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

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

My Justification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response from BC Liberal House Leader – Mike de Jong

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

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

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

Response from BC NDP House Leader – Mike Farnworth

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

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

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

Press Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-30-

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

Backgrounder – Summer 2015 Extreme Weather Events

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

Wildfires

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

Water

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

Fish

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

Air Quality

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

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

Temperature

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

Standing Order 35

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

Adjournment on Matter of Urgent
Public Importance

Adjournment for special purposes.

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

Making statement.

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

Written statement to Speaker.

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

Decision.

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

Speaker may defer decision.

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

Debate may be deferred.

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

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

Motion on Friday.

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

Time limits.

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

Mover: 15 minutes
Other Members: 10 minutes each

Debate concluded.

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

Restrictions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview on CKNW

From November 30 to December 11, 2015, world leaders will gather in Paris in an attempt once more to negotiate an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hence global warming. Below I provide my thoughts in the lead up to this international convention.

Since the establishment of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 that came into force in 1994 and is now ratified by 195 nations, there have been twenty Conferences of Parties. There are high expectations that the upcoming twenty-first Conference of Parties (COP21) in Paris later this year will deliver an international agreement that will allow the UNFCCC to attain its objective of “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

But this is not the first time high expectations have preceded and subsequently followed a COP. In 1997 at COP3 the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC was adopted wherein Annex I nations agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels on average by 2008-2012. While the Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2005, the lack of its binding nature, combined with Canada formally pulling out of the agreement in 2012 and the United States never ratifying it, watered down its effectiveness.

Similarly, expectations leading up to COP15 in Copenhagen were almost euphoric that a post Kyoto agreement would be reached. In the end COP15 was a disappointment. The so-called Copenhagen Accord, taken note of, as opposed to being agreed to, by the Conference of Parties outlined a loose set of aspirational goals supported by 114 nations. As part of the Copenhagen Accord, countries submitted voluntary reduction targets with the aim of holding the global temperature increase to less than 2°C. But as noted by, Rogelj (2010) if countries actually met their non-binding targets, it would be virtually certain that warming would exceed this amount. The disconnect between science and international policy is clearly quite profound.

Whether or not society chooses to take the necessary steps to mitigate climate change ultimately depends on the extent to which we value the importance of intergenerational equity. Ultimately and collectively we must ask ourselves whether or not we believe that future generations are entitled to the same environmental well-being and biodiversity that has been afforded our generation. What is clear from our scientific understanding of global warming is that the decisions being made today will have profound consequences for generations to come; yet future generations are not part of today’s decision making and today’s decision makers won’t have to live the consequences of the decisions they make.

Science can never be used to answer a question concerning the importance of intergenerational equity nor can it ever be used to prescribe a particular policy. However, science is able to examine the implications of various policy options. Policy can also be developed or modified to reflect the latest science. But in the end, the formulation of policy requires engaging a variety of stakeholders including special interests, religious groups, and industry. It also requires dealing with ethical, political, legal, financial and social issues including any potential application of the precautionary principle.

One thing that seems clear is that the nonbinding international climate treaty process to date has been a colossal failure. The negotiations have played out like a textbook example of the tragedy of the commons. It is in every person’s best financial interest to do absolutely nothing about greenhouse gas mitigation since the cost of action is borne by the individual yet the cost of inaction is distributed amongst billions of people in the generations to come.

Perhaps as we move forward with the COP process a more useful role for the United Nations at this juncture would be to attempt to reach agreement on an internationally acceptable price trajectory for carbon emissions. Such carbon pricing might include provisions that allow carbon tariffs to be added to imports from nations that have not implemented a domestic carbon pricing policy. For without global efforts to ensure the internalization of externalities associated with these emissions, it seems unlikely that announcing more non-binding aspirational reduction targets will be an effective mitigative tool. We’ve had more than two decades of evidence that this process has not worked.

Here science can be helpful in informing international pricing discussions by recognizing that warming responds near-linearly to cumulative carbon emissions. This allows for the calculation of the allowable emissions required to ensure future warming is below some specified (say 2°C) level (Weaver 2008; Allen et al., 2009; Meinshausen et al., 2009; Zickfeld et al., 2009).

Whether or not such discussions take place of course relies upon political will. The barriers to introducing climate change policy that would ensure a sustainable future are neither technological nor behavioural. They are almost purely political. For until such time as our elected leaders recognize and subsequently act upon the knowledge that the long-term climatic impacts of their decisions, or more appropriately lack thereof, are very serious, we see little prospect of meaningful international agreements being reached through the UNFCCC process.

Right now, Metro Vancouver is embroiled in a court case with Fraser Surrey Docks LP (FSD). The outcome of that case, which is being fought over a relatively minor $1000 fine, will have important implications for our province’s ability to regulate air quality.

Here’s the essence of it: Air quality falls within provincial jurisdiction. This means that the provincial government has the power to set and enforce air quality standards. The British Columbia government has chosen to delegate some of that authority to Metro Vancouver so that it can enforce those standards on behalf of the province. When Metro Vancouver tried to enforce its standards on FSD after soy bean dust was discharged in a manner contrary to regulations, the port refused to pay the fine. Their view is that ports are federal lands, under federal jurisdiction— provincial air quality laws do not apply in the same way. So the courts now have to decide if the province has the power to regulate air quality at FSD.

Why does this matter?

Because if the province can regulate air quality on port lands, it could theoretically use that power to stop certain port activities, like the expansion of thermal coal exports that is currently underway at FSD.

Thermal coal is the single biggest contributor to global warming. Unlike metallurgical coal, which is mined in B.C, thermal coal passing through our ports largely comes from the U.S., meaning that it contributes to only a handful of B.C. jobs. Stopping the expansion of these exports would represent an important step forward in the transition to a low carbon economy.

Yet, there’s also a bigger issue here: British Columbians should have a right to regulate their own air quality. After all, we’re the ones that breathe it.

Given the significance of this court case for our province, I asked the government to clarify its role. Specifically, I asked:

1. What is the government’s position on the validity of the ticket (#006035) issued to Fraser Surrey Docks LP by the Greater Vancouver Regional District for the discharge of air contaminants?
2. In your government’s opinion, how far reaching are the powers surrounding air quality that you have delegated to the Greater Vancouver Regional District? Do they include federal port lands?
3. What is the historic and current involvement of the province in this case?
4. Following question three, does the province have any plans to either remain involved or get involved in this case in the future? If so, what are these plans?

Yesterday, I received a disappointing response from the Minister of the Environment, Mary Polak. While her letter acknowledged the importance of the court case, she was clear that the government “will await the court’s decision before commenting further.”

I understand the desire not to comment on a matter that is before the courts. Yet, I would hope that with an issue as fundamental as the quality of our air, our government would be more open with British Columbians about the role they are taking in the case.

The courts will rule in the coming months on the validity of this air quality permit. When they do, we should all be looking to the provincial government to see what it will do to help stop the expansion of thermal coal exports and to protect our right to healthy air in B.C.

Today I had the distinct pleasure of meeting with a large group of individuals concerned about the plight of our Pacific wild salmon stocks. They included Alexandra Morton, who many will know from the documentary Salmon Confidential, Stan Porboszcz from Watershed Watch, Karen Wristen from Living Oceans Society, Sabra Woodworth from Salmon Are Sacred, Eddie Gardner from the Skwah First Nation, Jefferey Young from the David Suzuki Foundation, Torrance Coste from Wilderness Committee,  Dr. Jeff Matthews, president of Sea Shepherd Canada, Bonny Glambeck from Clayoquot Action, Joseph Martin from the Tla-o-qui-aht First nation council, and Dawn Morrison from the Indigenous Food System Network.

I was afforded the honour of introducing a petition by 108,848 people who are asking the government to please not issue licences of occupation to salmon farms trying to expand in British Columbia. I also introduced a second petition signed by more than 100 business organizations across the province who supported the individuals who signed the larger petition. The business organizations argued that they are convinced by the published scientific evidence that open net salmon farms are a threat to B.C. wild pacific salmon.

Finally, in Question period I explored what steps (if any) government is taking to stop the expansion of open-pen fish farms on sockeye salmon migration routes. Below I provide videos and text of my exchange with the Minister of Agriculture as well as my submission of the petitions.

I have made it a practice to always give government my initial question so I can get an informed response. I do not provide my supplementary question as it will depend on the Minister’s response. The Minister has promised me a more substantive answer to my questions in the coming weeks. I very much look forward to receiving the information.

Video of Question

Question

A. Weaver: The Cohen commission recommended that fish farms not be located on sockeye salmon migration routes, yet this week millions of sockeye fry will be migrating past fish farms in the Discovery Passage and Broughton Archipelago.

Scientific research has suggested a link between fish farm lice outbreaks and the spread of diseases like the piscine reovirus, salmonid alphavirus and the infectious salmon anemia virus The spread, obviously, of such diseases would have grave environmental, cultural and economic consequences for the province of British Columbia, let alone Canada.

Finally, a first in North America, the ‘Namgis Nation on northern Vancouver Island is farming Atlantic salmon at a land-based facility without posing any disease or sea lice threat to wild salmon.

To the Minister of Agriculture: what is the government doing to stop the expansion of open-pen fish farms in the ocean and to promote the creation of more operations like the one the ‘Namgis Nation operates?

Answer

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Our government is committed to the socially and ecologically responsible management of B.C. fisheries, including an environmentally and economically sustainable aquaculture industry for the benefit of all British Columbians.

We place the health of all wild fisheries, including salmon, as paramount. That’s why the government works with our federal counterparts and aquaculture operators to monitor for diseases and is prepared to implement a prompt, coordinated and science-based response if necessary.

I want to remind the members opposite that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that the jurisdiction of licensing is that of the federal government and tenures is that of the provincial government.

The approval for licensing on the federal government side is quite high. They look for applications that can be rejected for anything to do with biotoxins, water quality, impacts to the environment, impacts to spawning areas, cumulative impact to fisheries and impact to navigable waters.

It’s also very high on the province’s role. We accept Land Act applications for new salmon aquaculture sites from companies that demonstrate world-class standards for resource sustainability.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for referring to the Supreme Court ruling, which in fact, actually, ensures that the province continues to retain jurisdiction over issuing land tenures that designate the area a fish farm will occupy.

Although section 8 of the Land Use Operational Policy for Aquaculture cites the provincial government’s sustainability principles as informing leasing decisions, current operating practices indicate these values are not being adequately applied.

Earlier this month the federal court ruled against an aquaculture licence condition that allowed diseased fish to be transferred into open-pen fish farms, and DFO — that’s federal, of course — has been given four months to fix this policy. Nevertheless, there remains provincial jurisdiction.

Given that we currently lack the regulations needed to verify the presence and control the spread of pathogens in farmed salmon, will the Minister of Agriculture today commit to stop granting new licences of occupation for this industry on sockeye salmon migration routes?

Answer

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, I have to repeat that the government is committed to the socially and ecologically responsible management of B.C. fisheries. That’s why we employ two of the outstanding experts in fish biology right here in British Columbia. That’s why we have the great lab in Abbotsford, to make sure we continue testing for fish diseases.

The federal government is conducting a surveillance program on ISA, as the member has said, and the status of three viruses on the west coast — ISA, IHN and PRV. So far all results were negative, no virus.

When we look at IHN, they tested a total of 1,300 B.C. wild salmon and trout for IHN in 2012-2013. Again, all were negative, no virus.

Sea lice are native to B.C. waters, like many other wild animals which have a population cycle trend. What they find is the more that come during one season, the more potential for sea lice in the following season.

Once again, we take very seriously our role in the provision of licensing and also in tenuring. We will continue to hold those values very high to make sure that our wild salmon are protected in British Columbia.

Postscript

On Thursday, May 28, the Minister of Agriculture rose in the house to clarify and correct a response he gave me above. I am very grateful to the Minister for correcting the record. Below is the text of his clarification.

Hon. N. Letnick: Yesterday during question period in an effort to condense my answer to a member’s question, I accidentally grouped PRV with ISA and IHN. I just want to make sure I put on the record the correct answer. What I would like to clarify to the House regarding PRV, or piscine reovirus, is that many reoviruses are viruses without a disease. To date PRV is common in B.C. farmed fish and some wild fish, but it’s not associated with any disease.

Indeed, published scientific evidence indicates that PRV predates the introduction of salmon farming to our province. Some scientists think PRV is the cause of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, HSMI, a disease that affects farmed Atlantic salmon in Europe. Recent research shows that the type of PVR in Europe is different from the type of PRV in B.C. Lastly, HSMI does not occur in British Columbia.

Thank you for allowing me to clear up the record.

Video of Petition Submissions

Submission of First Petition Text

I would like to present a petition on this — probably the most irresponsible fiscal decision the government has ever made — day in the B.C. Legislature.

This is a petition by 108,848 people who are asking the government to please not issue licences of occupation to salmon farms trying to expand in British Columbia. The rationale for that I outlined in question period.

This petition very clearly identifies the wishes of British Columbians. This petition, I hope, is listened to by the government of British Columbia.

Submission of Second Petition Text

A. Weaver: I have a second petition.

Now this is a petition of over 100 business organizations across the province who are essentially supporting the 109,000 individuals who signed this. These business organizations are small business, umbrella organizations, environmental organizations, fly fishing organizations, river societies, sail societies— numerous societies across British Columbia.

They are asking that the following: we the undersigned are convinced by the published scientific evidence that open net salmon farms are a threat to B.C. wild pacific salmon.

Media Statement – May 19, 2015
Allan’s Withdrawal from Pipeline Hearings gives Urgency for Province to do the Same
For Immediate Release

Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, says that Robyn Allan’s withdrawal from the National Energy Board hearings on the Trans Mountain pipeline gives new urgency to his call that the provincial government pull out of the federal hearings and hold its own made-in-BC review.

“Robyn Allan was one of the real leaders in the Trans Mountain pipeline hearings,” says Andrew Weaver. “When someone as credible and as thoughtful as Robyn Allan writes such a scathing review of this process, we’d be wise to listen.”

Allan’s withdrawal comes just one month after the English Bay oil spill that saw several Vancouver beaches closed due to human health risks from the toxic oil slick. A recent report commissioned by the City of Vancouver emphasised the dire consequences for marine life should a larger spill occur.

An economist and former CEO of ICBC, Allan has been one of the most active intervenors in the NEB hearings. When it was discovered that oral cross-examination had been excluded from the review, Allan led intervenors in what was ultimately an unsuccessful effort to get it reinstated. The lack of oral cross-examination has been described as one of the deepest flaws in the hearing process, seriously undermining intervenors’ ability to evaluate Trans Mountain’s proposal.

Weaver is currently the only B.C. MLA with intervenor status in the hearings. He has been calling on the B.C. government to pull out and hold their own review process for more than six months.

“British Columbians have rightfully lost confidence in the Trans Mountain hearings. Our coastline is too important to leave up to such a flawed process. It’s time for the province to withdraw.”

Last week, Weaver tabled a Private Member’s Bill designed to help British Columbians regain control over the approval of oil pipelines. If passed, the bill would provide an additional tool to residences to force the B.C. government to pull out of the Federal-Provincial Environmental Assessment Equivalency Agreement and hold its own provincial review process.

-30-

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

Parliament Buildings
Room 027C
Victoria BC V8V 1X4