As promised, the BC Government today submitted a reference question to the B.C. Court of Appeal seeking a decision on whether of not it has the right to regulate heavy oil transportation across our province. In particular, it has asked the B.C. Court of Appeal three questions:

1. Is it within the legislative authority of the Legislature of British Columbia to enact legislation substantially in the form set out in the attached Appendix?
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, would the attached legislation be applicable to hazardous substances brought into British Columbia by means of interprovincial undertakings?
3. If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are yes, would existing federal legislation render all or part of the attached legislation inoperative?

As part of the submission, the province appended a potential amendment to the Environment Management Act (reproduced in the Appendix below) which it has asked the court to rule on.

The BC Green Caucus supports the government’s efforts in this regard and I append my media statement below.

Media Statement

Weaver statement on Kinder Morgan court reference case
For immediate release
April 26, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, issued the following response to the government’s court reference case.

“I am pleased to see the government is continuing to stand up for British Columbia,” said Weaver.

“Earlier this week, media reports uncovered further evidence that the approval process for this project was deeply flawed. It’s clear that the federal approval of this project was based on political calculation, not on evidence or the best interests of the public.

“There are significant gaps in scientific knowledge regarding the effects of a diluted bitumen spill. British Columbians are rightly concerned that a dilbit spill could significantly harm their health and safety, their local economy and their environment. Our caucus supports the government’s efforts to ensure these concerns are addressed and that our province is protected from hazardous materials that flow within its borders.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Appendix

The following Part is added to the Environmental Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 53:

PART 2.1 – HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE PERMITS

Purposes

22.1 The purposes of this Part are

(a) to protect, from the adverse effects of releases of hazardous substances,

(i) British Columbia’s environment, including the terrestrial, freshwater, marine and atmospheric environment,
(ii) human health and well-being in British Columbia, and
(iii) the economic, social and cultural vitality of communities in British Columbia, and

(b) to implement the polluter pays principle.

Interpretation

22.2 The definition of “permit” in section 1 (1) does not apply to this Part.

Requirement for hazardous substance permits

22.3

(1) In the course of operating an industry, trade or business, a person must not, during a calendar year, have possession, charge or control of a substance listed in Column 1 of the Schedule, and defined in Column 2 of the Schedule, in a total amount equal to or greater than the minimum amount set out in Column 3 of the Schedule unless a director has issued a hazardous substance permit to the person to do so.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who has possession, charge or control of a substance on a ship.

Issuance of hazardous substance permits

22.4

(1) Subject to subsection (2), on application by a person, a director may issue to the applicant a hazardous substance permit referred to in section 22.3 (1).

(2) Before issuing the hazardous substance permit, the director may require the applicant to do one or more of the following:

(a) provide information documenting, to the satisfaction of the director,

(i) the risks to human health or the environment that are posed by a release of the substance, and

(ii) the types of impacts that may be caused by a release of the substance and an estimate of the monetary value of those impacts;

(b) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that the applicant

(i) has appropriate measures in place to prevent a release of the substance,

(ii) has appropriate measures in place to ensure that any release of the substance can be minimized in gravity and magnitude, through early detection and early response, and

(iii) has sufficient capacity, including dedicated equipment and personnel, to be able to respond effectively to a release of the substance in the manner and within the time specified by the director;

(c) post security to the satisfaction of the director, or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that the applicant has access to financial resources including insurance, in order to ensure that the applicant has the capacity

(i) to respond to or mitigate any adverse environmental or health effects resulting from a release of the substance, and

(ii) to provide compensation that may be required by a condition attached to the permit under section 22.5 (b) (ii);

(d) establish a fund for, or make payments to, a local government or a first nation government in order to ensure that the local government or the first nation government has the capacity to respond to a release of the substance;

(e) agree to compensate any person, the government, a local government or a First Nations government for damages resulting from a release of the substance, including damages for any costs incurred in responding to the release, any costs related to ecological recovery and restoration, any economic loss and any loss of non-use value.

Conditions attached to hazardous substance permits

22.5 A director may, at any time, attach one or more of the following conditions to a hazardous substance permit:

(a) conditions respecting the protection of human health or the environment, including conditions requiring the holder of the permit

(i) to implement and maintain appropriate measures to prevent a release of the substance,

(ii) to implement and maintain appropriate measures to ensure that any release of the substance can be minimized in gravity and magnitude, through early detection and early response, and

(iii) to maintain sufficient capacity, including dedicated equipment and personnel, to be able to respond effectively to a release of the substance in the manner and within the time specified by the director;

(b) conditions respecting the impacts of a release of the substance, including conditions requiring the holder of the permit

(i) to respond to a release of a substance in the manner and within the time specified by the director, and

(ii) to compensate, without proof of fault or negligence, any person, the government, a local government or a First Nations government for damages referred to in section 22.4 (2) (e).

Suspension or cancellation of hazardous substance permits

22.6

(1) Subject to this section, a director, by notice served on the holder of a hazardous substance permit, may suspend the permit for any period or cancel the permit.

(2) A notice served under subsection (1) must state the time at which the suspension or cancellation takes effect.

(3) A director may exercise the authority under subsection (1) if a holder of a hazardous substance permit fails to comply with the conditions attached to the permit.

Restraining orders

22.7

(1) If a person, by carrying on an activity or operation, contravenes section 22.3 (1), the activity or operation may be restrained in a proceeding brought by the minister in the Supreme Court.

(2) The making of an order by the court under subsection (1) in relation to a matter does not interfere with the imposition of a penalty in respect of an offence in relation to the same contravention.

Offence and penalty

22.8 A person who contravenes section 22.3 (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $400 000 or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both.

Power to amend Schedule

22.9 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, add substances, their definitions and their minimum amounts to the Schedule and delete substances, their definitions and their minimum amounts from the Schedule.

2 The following Schedule is added:

SCHEDULE [section 22.3 (1)]

Substance: Heavy Oil

Definition of Substance:

a) a crude petroleum product that has an American Petroleum Institute gravity of 22 or less, or

b) a crude petroleum product blend containing at least one component that constitutes 30% or more of the volume of the blend and that has either or both of the following:

Minimum Amount of Substance:  

The largest annual amount of the annual amounts of the substance that the person had possession, charge or control of during each of 2013 to 2017.

In the lead up to the budget which is to be delivered at 2PM today, my BC Green Caucus colleagues and I continued to pressure government during Question Period to crack down on speculation and dubious transactions in our out of control housing market. Sadly, the BC Liberals have been utterly ineffective in Question Period by not using their time to raise key issues like this one facing British Columbians. We only get one question a day to probe what is going on and being done.

Today it was Sonia Furstenau’s turn. Tomorrow it will be my turn.

Sonia picked up on the very serious allegations identified in Kathy Tomlinson’s excellent story in the Globe and Mail this past weekend. In particular, she quizzed Minister Eby as to “how deep does this rot go?”. She further ask the Minister why he claimed it could take up to four years to fix the mess that has been created.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the exchange. The Minister’s responses were very thoughtful and quite damaging to the BC Liberal’s under whose watch things got out of control. The exchange is very much worth viewing and reading.

Video of Exchange

Question

S. Furstenau: While this may seem to be, to some, less urgent than a dinner on Bowen Island, this last weekend we saw stunning revelations in the Globe and Mail about money laundering in B.C. and its connections to drug trafficking and real estate in Metro Vancouver. The investigation revealed that drug traffickers have laundered tens of millions of dollars through Vancouver real estate, and this is only a fraction of the problem. To say this is astonishing is an understatement.

This mess got out of control under the B.C. Liberals, but this government has now been in power for over six months and has yet to take bold action. Government has more information about what’s truly going on in B.C. than even the best reporters, with access to intelligence and data inaccessible to anyone else. And yet, we are relying on the media to reveal these shocking practices.

My question is to the Attorney General. One of the key journalists on this issue, Sam Cooper of Postmedia, says that the rot goes even deeper than we now know. The minister has the information. Exactly how deep does this rot go? Don’t British Columbians deserve to know the full extent of this problem?

Answer

Hon. D. Eby: I certainly thank the member for the question on this very important issue.

I think it’s important to recognize how we got here. In 2009, there was an integrated casino investigation team, police officers that were dedicated to investigating what happened in casinos.

They produced a report for the then minister responsible for gaming, the member for Langley East, that said…. This is a summary that was in the Sun. Sam Cooper wrote this: “The 2009 threat report said that known gangsters were gambling in B.C. casinos, and Asian organized crime groups, Italian crime groups and Hell’s Angels operate illegal casinos in B.C. Some of these underground operations are linked to crimes including prostitution, extortion, loansharking and kidnapping, the report said.” The main issue concerning unlicensed gambling “is the protection of the public.”

So the minister got that report, and in April 2009, he took decisive action. He defunded the integrated casino investigation team. So fast forward….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I know he’s upset about the news, but he did this. He did this.

Fast forward seven years. The then Finance Minister, the member for Abbotsford West, got a memo on his desk, March 2016: “There has been a significant increase in the use of illegal gaming houses in the province and the legitimization of proceeds of crime through B.C.’s gaming facilities.” The decisive action taken by that minister, hon. Speaker? I wish I could tell you what it was because I have no idea what he did. It appears he did nothing. So, on receiving a briefing that this type of activity was taking place….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I realize it’s not as important as a dinner on Bowen Island, but it is important.

On being briefed as the new minister, I brought in a person of remarkable reputation — Peter German, a former deputy in the RCMP, the author of Canada’s anti-money laundering law textbook — to get to the bottom of this and make recommendations for reform, which include other areas of our economy like real estate.

I’m so glad the member asked the question. I hope she asks another.

Supplementary Question

S. Furstenau: Unfortunately, I couldn’t hear all the minister’s response. However, I would like to ask a further question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the minister speaking to some of the systemic inaction that we’ve seen on this file. The investigation over the weekend made the scope and the urgency of this problem crystal clear. People are profiting off the deaths of fellow British Columbians, and this illicit money is being parked in our real estate, contributing to our housing crisis.

My concern is that the Attorney General, in response to this in an article, said it could take up to four years to take action. Journalists who have been reporting on the scandal for years say there’s no need for the delay. The case, as the minister points out, was proven long ago.

We have a commitment to take action on money laundering in our housing crisis. The minister has said this a priority, but we can’t afford four more years. We need immediate bold steps to fix this mess. My question is for the Attorney General: how does taking four years make this a priority?

Answer

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for her question. The new allegations in the Globe and Mail raised two separate pieces that require a response.

One is they’re very specific allegations involving individuals, and addresses raising questions about the conduct of professionals who are regulated in the province by independent bodies. So, in terms of those individual allegations that were in the Globe and Mail story, we are currently preparing correspondence with professional regulators and making sure that police, Revenue Canada, FINTRAC and FICOM have the information they need about those specific allegations and that they are aware of them and are pursuing them.

The second is that these are…. Although it’s the same genus, essentially — it’s money laundering — it’s a different species. These are new allegations, as far as I’m aware, around builders, liens and loans being used in this way, registered at the land title registry, which raises systemic issues that we need to address.

It does take time, and one of the things that we have to do is build up the capacity that was so degraded under the previous government to detect, prosecute and ensure the province is actually able to stop this activity. We have to rebuild that. Peter German is helping us do that in a way that’s thoughtful and, most importantly, that is effective.

In the legislature today Mike Farnworth, the government house leader, rose to deliver a Ministerial Statement on the tragic loss of Constable John Davidson. Constable  Davidson was killed in the line of duty yesterday in Abbotsford. As Leader of the Third Party in the Legislature, I rose to respond.

Below I reproduce the video and text.

Video

Text

A. Weaver: I rise to join the Government House Leader and the Leader of the Official Opposition in expressing our most sincere condolences to the loved ones of Const. John Davidson, the police officer who tragically lost his life yesterday.

We stand with the community of Abbotsford while they mourn his terrible loss.

Police officers put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe. We must never forget the risks our police officers and first responders face, nor the sacrifices they are called on to make in the line of duty.

Police officers are the heroes of our communities. They work tirelessly every day to respond to multiple crises and emergencies that, many times, each constitute the worst days of a citizen’s life. We can honour them by ensuring that they have the support they need to do their vital work in keeping us safe.

As we remember the bravery, honour and dedication of our first responders, we remember what makes this country great — our generosity, strong sense of community and willingness to look out for one another. Let us all strive to do all we can to support our communities so that they can be safe for our families and for all citizens of this province.

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 14: Sheriff Amendment Act at second reading.

Bill 14 amends the Sheriff Act to provide authority for sheriff services to conduct threat and risk assessments. Sheriffs in some specialized units already conduct threat and risk assessments, but they currently do not have the legislative authority to do so – a gap that this bill closes. In addition, this bill will provide sheriffs with the legislative authority required to continue to maintain access to the Canadian Police Information Centre database for the purpose of conducting their threat and risk assessments.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my brief speech in support of this bill.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I, too, rise in support of this bill, Bill 14, Sheriff Amendment Act. This bill makes one significant change to the Sheriff Act, and it provides authority for sheriff services to conduct threat and risk assessments. Sheriffs in some specialized units already conduct threat and risk assessments, but they currently do not have the legislative authority to do so — a gap that this bill closes.

In addition, this bill will provide sheriffs with the legislative authority required to continue to maintain access to the Canadian Police Information Centre database for the purpose of conducting their threat and risk assessments.

It’s really a very short bill. It’s one of four today that I think we’re going to see supported strongly by both sides of the House in all cases.

Section 1 of this bill creates the additional powers for the sheriffs, and if authorized by the director of sheriff services, sheriffs will be able to identify and assess threats or risks to a person, facility, building or property in relation to which they have a power, duty or responsibility.

It moves on to say if authorized by the director, sheriffs may also identify and assess threats or risks to an employee of the government if the employee may be exposed to a threat or risk at the employee’s workplace or in relation to the employee’s work.

And of course, it also allows, for the purpose of conducting a threat or risk assessments, sheriffs to collect personal information and other information, including things like personal information on the Canadian Police Information Centre database — or any other law enforcement database, for that matter— personal information in the custody or control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which I understand the member for Prince George–Mackenzie used to be working with, or any other law enforcement agency.

I, as other members, am very pleased to speak in support of this bill.

As we know, sheriffs provide for the safety and the security of British Columbians in a variety of ways — by protecting the courts of British Columbia and the participants in the judicial system, employees in the justice system and government, the public and public officials.

Sheriffs are responsible for ensuring the safety of the judiciary, legal counsel, court users, and the public and government employees as well. Sheriffs are also responsible for the safe and secure transportation of accused and convicted persons to and from court. That sheriffs do not have the legislative authority to conduct threat or risk assessments has been identified as a legislative gap — a gap that this bill, as I mentioned, closes.

Sheriffs in some specialized units already conduct threat and risk assessments, as I mentioned, and these assessments inform the security plans and staffing levels required to ensure the safety of all users of our justice system. This is an absolutely critical service that they provide for the safety of all of us.

As I’ve mentioned, this is closing some provisions that are already in practice but not supported through legislation. I’m absolutely delighted to support this legislation and would like to thank the sheriffs in British Columbia for all their work — all of the work they do protecting British Columbians and ensuring smooth operation of our justice system. My only hope is that we can find more of them so that cases before court aren’t dismissed because of the lack of sheriffs in our judicial system.

Video of Speech

Today in the legislature we debated Bill 12: Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act at second reading. This non-controversial bill makes two changes:

1) It amends the Offence Act to allow for e-ticketing of drivers;

2) It amends the Motor Vehicle Act to require a peace officer to impound the car a person was driving at the time that person was given a notice of a 30-day or 90-day driving prohibition as a result of a roadside alcohol test.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my brief speech in support of this bill.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I too rise to take my place in the debates on Bill 12 — 2017 Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act. I too rise to speak in support of this bill.

This is the fourth of four bills receiving unanimous support today in the House. It’s too bad the school children that were just here left — to see yet another bill to be agreed upon, so that people could actually see when this Legislature works instead of the fights that often occur in question period.

This bill, as was mentioned by the former RCMP officer and the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, makes two substantive changes. It amends the Offence Act to allow for e-ticketing of drivers. As was mentioned, current legislation restricts police officers to issuing paper tickets in a prescribed form. This bill will allow for the issuing of e-tickets as well as paper tickets.

I can only imagine the multiple translations of a ticket that was written in my handwriting, and I do understand, as mentioned by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, that there must be many an occasion — and as personal experience, it was many occasions — where illegible handwriting led to tickets that would otherwise be issued not being issued. It does concern me that this will be a money grab by the province. I’m hoping that the public listening to this, riveted to this on their TV screens, will recognize that no longer will illegible handwriting let them away from tickets.

I also do support the introduction of the ability to pay the tickets on-line. I mean, literally the government is pretty much, or this in particular, one of the last things in our society that allows you to pay on-line, so it’s very timely that this is brought forward. Or timely is the wrong word. It’s about time that this was brought forward.

The three broad changes in this bill in the first section, changes to the Offence Act, allow officers, as I mentioned, to issue e-tickets and make copies of e-tickets, allows officers to create e-certificates of service and also allows for the transport of electronic records to ICBC. It will be piloted in the select regions as a part of a road safety initiative prior to rolling them out provincewide. These regions include the CRD, Vancouver, Delta and Prince George. As part of the road safety initiative, but separate from the legislation, as I mentioned, government will be rolling out a modern new innovative ability to pay your fines on-line.

The second substantive change in this act is to amend the Motor Vehicle Act to require a peace officer to impound a car that a person was driving at the time that person was given a notice of 30- or 90-day driving prohibition as a result of a roadside alcohol test.

A review of this act by astute legislative reviewers and lawyers found that immediate roadside prohibitions for alcohol-affected drivers didn’t sufficiently cover the immediate impoundment of cars. That is, there was a loophole in the act that was not providing immediate coverage for the immediate impoundment of cars. This has been regular practice since 2010, that cars would be impounded, but there actually wasn’t legislation supporting this to occur.

Roughly, there’s been something like 10,000 impoundments that have occurred since 2010, that relate to this change. The change to enable this to occur will now obviously be retroactive to 2010. So anyone out there thinking that they’re going to get some kind of reimbursement for having their car impounded is out of luck, as we quickly make this retroactive to 2010.

As I mentioned, there’s no current or previous legal challenges relating to this amendment as we bring it forward, which is a good thing. I’m not sure if something is going to happen in the next 24 hours, but at least that’s what we were told. And it’s simply a gap that government identified, or at least lawyers identified, and they felt it was prudent to actually close this gap.

As mentioned by the member from Prince George–Mackenzie, this is an uncontroversial bill, something we’re pleased to support, and, frankly, I would have thought something that we could have brought in along with an earlier bill we discussed on Red Tape Reduction Day, because we’ve made great steps in the province of British Columbia in reducing red tape without actually naming a day after the reduction.

Video of Speech