Issues & Community Blog - Andrew Weaver: A Climate for Hope - Page 196

How many of us plan for bankruptcy? Very few. Unfortunately, it happens far too often. When it occurs, individuals inevitably struggle to rebuild their lives in the hope that one day they will become financially stable once more.

Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs) were first introduced federally in 1957. Legislation enabling Registered Retirement Income Funds (RRIFs) was subsequently brought forward in the late 1970’s thereby permitting seniors to withdraw their RRSP funds over time instead of all at once or through purchase of an annuity. Since that time, most provinces, including British Columbia, have recognized the importance of protecting RRSPs and RRIFs from creditors in the event of personal bankruptcy. They have passed legislation to protect RRSPs and RRIFs from being seized during bankruptcy. This provides a bankrupt individual a glimmer of hope that they will not be destitute in their old age. Here in British Columbia, such seizures are governed by the 1996 Court Order Enforcement Act.

In 2008 the Federal Government passed legislation to allow for the creation of Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSPs). The RDSP is a federal, tax-deferred, long-term savings plan for people with disabilities who want to save for the future. Unfortunately, under the Court Order Enforcement Act,  RDSPs  are not listed as a registered plan in BC’s legislation and are therefore not exempt from creditor protection. Therefore, should an individual with an RDSP go into debt, their savings in the RDSP will not be protected from seizure.

Today in the Legislature I posed the the following question to the Minister of Justice:

A. Weaver: Most provinces, including British Columbia, have recognized the importance of protecting RRSPs and RIFs from creditors in the event of personal bankruptcy. They’ve passed legislation to protect these registered plans from being seized during bankruptcy. This provides a bankrupt individual a glimmer of hope that they will not be destitute in their old age. Here in B.C. such seizures are governed by the 1996 Court Order Enforcement Act. In 2008 the federal government passed legislation to allow for the creation of registered disability savings plans. These are called RDSPs. The RDSP is a tax-deferred, long-term savings plan for people with disabilities who want to save for the future. Unfortunately, under the same act, RDSPS are not listed as a registered plan and are therefore not exempt from creditor protection. My question is to the Justice Minister. It’s this. Does the government have a plan to provide creditor protection for disabled individuals as in, for example, the province of Alberta?

The Minister of Justice responded:

Hon. S. Anton: I thank the member opposite for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, because it is an important one. Our government is committed to modernizing our laws and keeping them up with protecting our vulnerable citizens. When new things come along, like this particular plan, it has to keep up as well. It is an important issue for people with disabilities and their families. We are looking at it as part of the general review of the Court Order Enforcement Act. We’re looking at our legislation. We’re comparing it with other provinces to ensure harmonization. There are complex questions attached to the issue, I’m told, but we will be looking at those. I’d be glad to keep the member abreast of where we’re going and keep him involved in the discussion, because it is a matter that needs to be addressed

The Federal Government has also created the Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) designed to allow parents to save for their children’s education after they graduate from high school.

Today in the House, I also posed the supplemental question to the Minister of Justice:

A. Weaver: The province of Alberta actually, just this past December, also passed legislation to provide creditor protection for RESPs, the registered educational savings plans. My question again is: does the government have a similar plan to protect a child who, through no fault of their own, might see their education investment seized by creditors?

The Minister of Justice responded:

Hon. S. Anton: Again, I would be very glad to have a look at that one as well. I think that the thoughts behind it are the same. I appreciate the member bringing it to our attention. I would be glad to work with him moving forward on it.

Both these answers are very reassuring and I look forward to working with government and the official opposition to bring in legislation that modernizes the Court Order Enforcement Act.

The province of Alberta has already taken such measures and amended their Civil Enforcement Act to include RDSPs under Section 92.1(I): Exemption of registered plans and registered disability savings plans. On December 13, 2013, legislation in Alberta received Royal Assent thereby also protecting RESPs from creditors.

By ensuring the financial security and well-being of those living with disabilities, we are not only providing the individuals and their loved ones with a sense of security, we are also reducing the strain on social services that incurs when individuals are unable to care for themselves. By also including RESPs in section 71.3 of the Court Order Enforcement Act, we are protecting children who, through no fault of their own, might see their education investment seized by creditors.

As the MLA for Oak Bay Gordon Head, I am always seeking innovative ways of canvassing the opinions of my constituents, as well as British Columbians from across our province, on important issues facing us all. Building upon our public outreach and engagement efforts to date, we have launched a page on PoliSourceBC, a new crowdsourcing platform.

As we move forward, I will be conducting numerous polls on emerging topics.  My goal is to get a sense of where people stand on issues that potentially affect them.  By asking you to provide your postal code, we are able to break down the responses by region.

Our first poll concerns the transport of diluted bitumen in tankers on BC coastal waters.  To vote,  please click here.

Media Statement: March 6, 2014
Greens and NDP support further Public Consultation on Parks Amendment Act
For Immediate Release

Victoria BC – Today Andrew Weaver, for the second day in a row, worked with the official opposition to provide the government the ability to build the social license needed for the Park Amendment Act to move forward. The Park Amendment Act has received considerable opposition from numerous stakeholders across the province and it is clear that further engagement with British Columbians is warranted before the government makes these substantial changes to the legislation governing BC parks.

Yesterday, the NDP tabled a motion that would have delayed the passing of this Bill for a further six months giving the government an opportunity to engage British Columbians and address their concerns. Andrew supported the motion, arguing that the lack of “Public trust” was “a critical component of why [he was] supporting this amendment”.

Weaver argued in the house:

“Good governance requires outreach and consultation on controversial topics, and I encourage the government to actively engage the citizens of British Columbia in public forums before enacting this bill. The time proposed in the amendment is critical to allow for successful public buy-in of this bill.”

MLA Weaver gave his full support to the NDP motion; unfortunately, the motion was defeated.

Today, the Green Party MLA noted that “the government did not feel that the delay of this bill was in their interest” and he reiterated his view that “the Park Amendment Act does not have the social license to move forward.”  He then introduced a different amendment on the Park Amendment Act: to send the Bill to a committee.

Weaver argued that “Moving the Bill to a committee would allow for the multi-partisan engagement of stakeholders, it would show that the government is listening to the concerns of British Columbians, and it would ensure that the development of the language of this Bill satisfies the concerns of its many critics.”

In another notable show of multi-partisan cooperation, many members in the caucus of the official opposition spoke and voted in support of Weaver’s amendment. The motion to amend was voted down by the Government.

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

Earlier this session the government introduced Bill 4 – the Park Amendment Act. This act essentially allows the government to issue park permits for two activities that are unrelated to the mandate and purpose of our parks. The first is that park-use permits can now be issued for film production. Generally I support this development, and think that it could provide a boost to our film industry. The second is that park-use permits can now be issued for “research” activities.

Prior to this legislation, park-use permits could not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minster, they were necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park. This Bill now allows park-use permits for film production and for ‘research’.

Research can mean different things to different people. Research can mean a study on an endangered species, or it can mean exploratory drilling. Some types of research seem appropriate for our parks and fall within the purpose and mandate of our parks, others do not. Leaving out a definition of research without any parameters around what will and will not be allowed under a ‘feasibility study’ is leaving our parks open to possible industrial development in the future.

Current regulations and policy does define and constrain research activities that will be undertaken in our parks. However, regulations and policy can change without any public input and without public announcement. Legislation, on the other hand, is openly debated in parliament.

There is a lack of public trust on this issue. There is a lack of public trust that government has the best interests of our parks in mind, particularly given the strong opposition to pipelines going through our province. Instead of unilaterally weakening the laws that protect our Parks, the government should instead undertake an extensive public consultation in order to obtain the social license that is critical for this type of change to the Parks Act.

Today in the house I stated that:

“Public trust is a key component of why I am opposing this Bill. The public does not know why this Bill is being brought forward, and does not necessarily trust government to ensure that this Bill will not undermine our parks. Although the policies and regulations around the issuance of research permits do have specific constraints, these policies can be easily changed without going through the legislature. Today the public is concerned about pipelines and large industrial projects going through our province, and it is not surprising, therefore, that this legislation which weakens the requirements for the issuance park permits, has faced considerable backlash. Indeed, of the legislation introduced thus far this session, this Bill has gained the most significant and controversial media attention that I have seen in quite some time.”

I also stated that “Our parks are world-renowned and are a huge part of our tourism industry, they are enjoyed by thousands of British Columbians every year, and in many ways, represent the best that “Beautiful British Columbia” has to offer. This legislation weakens the current legislation of the Parks Act, and there are many who fear that it paves the way for industrial projects through our parks.”

Understanding the concerns around this Bill my staff and I were prepared to call for an amendment to delay the enactment of the Bill, allowing for public engagement and clarification of the Act. However, before I spoke to the Bill the official opposition, sharing many of my concerns, introduced an amendment calling for a delay of 6 months on the enactment of Bill 4. This is a move I fully support.

My Views towards the Bill in Full

The Park Amendment Act, introduced earlier this session, has some elements to it that I believe warrant support. In particular I was happy to see the inclusion of a more streamlined and accessible park permit issue process for activities related to film production. This legislation will likely attract additional filming business to the province, and I applaud the government for its foresight in including film production components in this Bill.

However, I have considerable concerns around how the concept of “research” is being proposed in this Bill. Good research is an integral part of forming good policy and I am a firm believer in the principle of evidenced-based decision making. The problem with how this legislation uses the term ‘research’ is that it does not define the term, it does not give any limiting parameters around what types of research would or would not be allowed, and it provides no guidelines on how the research activity is to be conducted. I am aware that there is a definition for research as well as guidelines around how research permits can be issued within the parks policy, but herein lies the problem. Policy and regulations can be changed and modified without public input or awareness, in contrast, modifying legislation has a clear accountability process.

The reason why we have parks in this province is to preserve and protect the most outstanding natural environments and ecologically diverse areas of British Columbia. Our parks exist for the use and enjoyment of British Columbians today and for the future generations of tomorrow. Indeed, the mission of BC parks is to “protect representative and special natural places within the provinces Protected Areas System for world class conservation, outdoor recreation, and education.” Furthermore, in its mandate BC Parks outlines its commitment to British Columbians through:

• 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.
• providing province-wide opportunities for a diversity of high quality and safe outdoor recreation that is compatible with protecting the natural environment.
• Maintaining British Columbia’s ecological diversity through the preservation of representative, and special natural ecosystems, plant and animal species, features and phenomena.

Operating on this understanding of the purpose of our parks, this Bill fails to define research in a way that ensures that the mandate and underlying purpose of why our Parks exist, is not undermined. One definition of research that I would argue is compatible with the mandate of our parks is one used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This organization defines research as “experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view.”[1] I would like to draw attention to that last section of this definition and highlight that research in this sense is done, and I quote, “without any particular application or use in view”. Being a scientist by trade, I believe this definition encompasses the spirit of what good research in our Parks should entail.

For example, research that is focused on understanding the endangered Vancouver Island Marmot within the Haley Lake Ecological Reserve is, in my opinion, entirely acceptable as the underlying motivation of the research is to acquire new knowledge of this species. This type of research is also directly compatible with the mandate and purpose of our Parks.  In comparison, exploratory drilling ‘research’ or widespread ore-sampling ‘research’ in the same type of protected area is not acceptable, as the motivation behind this type of research is likely for an industrial project which would directly contradict the mandate and purpose of our Parks. In my view, this latter type of research that supports a specific application or project within our parks, and which also inherently works against the purpose and mandate of our Parks, is problematic to say the least.

The proposed legislation will overrule previous clauses of the Park Act which ensure park use permits are not be granted unless it is clear that the permits “will not be detrimental to the recreational value of the park”. Current legislation also states that permits “must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, it is necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved”. By allowing park use permits to be issued around this vague concept of ‘research’, particularly research focused on undertaking a “feasibility study” for virtually any type of “prescribed project”, we are opening our Parks to special interests whose intentions may not align with the interests of British Columbians.  It seems to me that this legislation is, intentionally or not, prioritizing industrial proposals over the preservation and protection of the parks of British Columbia. Given that we are discussing protected crown lands meant to preserve and protect places of ecological sensitivity, the habitats of endangered species, or places of historical and natural significance, should there not at least be some basic guidelines imbedded in the legislation around what type of research can be conducted and how it must take place?

Public trust is a key component of why I am opposing this Bill. The public does not know why this Bill is being brought forward, and does not necessarily trust government to ensure that this Bill will not undermine our parks. Although the policies and regulations around the issuance of research permits do have specific constraints, these policies can be easily changed without going through the legislature. Today the public is concerned about pipelines and large industrial projects going through our province, and it is not surprising, therefore, that this legislation which weakens the requirements for the issuance park permits, has faced considerable backlash. Indeed, of the legislation introduced thus far this session, this Bill has gained the most significant and controversial media attention. Six of the leading environmental organizations that are active in this province and which have memberships representing many tens of thousands of British Columbians, have condemned this Bill. Good governance requires outreach and consultation on controversial topics and I encourage the government to actively engage the citizens of British Columbia in public forums before enacting Bill 4

Our parks are world-renowned and are a huge part of our tourism industry, they are enjoyed by thousands of British Columbians every year, and in many ways, represent the best that “Beautiful British Columbia” has to offer. This legislation weakens the current legislation of the Parks Act, and there are many who fear that it paves the way for industrial projects through our parks.

As the Bill does not define the term research, and does not outline what constitutes a valid research activity within the protected areas of British Columbia, I cannot support this Bill. Before this legislation is passed I ask the government to explicitly define the term research, to produce research guidelines that would ensure any research activity done within our Parks would follow specific rules, and to amend the definition of a “feasibility study” to contain specific limitations and parameters which would ensure that these feasibility studies are compatible with the mandate of our Parks. Furthermore, as this research will take place on public lands, I believe that the Bill should clarify that any research activity which receives a park-use permit must be done in a manner that is consistent with the long-term health and purpose of the park. I ask that all of these requests be enshrined within legislation.

I think that in BC right now, there is a general lack of public trust at this juncture for changes to the way parks are administered, particularly with the uncertainty around major pipeline projects. Despite some positive aspects to the legislation, the fact that the public does not trust the reasons why government is making amendments to the Park Act is a serious concern.

I question whether the government has obtained the necessary social licence to make changes that could contribute to streamlining the development of industrial projects in our parks – projects which in some cases, a majority of British Columbians are opposed to.

I am opposed to the nature and direction that this legislation currently takes, and I urge the government to carefully consider the long-term consequences of passing this bill as it stands today.

Media Statement: March 4th, 2014
Expansion of Carbon Neutral Capital Program Welcome News
For Immediate Release

Victoria BC – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, is welcoming the expansion of the Carbon Neutral Capital Program announced by The Honourbale Mary Polak, Minister of Environment today. Currently the program provides $5 million annually to school districts for improvements and upgrades to buildings and services for energy efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The extension will provide an extra $9.5 million for post-secondary institutions and health authorities.

“What is critical is that this leaves in place the Carbon Neutral Government legislation requiring the public sector to show leadership in emissions reductions. I support the expansion of the capital program to hospitals, universities and colleges. In a media release last November I also called for the government to go further to develop an offset program and provide capital funds for the conversion of school bus fleets and BC Ferries to run on compressed or liquefied natural gas. While this is good news, I remain concerned the expansion of hydraulic fracking and proposals for LNG export plants will put our legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets in jeopardy” said Andew Weaver

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