that probably is moot, but certainly export is a big issue that’s facing us now.

The Chair: Hon. Members, if the House waives the time we will proceed right away. Do we have consent?

Leave granted.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Third Amendment

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the answer. My concern here is that the province would enter an agreement and potentially get into a position where the Species at Risk Act is not applicable or in force. I have an amendment here I’d like to move, which is to amend section 2 as follows:

[By adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 2

With the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, a member of the Executive Council may enter into an agreement on behalf of the government.

If

(a) the province has first enacted provincial legislation comparable in power and scope to the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c. 29), and

(b) any and all port developments subject to the agreement that would have previously triggered a review under the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c. 29) prior to the royal assent of Bill C-43 (2014), automatically trigger a review under the legislation referenced in subsection (a).]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: This is a piece of legislation trying to ensure that British Columbia enforces species-at-risk legislation. If it doesn’t enforce the federal one — which it can’t, of course — it has to produce its own if it’s going to enter an agreement as per the discussion here.

The Chair: Hon. Members, it’s an amendment moved by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head regarding the Species at Risk Act.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Bill 12, The Federal Port Development Act, passed second reading on Tuesday March 3, despite my objections and the objections of Vicki Huntington, MLA Delta South.

On its own, Bill 12 is not inherently problematic. However, Bill 12 cannot be taken in isolation. It must be considered in conjunction with the recent passing of the federal omnibus Bill C-43. Buried within this more than 475 page bill was Division 16, Canada Marine Act.

As noted in a legal backgrounder put together by West Coast Environmental Law, Division 16 of Bill C-43 poses

“a serious threat to legal protection from and public oversight of environmental threats from activities that occur in ports, like coal storage and LNG facilities.“

The explanatory note to Bill 12 states that

“This bill provides authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to authorize a member of the Executive Council to enter into an agreement contemplated by section 64.6 of the Canada Marine Act.

Let’s go to section 64.6 of the Canada Marine Act. It says this:

“The [federal] Minister may enter into agreements with any person or body, including the government of a province, with respect to the administration and enforcement of a regulation made under subsection 64.1(1).“

And so we move to 64.1(1). It states:

“The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting any undertaking or class of undertakings that is situated or proposed to be situated in a port, including regulations respecting the development, use and environmental protection of the port as it relates to the undertaking or class of undertakings.“

Now, this may seem all very innocuous — a short bill, two pages, a couple of definitions, not that much — but the implications are profound not because of what’s in Bill 12 but because of what’s not in it and what is implied if we adopt it.

I’m profoundly troubled that the federal government has opened up significant gaps in our regulatory framework with the passing of Bill C-43, and with the introduction of Bill 12 our government is complacent in this deregulation.

Let me provide a very specific example.  With the passage of Bill C-43, the federal government can now sell its federal land to a port authority. In doing so, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the Species at Risk Act both no longer apply. Since British Columbia does not have species at risk legislation, this is quite problematic. British Columbia does have environmental assessment legislation but jurisdictional issues would almost certainly exist.

At the same time, the port authority can lease their newly acquired land to an industrial client. If Bill C-12 is enacted, the federal government can enter into an agreement with the Province of British Columbia to administer and enforce the industrial activities at this port. Unless also specifically transferred, in my view the federal government would retain the power of regulation creation and the province would be stuck enforcing and administering such regulations.

What’s also deeply troubling is that section 64.1(2) (k)  and (l) grant the federal government powers to:

(k) prescribe rules respecting the confidentiality or disclosure of any information obtained under the regulations;
(l) provide for the retention or the disposal, including the destruction, of documents, regardless of medium, that are created or submitted under the regulations.

As noted in the West Coast Environmental Law backgrounder mentioned above, through the passage of Bill C43, the federal cabinet now has the power to:

“Hand over regulatory, administrative or even judicial control of industrial activities in ports to any person, including a province, port authority or even industry itself.”

If Bill 12 passes, the province could then enter in an agreement with the federal government to take over regulatory, administrative or judicial control of industrial activities in BC ports. Again, in an of itself, this may not seem like a bad idea. But in my view it’s critical that the province ensure that requirements under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the Species at Risk Act are not bypassed. At the same time, its critical in my view to ensure that industrial activities in British Columbia ports are conducted in an open and transparent way to ensure that the interests of British Columbians are protected.

Earlier today I issued a press release. I will be introducing a number of amendments to Bill 12 momentarily.

Media Release: March 5, 2015
Bill 12 could exempt LNG plants from species at risk act; allow destruction of key documents
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Bill 12 could exempt LNG plants from scrutiny under the species at risk act and allow for the destruction of important documents according to Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party.

“Right now, the provincial government is quietly pushing through legislation that could seriously undermine public oversight and environmental regulation of LNG ports,” says Andrew Weaver.

Bill C-43 gave the federal government the power to sell port land to port authorities. Once sold, that land no longer qualifies as ‘federal’ land and therefore no longer triggers a review under federal environmental regulations, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 and the terrestrial species protections under the Species at Risk Act. Bill C-43 also empowers the new body overseeing the port to destroy important documents or keep them confidential.

Under Bill 12 the province could take authority for these former port lands to administer projects like LNG terminals. The province would be authorized to empower LNG plants to destroy important documents or keep them confidential, as they see fit. The B.C. Liberal’s coveted LNG industry could also take advantage of essential regulatory loopholes, by not having to undergo federal environmental assessments or meeting basic standards such as terrestrial species protections under the Species at Risk Act. B.C. currently has no comparable legislation covering endangered species.

“My concern is that this shows a possible willingness to land an LNG industry at the expense of British Columbians’ interests,” says Weaver. “Why would LNG terminals need the potential power to destroy documents or keep them confidential?”

Dr. Weaver will table and support several amendments to Bill 12 this afternoon when it is debated in committee stage. The purpose of the amendments is to protect public oversight of the LNG industry and to close the regulatory loopholes created by Bill C-43.

“Bill 12 opens us up to massive loopholes from federal conservative legislation. We should be amending this bill to close those loopholes and protect the interests of British Columbians.”

-30-

Attached: Bill C-43 and backgrounder by West Coast Environmental Law

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

Media Release: March 5, 2015
Bill 12 could exempt LNG plants from species at risk act; allow destruction of key documents
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Bill 12 could exempt LNG plants from scrutiny under the species at risk act and allow for the destruction of important documents according to Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party.

“Right now, the provincial government is quietly pushing through legislation that could seriously undermine public oversight and environmental regulation of LNG ports,” says Andrew Weaver.

Bill C-43 gave the federal government the power to sell port land to port authorities. Once sold, that land no longer qualifies as ‘federal’ land and therefore no longer triggers a review under federal environmental regulations, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 and the terrestrial species protections under the Species at Risk Act. Bill C-43 also empowers the new body overseeing the port to destroy important documents or keep them confidential.

Under Bill 12 the province could take authority for these former port lands to administer projects like LNG terminals. The province would be authorized to empower LNG plants to destroy important documents or keep them confidential, as they see fit. The B.C. Liberal’s coveted LNG industry could also take advantage of essential regulatory loopholes, by not having to undergo federal environmental assessments or meeting basic standards such as terrestrial species protections under the Species at Risk Act. B.C. currently has no comparable legislation covering endangered species.

“My concern is that this shows a possible willingness to land an LNG industry at the expense of British Columbians’ interests,” says Weaver. “Why would LNG terminals need the potential power to destroy documents or keep them confidential?”

Dr. Weaver will table and support several amendments to Bill 12 this afternoon when it is debated in committee stage. The purpose of the amendments is to protect public oversight of the LNG industry and to close the regulatory loopholes created by Bill C-43.

“Bill 12 opens us up to massive loopholes from federal conservative legislation. We should be amending this bill to close those loopholes and protect the interests of British Columbians.”

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