Issues & Community Blog - Andrew Weaver: A Climate for Hope - Page 194

On Friday April 4, I had the honour and great pleasure of attending and speaking at the Abbotsford Water Show.

As noted on the website for the event “The Water Show is a unique and original event bringing Trades and Technologies from Water Reclamation, Wells Irrigation, Ponds and Pools, Micro Energy all the way to Onsite septic together for the first time.”

For me, it was also a great opportunity to hear first-hand from a number of BC small businesses. I had the opportunity to fly direct from Victoria to Abbotsford on Abbotsford-basedIsland Express Air. Owner and Captain, Gerry Visser, started the company in 2009 and personally provides first-class customer service. The 20-minute trip on a Piper Navajo provides the passenger with an incredibly scenic trip which even includes a fly-over of the Cherry Point refinery in the  US. Hope TV’s program P3: People, Places, Perspectives, hosted by Randall Mark provides a detailed history of Island Express and provides further information.

The Abbotsford Water Shaw featured a number of talks, although I was only able to sit through those between 09:30 and 14:30. David Mellis, president and owner of Langley-based EDS Pumps and Water Treatment Ltd., spoke about recent advances in water well remediation. Patrick Lucey, president of Victoria-Based Aqua-Tex Scientific Consulting Ltd., located on the boundary of the riding of Oak Bay Gordon Head (#201-3690 Shelbourne St.), explored the potential benefits of integrating waste water an energy systems in the design of cities, towns and municipalities. Kamloops-based Terry Ormod, Western Canada Sales manager for The Toro Company, highlighted the numerous simple, cost-effective ways of improving irrigation systems to conserve water and provide higher-quality irrigation.

But the highlight of the event, without a doubt, was the extensive conversations I had with representatives from Pinnacle Environmental Technologies Inc, whose President Frank Hey, is pictured above with a BioBarrier^®, residential Membrane Bio-Reactor (MBR) tertiary treatment system. Imagine having your own tertiary-based sewage treatment system in your back yard supplying you with water for irrigation and use in toilets!

It was inspiring to see so many people committed to developing prosperity through the use and installation of sustainable and innovative cleantech — the basis of tomorrow’s economy.

In Committee A on Thursday, April 3, the Budget Estimates debates for the Housing Ministry were up. I had the opportunity to question the Minister, Honourable Rich Coleman, on a topic that I felt deserved to be explored more thoroughly. In particular, I was concerned that as a result of the recent controversy surrounding the Portland Hotel Society, the extremely important programs offered by this society would suffer. If this were to happen, the most vulnerable in our society would be those who ended up being hurt the most by the scandal.

As noted in the questions and answers extracted from Hansard and reproduced below, the Minister offered very reassuring responses that clearly indicate that the Portland Hotel Society’s programs will continue to operate, albeit under different management and a new Board.

Question 1:

A. Weaver: I have a couple of questions. First off, I’d like to apologize to the minister and the critic. I had not planned to ask Housing questions just because so much is going on at the same time, but I did want to ask just a couple of questions on a topic that I think needs to be addressed. These are pertaining to the Portland Hotel Society.

I’d like to acknowledge first off that it’s clearly been noted that a vast majority of the projects supported by this B.C. Housing do excellent work and are highly accountable. I also know that everybody is trying to ensure that we learn from the mistakes that happened and is trying to remedy these mistakes at the Portland Hotel Society.

Nevertheless, I have a couple of quick questions. First, if the minister is able to let me know, what is the allocated budget for the Portland Hotel Society in this fiscal year?

Answer:

Hon. R. Coleman: The budget we’re providing to that particular society this year would be approximately $9 million from Housing and about $9 million from Health.

Question 2:

A. Weaver: I’m wondering what steps the minister is taking to ensure that the mismanagement of public expenses at the Portland Hotel Society — not only the hotel society but potentially other housing societies. What account, what steps are being taken to ensure that mismanagement will not occur in the future?

Answer:

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t want this discussion to leave any question that all of a sudden every non-profit society in British Columbia isn’t operating properly in housing. We have about 500 societies we do business with. They operate either, in some cases, in one building and sometimes multiple buildings. Sometimes they have other relationships in government with regards to social services or health.

Basically, the first thing I want to do is give the typical review process for the member, because this is what drives where we get to. I will say this: in this case, this is the most egregious anomaly that I have ever seen in housing in British Columbia, what went on at the Portland Hotel Society with regards to — not the services to the client but the poor management, the arm’s-length decisions that actually were interrelated with people, family, relatives and friends on social enterprises that weren’t profitable and ended up having to be subsidized, and the egregious spending with regards to some luxurious trips where people are actually donating to an organization where this should never happen.

I can tell you that they are an anomaly on that file, but here is the typical review process. B.C. Housing, a non–profit housing provider — I can give this to members; you don’t have to write it down — prepare and agree on a budget for the upcoming fiscal year on an annual basis. Our staff sit down with every society, go over their budget from the previous year, and set up a budget. Once the fiscal year is over, the auditor would require the non-profit providers to submit an audited financial statement. So they can have a bookkeeper, somebody doing their books all year long. Their books then have to go to a separate auditor, a chartered accountant, to do an audited financial statement. We review the financial statements and budgets to the budget versus actual on an annual basis for each one of these organizations.

Based on that review, we will make adjustments to the budget if it’s required, or we can sit down and talk to them about a range of some minor changes or further discussions, specific financial or operational costs that need to be improved. It’s an ongoing working relationship to make sure we’re all doing a good job.

The housing providers implement the changes that we recommend to them, and B.C. Housing follows up to ensure changes are made. So that’s what we do. This is how we operate this.

If changes are not made and the concerns continue to escalate, then we will escalate action based on the issues of the breaches that are noted. If we think that somebody is, for instance, not managing their maintenance account very well or their capital reserve has been misspent, and if they continue to do that, there could be a number of things. We could come in and sit down with the board and say: “You’re not doing your fiduciary duty. You need to improve this.” We can sit down with the management and help them improve their management practices and accounting. But we work with these guys, recognizing that in many cases…. All of these boards are volunteers, and so we recognize the personal commitment they have made to their communities.

When it really goes outside of that relationship not working, that’s the only time escalation would include a B.C. Housing internal audit team or a third-party auditor going in and taking a look at the books, which was the case of…. Every one of those steps actually happened on Portland. The Portland Hotel Society were audited in 2002. We initiated a third-party audit of the society then after the regular oversight process identified some operation and financial issues. One of the things that was taking place at the time is their accountant had passed away. There were some concerns because there were issues with their books. A third-party firm at that time went in, were brought in, to conduct an audit. Upon completion of that audit, B.C. Housing and the Portland Hotel Society took the required actions to implement the recommendation. So they actually did what they were told to do back in 2002. They went through and basically did their thing.

We’ve asked the new board, even with accounting for privacy rules, if they could please release that audit. But at the time, when we looked at releasing it back then, we weren’t allowed to under protection of privacy issues.

Those recommendations in that audit were implemented immediately. For the next number of years, the audited financial statements every year was matched up to the budget. There were no issues with the spending or concerns that were flagged until about 2010, when we started to see a small deficit.

That brought us through a number of processes and audits in a period of time up to the date that we actually we had to do the unfortunate thing that we had to do with the Portland Hotel Society and basically change its management and its board. It was either do that or take it into receivership and take it over financially.

Question 3:

A. Weaver: Thank you, minister, for that answer. My concern for this is the services that the society provided. My final question is: what steps in this budget is the minister taking to ensure the essential services such as Insite, the safe injection site, are actually sustainable for the community that the Portland Hotel Society served?

Answer:

Hon. R. Coleman: That’s a very fair question. You go through this unfortunate process, but you do have people that work for this society and units they manage. And they have the services and programs they deliver for both health and for housing that work and, quite frankly, are doing valuable work with the some of the hardest to house and hardest people in the community.

The arrogance of the people that were their bosses doesn’t mean…. It should not reflect on their concern and love for the people that they actually deal with every day. So what we did to make sure that this is stable and controlled is….

We had three options in front of us. One, to have the executive, the management team, resign and replace the management team and have the board resign and replace the board.

Two was to say: “In cooperation, because we’re not going to fund you anymore, if you don’t agree with these changes, you’re in receivership. You have two issues in and around receivership. You can accept it, or you can challenge it in court. If you wish to do either one of those, we will pursue it either way.” They chose to leave, which is better for the society, because it does have members that are members of the society and who, I think, were a part of a valuable thing that was happening for the people that were the clients of the organization.

Today, what we’ve done is we’ve gone in and put in a new board. We have a chair, Faye Wightman, who used to be the head of the Vancouver Foundation, on the board. We have, Ida Goodreau, who used to be the CEO of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, on the board.

We brought in Jim O’Day. I’ve known Jim for decades. He was actually at one time the chair of B.C. Housing, a number of years ago. He has quite a good reputation on working with societies for developments and stuff like that, in that field.

Then there is Andy Broderick from Vancity and four other people. We brought in very good, high performing people to be volunteers on this board.

Then we went in and said, “Well, now the management’s gone,” so we took a senior management from B.C. Housing and the senior manager from Health, who now run the Portland Hotel Society operation.

In addition to that, we brought in Deloitte to basically be the accountant within the society to take a look at all the documentation and all the receipts that led up to this thing so that we’ll have any concerns there but also, obviously build a long-term financial plan for the sustainability of the society.

We will look at all of these social enterprises that basically were put in place by Portland, arm’s length to any funding we gave, but they were cross-subsidizing and it led to some of the deficit problems, because they weren’t well run or they had interrelationships that should not have existed in an organization like this.

We will analyze all of that and determine which ones are sustainable, which are not, which ones make sense, which…. You know, if it’s a painting contract to a friendly company owned by somebody that’s friendly, then we’re going to let that contract go out for bid, and they can all bid on it. That sort of thing, right? There will be competition brought in and some accountability to those expenses.

We’re in the process right now of selecting an interim CEO — sorry, an executive director and a director of finance for the organization so that…. We obviously don’t want our senior managers having to run Portland in the long term. We will go through with a restructuring of the management. Then, in addition to that as we go along, we will eventually transition the board back to some community members as well, who will part of the long-term board.

That’s basically the structure we put in place to protect it. Obviously there will be some changes on the fiscal side at Portland Hotel Society. There won’t be any trips down the Danube or limousine cruises to concerts or trips to Disneyland, you know, those types of things really raised the ire, quite frankly, of the public and unfortunately damaged the great reputation of so many good societies that do work in British Columbia, including the Downtown Eastside.

You could go through these other organizations who do the same accountability process, as I described, every year — they’re audited financial statements — who work with us. You can improve the management. You can always get a situation with a society where there’s some little management glitch that needs to be improved. We work with them to solve those problems and to improve their ability to manage, because that’s part of the education management process when we’re the funder and the holder of the operating agreement with them.

I think that we’ve done…. I shouldn’t say “we.” The folks at B.C. Housing and the folks at Health have done an exceptional job dealing with a very difficult problem. At the end of the day, we did so in such a way that we had the compassion and concern for the very difficult clients that the Portland Hotel Society serves. While we’re doing that, we’re protecting the integrity of the non-profit sector and moving on to get to where this society will have a long-term viability as well

Bill 18 – 2014:  The Water Sustainability Act is now entering third reading. This is an historic piece of legislation that completely overhauls the 1909 Water Act and now includes groundwater regulation. This is a welcome piece of legislation that I am pleased to support. Below is the text of my address at second reading.

I would like to start my speech the exact same way that the member left off her previous speech, which is offering my congratulations to the minister for tabling what I believe is a historic bill for the province of British Columbia.

We’ve been blessed here in British Columbia with some of the best access to fresh water compared to any other jurisdiction in the world. Our abundance of clean, fresh water has meant that the pressures to monitor and regulate its usage have taken much longer to manifest themselves. We’ve not felt the immediate pressures that some jurisdictions have, in which failure to regulate water usage meant the difference between life and death.

Yet what is clear is that from an economic, social, environmental and cultural perspective, how we manage our water will have significant impacts on the current generation as well as future generations, particularly in light of the climate change as outlined in the recently released Working Group II report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

To quote the West Coast Environmental Law: “Water and how we treat our water is one of those fundamental issues that touches on so much of who we are, what we do and how we build our economy.” Our failure to better regulate our water usage today will have ripple effects and potentially significant consequences for future generations — if not across our province, certainly in specific regions.

After more than 100 years I think we can all agree in this House that updated legislation is long overdue. The original Water Act from 1909 was written for a different time with different issues facing our water resources. It is ill-suited for the current area of climate change pressures, rising competition over usage and increasing importance of managing our water supplies in such a way that ensures opportunity and sustainability for future generations.

The new Water Sustainability Act represents an important step forward to meet many of these challenges, and I’m pleased to say that I find much to support in the many innovative environmental measures proposed to manage our water resources.

In particular, the incorporation of the long-promised regulation of groundwater is an important addition. The inclusion of a system for licensing and regulating groundwater users helps to fill a glaring policy gap that was allowing a number of industries to profit from our Crown resources, with no system to ensure the sustainability of their use. In addition, British Columbia did not receive adequate compensation for the use of this resource.

I’m also encouraged that the government chose to include a number of ecological considerations in the decision-making process about water use. Specifically, innovative components that include the water sustainability plans, water objectives, the protection of sensitive streams, environmental flow needs and mitigation measures are all very positive.

I look forward to examining exactly how these provisions will operate in greater detail at the committee stage. Here I want to note my support for the fact that they were not only considered but included in the bill.

I also think the government’s decision to sever the water pricing discussion from this act is a very good one. As the ministry has no doubt seen, there are a great variety of positions on water pricing, and a separate engagement process will allow all interested stakeholders to provide the ministry and the minister with their perspective.

My own view is that the province should seriously look at differential pricing for water based, in part, on how that water is being used. Some guidance could be taken from the bill before us today, particularly in regards to ensuring the beneficial use and aligning the differential pricing with the “water objectives” of a given region. In general I’m supportive of the process the government has initiated to solicit feedback on water pricing, and I look forward to discussing this aspect at a later day.

As population grows and the direct impact of climate change on local weather is felt with increasing frequency and intensity, the sustainable management of our water resources will become more important.

Without a doubt, there are many positive aspects in this bill pertaining to the determination of “critical environmental flow thresholds.” However, it remains unclear to me whether government possesses the level of in-house scientific understanding required to properly manage our water resources, particularly our groundwater supplies.

As we’ve seen recently in California, climate change can have massive impacts on water supply. For example, we can expect precipitation to increasingly fall in the form of rain instead of snow, leading to changes in snowpack and water availability throughout the year. This is not an issue of water availability but of water storage for our surface water access. This, in turn, could have significant impacts on groundwater recharge and needs to be accounted for in the regulations that will govern groundwater withdrawal.

I’m also uncertain about the merits of continuing with the first-in-time, first-in-right priority for waters rights, as mentioned by the member for Stikine. My view is that this system is also outdated and needs updating and is potentially contradictory to many of the sustainability provisions that this bill puts in place. I look forward to unpacking the reasoning behind the continuing use of this system further at committee stage.

Finally, my main concern with regards to this bill concerns the government’s ability to effectively implement it. I’m left wondering if the government currently possesses and will continue to possess the necessary resources and internal capacity to enforce many of the provisions in this bill.

The overall downsizing of the public service is starting to cause alarm bells to go off in certain areas, especially with regards to available scientific expertise and enforcement. Cuts in the scientific capacity of government will have a negative effect on its ability to manage its natural resources. This comes at a time when the stresses that are placed on our resources have never been more diverse and more complicated. I hope that we can include a discussion on this important topic as the bill moves through committee stage.

In summary, Bill 18 provides a broad framework for a new water management system in British Columbia. However, many of the details are left to regulations that have yet to be written, and so, ultimately, the overall success of this bill will be judged once these regulations become public. I believe it’s essential for the government to continue to offer British Columbians an opportunity to provide feedback as the regulations are developed.

Finally, as I began, I’d like to finish by congratulating the minister for tabling this historic bill. I very much look forward to working with her going forward to make sure that this bill lives up to its full potential.

Media Statement: April 2nd, 2014
Andrew Weaver and BC Green Party Interim Leader Adam Olsen Approved as Intervenors in NEB Trans Mountain Pipeline Hearings

For Immediate Release

Victoria BC – The National Energy Board has issued the list of approved interveners and commentators for the upcoming hearings on the proposed Kinder Morgan – Trans Mountain pipeline project. Out of more than 2100 applicants, 1250 have been accepted to comment and 400 to submit evidence as intervenors and question the proponents, with the formal process to be completed by July 2015.

As the only British Columbia MLA to receive intervenor status, Andrew Weaver’s application was approved both as an individual with relevant information or expertise and as a representative of a directly affected group, the provincial constituency of Oak Bay-Gordon Head. As a scientist, Andrew Weaver will be able to directly question the current knowledge and research on the behavior of diluted bitumen in marine environments, and as a representative of Oak Bay – Gordon Head, he will be seeking input from his constituents as to their concerns about what the impact of greater tanker traffic and potential spills will have in their community.

“I believe that my constituents have the right to have their voices represented and their concerns addressed in these hearings. I look forward to engaging with the community on the potential impacts of this project.” said Andrew Weaver

Adam Olsen, Interim Leader of the BC Green Party, also received intervenor status and will be questioning the legality of the pipeline proposal under the Douglas Treaty and the risks to First Nations and commercial fishing should a spill occur.

“There has been a complete lack of meaningful consultation with First Nations by Kinder Morgan and the Government of Canada. We do not know the impacts on First Nations’ and commercial fisheries if a diluted bitumen spill were to happen on the south coast. There are serious questions to answer,” said Adam Olsen.

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

Tens of thousands of people in BC have voiced their opposition to the recent passing of Bill 4 – the Park Amendment Act. They are demanding its repeal because of fears around industrial development taking priority over the protection of our most significant areas of ecological diversity and natural beauty. I share many of their concerns.

The Problem with Bill 4 – the Park Amendment Act.

The Park Amendment Act is a controversial piece of legislation that now allows the BC Government to issue park use permits for activities that are not necessarily related to the mandate and purpose of our BC parks. The Act allows for permits to be issued for two general categories: film production and research.

Previously, for a park use permit to be granted the applicant had to prove that the activity, for which they required the permit, was necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved. Bill 4 changes this.

Now, the Minister of the Environment has the ability to issue permits that fall under the vague and undefined term “research” for any type of “feasibility study” for any kind of “prescribed project”.

Without any limitations on what these studies or projects might entail, without any guidelines for how the studies or projects are to be assessed, and without defining the term “research”, the Act, in essence, can allow for a park use permit to be issued for virtually any type of activity. The language is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. In theory, I could sip a beer while watching Hockey Night in Canada and qualify and call this research as part of a ‘feasibility study’ under this Act. Conversely, exploratory drilling could also fall into this category.

To be fair, there are regulations within the Ministry that do define the term research, and there are guidelines over assessing what kind of activities are to be allowed in BC parks. However, they are not law – they are regulations, and they can be changed by the ministry without any public consultation, public debate, or public scrutiny. The passing of Bill 4 means that the law protecting our Parks has been weakened, while the ministry has increased its power and adopted a “trust us” approach.

It is also important to acknowledge that, under the existing Park Act, no major industrial project can actually occur within a protected area. If a major project wants to cross a park, the general practice in BC allows for proponents to propose a boundary adjustment to a park in order to accommodate their project. This proposal then is reviewed by the ministry and if a park boundary is to be changed it must be passed in the Legislative Assembly.

Bill 4 doesn’t change that. It simply allows research permits to be issued to conduct a “feasibility study” on a “prescribed project” (a pipeline or a road for example). This doesn’t mean the project will go through, and it doesn’t mean the research will be benign, but it does signify that industry might be able to get an earlier foot in the door towards applying for a boundary adjustment change, and may invest significant capital in doing so.

Adding to the uncertainty surrounding the underlying motivation for this Bill is the fact that a number of BC parks are facing possible boundary adjustments in order to accommodate major industrial projects. Under a Freedom of Information request submitted last year, the Ministry of Environment released which parks stand to be affected by certain projects. For example, the proposed Kinder Morgan Pipeline Expansion alone is expected to affect nine provincial parks and will require significant boundary adjustments to at least three of these parks. Furthermore, given the BC Liberals push for natural resource development, it’s no surprise that so many people are suspicious of this Act, and are worried that its purpose is merely to expedite industries application process.

Holding the Government to Account

When it was introduced, Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act, clearly did not have the social license to proceed. The proposed changes caught most people by surprise, major environmental groups condemned it, and the Bill was strongly opposed in the Legislature.

Working with the official opposition, I spoke against the Bill, highlighting the concerning and vague language used as well as the lack of public consultation and support for instituting these changes. I proposed that before passing in the House, the Bill should at least go to a committee review stage, in order to give the government time to build up the social license needed for this bill and to address the many concerns voiced. I also proposed amendments to the Bill, including adding a definition for “research”, as a way of trying to ensure that the Bill did not undermine the mandate and purpose of our Parks. Unfortunately, these were defeated by the government.

What Happened in the House 

Despite being given opportunities to engage the public, and despite the public outcry, Bill 4 – the Park Amendment Act, received royal assent on March 24, 2014. In defending the bill, Honourable Mary Polak, the Minister for the Environment stated that “the intention of this amendment is to provide the legal statutory certainty for the granting of research permits, commercial filming permits, that we have granting but have been advised that we do not have sufficient legal certainty in order to proceed as we have.” She assured the house that the 30-page Park Act still “contains all the guidance necessary to ensure that we don’t have mining in our parks, that we don’t have drilling for oil in our parks, that we don’t have major industrial activities taking place in our parks”. As British Columbian, our job is now to ensure the minister is true to her words.

Should we be concerned?

At roughly 14 million hectares, British Columbia has the third largest park system in North America (second only to the federal parks system of Canada and the US). Over 14.4% of the province is protected under the Parks system, and over 90% of British Columbians have visited a provincial park at some point in their lives and 60% regularly visit at least one park each year.

Over the last 10 years our parks have undergone 44 boundary changes totaling roughly 811 hectares of lost park land. Although only 8 of these changes were for proponent-based projects (industrial projects), the rest being largely administrative in nature, this number accounted for almost 70% of the total area removed from our parks. Clearly, although they only account for a small number of total adjustments, the proponent-based industrial projects are the ones that have the biggest impact to our Parks.

Equally important however is that this is a relatively small amount of land when it is taken in the context of 14 million hectares that are protected. In addition, just a few weeks ago that number was increased by 55,000 hectares.

The good news is that even though this Bill does allow for research permits to be granted, possibly for major industrial projects, the park boundary would have to be changed before the project itself could be approved. For our provincial parks, any boundary change has to come through the legislative assembly. And here, at least, there is an avenue for public attention and debate to occur over a park boundary change. You can be assured that I will be closely monitoring any future park boundary changes.

Bill 4 is a piece of legislation that is far too vague and gives too much power to the ministry. It clearly did not have the social license needed and continues to face strong opposition. If used inappropriately the Bill has the potential to undermine the legislated protection of our Parks. For these reasons I opposed its passage in the house, and will do whatever I can to ensure it is not used to abuse the underlying purpose of our Parks (as detailed in the BC Parks Mission Statement):

BC Parks is committed to serving British Columbians and their visitors by protecting and managing for future generations a wide variety of outstanding park lands which represent the best natural features and diverse wilderness environments of the province. 

The Next Steps

I’ve tried to lay out a balanced and fact-based approach to this legislation. You can read why I opposed the Bill here and what I said in a subsequent post here.

I hope that this post helps people to understand this issue, its complexity, and the importance that will now be placed on ensuring that every boundary adjustment is transparent and fully understood so that our park system remains protected and continues to serve the interests of British Columbians.

If you are concerned about this Act, here are some options available to you:

1 – Sign a Petition

Some groups have called for an appeal to this Bill. It can be found here.

2 – Write a Letter

The minister has explained that this was essentially a housekeeping Bill — one that gave the ministry the legal authority to do what it had already been doing. However, my main criticism of this Bill, aside from the use of incredibly vague language, is that it clearly did not have the required social license to move forward. If you share this concern I would encourage you to write to the minister about your views on the process, and how in the future the government needs to first engage in public consultation, before imposing such a controversial bill. Please provide me with a cc of your letter so that I can speak to your concerns in the future.