Issues & Community Blog - Andrew Weaver: A Climate for Hope - Page 160

Today I rose in the Legislature to recognize the Mustard Seed, a non-profit organization that provides crucial services to address food insecurity in the Capital Regional District, mainly to children and families. Approximately 20,000 people (over 6% of the population) are moderately to severely food insecure. Since 2010, the number of individuals assisted by the Mustard Seed has increased from 4,000 to 7,000 per month.

The Mustard Seed has been exploring ways to move away from a traditional food banking model, focused primarily on processed, non-perishable food items, to one that provides fresh, healthy food, thereby improving health outcomes for food insecure people.

Their vision is to create a three-tiered food access system, subsidized through social enterprise, with emergency, preventative and retail components – with the latter two components supporting operational costs of the emergency programs. A proposed processing and community kitchen component would enhance food skills literacy and provide employment and skills training opportunities.

The Mustard Seed’s vision aligns with the Ministry of Health’s priorities for short-term food relief and longer term food security.

While currently there is insufficient storage space available for both non-profits and food retailers to manage the necessary volume to meet the food security needs of our communities, the Mustard Seed is working hard to develop solutions.

With the support of the community and government, the Mustard Seed hopes to realize their vision of a food secure region with a transformed, sustainable, non-profit/social enterprise model.

I want to thank them for their more than 40 years of service in our community and I commend then on their vision.

Serious Concerns with the Federal Port Development Act: Huntington, Weaver
March 3, 2015
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, and Vicki Huntington,  Independent MLA for Delta South, are profoundly concerned that Bill 12: the Federal Port Development Act will fail to safeguard environmental protections that are facing federal deregulation.

Bill 12 is the provincial link to the federal omnibus Bill C-43, which has been criticised for dismantling environmental protections on port lands through its changes to the Canada Marine Act.

“With the introduction of this bill the province is complacent in the deregulation of environmental protection,” says Andrew Weaver. “As MLAs we need more time to examine the bill.”

“This bill is triggered by Bill C-43, which places secret and extra parliamentary law-making authority in the hands of ports, provinces and even industry,” says Vicki Huntington.

Bill 12 allows the provincial government to enter into the agreements outlined in the federal bill C-43. These agreements could give the province widespread authority over ports. However, Bill 12 does nothing to address the significant environmental regulatory gaps critics say have been created by the C-43 updates to the Canada Marine Act.

For example, Bill C-43 would allow the federal government to sell federal port lands to industry. In doing so, that area would lose its status as federal land, and potentially also become exempt from terrestrial species protection under the Species At Risk Act. Bill 12 may allow LNG ports to take advantage of these loopholes.

“If the Federal government is trying to limit the environmental regulations that apply on port lands, it is up to the provincial government to ensure that adequate protection remains – we want to be sure that this Bill is doing enough on that front,” says Weaver.

MLA Weaver and MLA Huntington each introduced separate amendments designed to provide greater scrutiny of Bill 12.

-30-
West Coast Environmental Law Backgrounder

Media Contacts
Mat Wright — Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382
Mat.wright@leg.bc.c

Aldous Sperl – Vicki Huntington MLA
250-952-7596
Aldous.sperl@leg.bc.ca

On Tuesday I rose to speak at second reading on Bill 5 – Government Information Act.

Bill 5 would create new digital archives and eventually make it mandatory for ministries to keep most records electronically. These digital archives will be open to the public and searchable online. The legislation also creates a new chief records officer position, responsible for overseeing retention, digitization and archiving of government information. This position would oversee the transition from the current paper-based archiving system to the new digital platform – proposed to begin this spring and last about three years.

It is argued that digital archives will better preserve the province’s heritage while allowing people to search and retrieve historical information from anywhere in the world.

If approved, this new legislation will replace the Document Disposal Act, which was enacted in 1936 and viewed as out of date.

Below is the text of my contribution to the debate.

My contribution to the debate at second reading

This bill before us, in my view, is a step in the right direction for how we manage government records in British Columbia. I do understand that the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan does plan to, either himself or someone else from the official opposition, introduce duty-to-document legislation. I recognize that’s not the discussion of this bill here, but I believe that that is an important step to be coupled in with this legislation as it is brought into this chamber.

It is important not only to document digitally but have a duty to do such documentation. So in this regard, I very much look forward to seeing the official opposition’s bill in this area.

Elizabeth Denham, the Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C., has written a rather detailed letter concerning recommendations for this bill. I find her comments on this legislation to be a rather huge public service, things that I truly believe are important to reflect upon as they help shine light on the best practices concerning government information.

Before I highlight some of her recommendations, perhaps I could read a couple of sentences from her introduction in the letter. This what she said:

“Information rights are of vital importance to citizens. Access to government information and to an individual’s own personal information are essential elements of a transparent and accountable democracy. The rights of citizens to control and access information and records is regulated by a carefully balanced legal framework that guarantees these rights, subject only to narrow statutory exceptions.”

These are profound words, profound words that I think we should reflect upon as we move to committee stage. The passage is critical because it frames how we must approach any legislation that impacts government information — that is to say, with an eye to ensuring transparency and accountability.

In general, I’ll have two broad areas of inquiry that I hope to explore in committee stage. The first of these is the question: why does this bill not firmly establish independent oversight for the information management systems? The second: why does it not address the massive backlog in records that currently exists?

I think that if the purpose of this bill is to update how government manages records and information, ensuring that their approach is modernized, then both of these issues will be critical to address as we move forward. Government records, whether of historical value or information sought through information requests, should be managed under the eye of an independent office that can ensure that the principles of transparency and accountability are protected.

I look forward to committee stage and further deliberations on this bill in the days ahead

On Monday I rose to speak at second reading in support of Bill 2-2015 BC Transportation Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act.

Currently in Vancouver, the rapid transit assets owned by the province are split between three crown corporations.

• The Expo Line and the West Coast Express is held by B.C. Transit
• The Millennium Line is held by Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd.
• The Evergreen line is held by B.C. Transportation Financing Authority

Bill 2 would consolidate all these assets under the BC Transportation Financing Authority while maintaining the level of service. This would allow for streamlining, cost saving and better management. While this bill helps to cut down on bureaucratic clutter, it does not deal with the larger issues facing transit in Metro Vancouver.

Below is the text of my contribution to the debate.

My contribution to the debate at second reading

I rise to speak just briefly at second reading of this bill to outline an issue that I think may have been overlooked over this bill. As the bill notes, there are currently…. These rapid transit assets owned by the province are split amongst three Crown corporations in the area: Expo Line and the West Coast Express held by B.C. Transit, the Millennium Line held by Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. and the Evergreen line held by B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. Bill 2 would consolidate these into one entity while maintaining the level of service.

Now, it’s hard to argue that consolidation of assets spread around three is not actually a good thing. It would streamline administration, provide cost savings and, presumably, better management of the whole system at all. These assets, of course, would be transferred into and operated by TransLink.

Cutting down the bureaucratic clutter in the region of Metro Vancouver, I would argue, is a good thing. Nobody quite knows who is on second base at times or first base at times with the plethora of these Crown corporations with their different jurisdictions.

But here is the problem. TransLink has lost the support of the public. Nowhere is this more true than seeing the discussions happening with respect to the upcoming plebiscite in Vancouver.

This no longer becoming a question of: should Vancouver have transport or not? This is not a question of: is the PST increase a means and ways of funding the transit improvements in Vancouver? What’s happening in Vancouver is that this plebiscite is becoming a plebiscite on TransLink, and that is most unfortunate.

That’s most unfortunate because here in this bill we have bringing together assets into a Crown corporation that has lost the public trust. In doing so, the public will question the rationale behind this. The public will question whether or not bringing in TransLink is the right thing to do. The public will question whether or not this is actually going to improve service.

Accountability is the keystone — and was the keystone — of the original vision of TransLink. It was envisioned as a regional authority to be run by a local and elected board. But now, of course, it’s no longer the case. We have an appointed board. We have an appointed board which is not accountable to the voters. The council of mayors, which makes recommendations and have to live with the consequences of decisions being made, is elected. But they don’t actually have the control over the process and decision-making.

This bill is bringing more assets into an organization, TransLink, a Crown corporation that will have more control and more voice over what the mayors must implement, at the same time as it’s losing the confidence of the general public. In order to deal with the root cause, the root problem, that exists — that is, the lack of public support for TransLink — we’ll need to explore, in committee stage, how the government plans to actually assure us that as it brings more and more assets into the Crown corporation for transit, it does so in means and ways that do not ignore the underlying fundamental issue, which is rebuilding public trust and public confidence in TransLink.

On Monday, March 2nd, I tabled a bill that restricts the practices of non-resident trophy hunters coming to B.C. to kill large game by making two specific amendments to the Wildlife Act.

The proposed changes remove grizzly bears from the list of animals exempt from meat harvesting regulations and ensure all edible portions of game animals killed in B.C. are taken directly to the hunter’s residence.

As the legislation currently stands, it is illegal to waste meat when hunting in B.C., unless the  animal you have killed is a cougar, wolf, lynx, bobcat, wolverine, or grizzly bear. The edible parts of big game animals must be removed from the animal and packed out to one’s home, or importantly for non-resident hunters, to a meat cutter or a cold storage plant. These last two options provide trophy hunters with legal meat laundering opportunities. By adding “directly or through” to the clause hunters can still use meat cutters and cold storage plants to process their harvests, but it can’t end there. The meat must make it to their home address. If they want to donate that meat to charity after the fact they are welcome to do so, but they have to take it home first.

Hunters are already required to remove the edible portions from black bears, if enacted, this bill would bring meat harvesting standards for grizzly bears up to the same level.

For local sustenance hunters – the vast majority of hunters in B.C. – this bill merely echoes what they are already doing; harvesting wild game to bring the meat home to feed themselves and their families. For non-resident trophy hunters coming to B.C. to bag an animal for its hide, skull, or antlers this poses a larger logistical challenge of exporting large quantities of meat.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide the government with another tool to address the growing concerns about trophy hunting in our province. As with any tool the government develops, its effectiveness is entirely dependent on government’s commitment to using it as it was designed. If government were to pass this bill, but fail to enforce its provisions, or provide regulatory loopholes for guide outfitters, then its purpose will be undermined. It will be up to government to make a commitment to embracing the values that are at the heart of this Bill and using them in a meaningful manner.

This is not a perfect solution, of course, but it is an achievable step in the right direction of protecting the interests of sustenance hunters while reducing the wasteful influence of non-resident hunters who come to our province to kill our wildlife acting with disregard for its value as a food source. It is also a strong legislative move towards conserving grizzly bear populations in B.C. as it forces the government to reevaluate its outdated grizzly hunting mandate. It shows the current government that we are serious about conserving grizzly bears through working collaboratively with conservation organizations like the British Columbia Wildlife Federation, BC’s First Nations and BC’s resident hunters.

Brown bears, of which grizzlies are the North American subspecies, were once found on four continents, making them one of the most widespread mammal populations in the world. Their original range included Europe, North Africa, northern and central Asia, the Middle East, and North America. Today, they are locally extinct or endangered across the map — except in Russia, Alaska, and B.C.

According to the provincial government’s 2002 report on B.C. grizzly bears, in North America healthy grizzly bear populations once extended from northern Mexico to the Yukon, and from the West Coast to Hudson Bay. As human populations began to expand, grizzly numbers steadily declined as their habitat became fragmented, their food sources threatened, and they were killed for recreation and for getting too close to the people who were moving into their territory.

British Columbia and Alaska are the last strongholds of grizzly bear populations on the planet, though the exact numbers are contested because the bear’s solitary and roaming nature makes them difficult and expensive to study. The B.C. government estimates there are 15,000 grizzly bears in the province today, some independent scientists and First Nations groups think there could be as few as 6,000. 

Precise population number aside, the global trend for brown bears is clearly one that favours extinction. The Himalayan brown bear has dwindled to two per cent of its former range and there are an estimated 49 brown bears left in Italy. Mexico’s grizzlies are now extinct and the last known Californian grizzly was shot in the 1920s. The Liberal government maintains the fate of B.C.’s grizzly bears will be different, but the government’s scientific justifications for the hunt in some regions are harshly criticized by many local and international scientists.

Like Canada’s polar bears, B.C.’s grizzly bears have been listed as a “species of special concern” by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Unlike their Arctic cousins, though, grizzly bears don’t qualify for federally legislated conservation measures.

In addition to the unrelenting pressure brought by climate change, industrial expansion, and habitat destruction, this iconic species is pursued by “hunters” who come to B.C. to kill a prize bear. The importation of B.C. grizzly bear parts into the European Union has been banned for over a decade because they think the hunt is being unsustainably managed. The wealthy non-resident hunters who come to our province to buy a grizzly trophy, therefore, are predominantly from the U.S. They cut off the bear’s head, paws, and fur but leave the bodies behind to rot.

This so-called sport has been banned by nine coastal First Nations and is opposed by nearly 90 percent of British Columbians. Importantly, 95 percent of hunters surveyed in the province-wide McAllister Research poll also agreed that people should not be hunting if they are not prepared to eat what they kill.

I support sustainable, respectful sustenance hunting in British Columbia that is grounded in a science-based conservation policy. It with this in mind that I introduced the Bill today.

This bill is an attempt to bring the environmental and hunting communities together. Many urban environmentalists don’t realize that BC hunters and their supporting organizations (like BCWF, Ducks Unlimited and Fish and Wildlife organizations) are some of the most active conservationalists. At the same time, some hunters believe that most urban environmentalists are out to stop hunting. The reality is that almost everyone I have spoken with is on the same page. They support hunting for food. They don’t support hunting only for trophies. This bill supports the former and penalizes the later.