It was a very busy day for me in the Legislature today. I was one of only two opposition members who spoke at 2^nd reading to Bill 24 – 2016: Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act. I was one of only five opposition members who spoke at 2^nd reading to Bill 23: Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, 2016. And I was one of only two opposition members who spoke at 2^nd reading to Bill 25 – 2016: Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016.

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Acts are omnibus acts that propose numerous minor changes to a number of existing pieces of legislation. Bill 25 is the third such act we are debating in this session alone.

Bill 25 proposes amendments to ten existing acts: the Agricultural Land Commission Act; the Assessment Act; the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act; the Environmental Management Act, the Income Tax Act, the Insurance Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the Local Government Act, the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act.

While many of the proposed changes are minor, as you will see from the text and video of my speech that I reproduce below, I have serious reservations about two critical amendments. I also have a number of questions on other amendments that I will defer to committee stage.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 25, Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016. Like so many of these other miscellaneous statutes amendment acts, this act is a potpourri of changes to a variety of acts, with some additional transitional provisions attached to them, as need arises.

The act amends ten acts: the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which I’m sure the member for Saanich South will have some comments on; the Assessment Act; the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act; the Environmental Management Act, the Income Tax Act, the Insurance Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the Local Government Act, the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act.

Under the ALC, there are two amendments to the ALC Act. The first is an amendment that will require the ALC to obtain the owner’s consent before excluding land for the reserve. This is mostly applicable in boundary reviews.

The second, as the minister mentioned, adds a regulation-making authority so that the commission can provide clarity to farmers about agritourism activities — for example, a wedding on a farm. Regulations on these are expected this spring.

However, there is a clause that does raise some concern, and that’s clause 1.3 in this bill, which I’m sure we can explore further at committee stage. This seems to allow the commission to have a loophole so that the consent by owners is not actually required to remove land from the ALR. I’d be interested in exploring what the government has in mind with respect to the inclusion of section 1.3 further at committee stage.

In terms of the Assessment Act, the amendment for this will give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to prescribe assessed values for certain restricted use properties. The change is designed to ensure that Crown corporations, either provincial or federal, on Crown land are paying their fair share of property taxes. On this, I think there will be a broad agreement as these are fine changes.

Similar with the Local Government Act on page 5 of this bill, the amendment there fixes a mistake that was done in 2015 under the Statute Revision Act. It removes a contraction that exists presently.

Under the Environmental Management Act, there is an amendment which gives the flexibility to the minister to be able to update area-based management plans and improve permitting certainty within those areas. Specifically, a director is given the power to amend the permit after consultation with the minister. I, again, see no problems in support in this aspect.

Then we come to the Protected Areas of B.C. Act, page 7, which is troubling. The amendment here reduces the size of Finn Creek, of the park there, so that the Kinder Morgan expansion can continue planning its route. The proposed boundary adjustment will not be brought into force unless the NEB, of course, approves the project, the five conditions are met, and the province has issued an environmental assessment certificate, as the minister pointed out.

The park is reduced by a couple of hectares, but this reduction will cut a line directly through the northern section of the park. This follows Trans Mountain’s request to the province to amend various parks for its proposed route in 2014.

Obviously, I will be opposing this particular amendment. This is precluding…. Despite the fact that the minister is giving us the assurance of the government that this will not be brought into force unless the NEB and the five conditions are met, the reality is that we are putting it in place now, and frankly, that sends a signal that government is moving forwards to get to yes on a project that the majority of British Columbians realize is simply not reconcilable with their values.

To turn the port in Vancouver, through the Burnaby facility, into one of the largest shippers of heavy oil in the world. It’s simply not consistent with the values of British Columbians. This particular amendment is troubling in that it’s sending a green-light signal — that in its desperation to get to yes no matter what the question is, government is already starting to introduce legislation to amend parks.

Under the Income Tax Act, I find this very troubling as well. Here, there’s going to be provisions for a transitional period that will allow the film and television industry to adapt to the changes in tax credits recently announced. The amendments reduces the digital animation, visual effects and post production tax credit from 17 to 11 percent of the amount determined by the taxation formula.

In my view, this is troubling, because in doing this, what government is sending is a signal to an up-and-coming vibrant sector that: “You know what? You’re not as welcome as you used to be.” It’s early. It’s too early to be clawing back credits to an industry that is beginning to blossom. A 21st century economy industry in this province of British Columbia that we are known for internationally, beginning to emerge, and this government is now cutting out its heels, taking out its legs in the process.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The Minister of Health doesn’t think so, but I would like it hear the input that I’ve…. Rather, I’d be delighted to share the input I received from the industry with respect to this particular cut. It is troubling. It is troubling when we are doing whatever we can to literally give away our natural gas resources to foreign entities, who otherwise would not be here and still are probably not going to be here, even though we’ve given away the farm.

Here we have an industry — a home-grown industry, jobs in B.C. industry, distributed jobs in B.C. industry — and we’re saying: “You know what? Your time is over. We’re going to continue to double-down on the falling stock of liquefied natural gas.” Despite the fact that Australia is years ahead of us. Despite the fact that China is now a seller on the international marketplace. Despite the fact that not a single LNG facility has been approved. Despite the fact that each and every one of the promises made by this government leading to the 2013 election has been broken. Every one of them.

Instead of saying: “Plan B. We need to move towards a 21st-century economy that builds on the strength of what we are good at here in B.C. — innovation, creativity, tech, bringing tech together with resource sector….” No, no, no. What we’re going to do is actually is chop them down at the knees just as they’re getting going.

To the Insurance Act — there are some changes there as well and, also, to the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act, neither of which I found to be particularly troubling. Just a few minor amendments there.

We’ve got the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act here. The amendments clarify B.C. Housing authority to provide support services and manage multipurpose developments that include housing and non-housing components. It allows the ministry to include land development related to housing. It also expands the powers and duties of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission to include social and other housing services.

There’ll be some questions at committee stage. But because these amendments came under a natural gas development amendment section, they may be worthy of exploring in a little more detail. I’m wondering whether or not this is actually something to do with housing specifically for the natural gas industry, as part of our, frankly, continuing generational sellout as we try to do whatever we can, whatever it takes, to get to yes, no matter what the question.

Liquor Control and Licensing Act, page 15. This amendment is, again, one that I see no major concerns in. It gives the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch the ability to reconsider liquor enforcement decisions. The grounds, of course, for reconsideration are to be set out in regulations like much of what we’re debating.

This amendment means that the enforcement decisions will be reconsidered without the necessity of having to apply to the court for a judicial review. There are a number of guidelines and prescribed grounds that are to be established by the general manager for these amendments to work. Another piece of legislation there, an amendment, that I think will work well.

Taken together, there are a couple of troubling sections — notably, two in this overall bill. Obviously, I’ll be supporting the bill at second reading so that we can actually vote upon the individual sections at committee stage and vote them down accordingly.

Video of Speech

Today in the legislature I rose to speak to Bill 21 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016. Bill 21 is designed to provide the legal foundation for a spill preparedness and response regime in BC. The legislation requires new requirements for spill preparedness, response and recovery, and it creates new offenses and penalties. However, almost all important aspects of this bill are left up to the development of regulations. As such, it should be viewed as an enabling will with much more to come.

Below is are the text and video of my speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to speak to Bill 21, the Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016. Now, this bill is designed to provide the legal foundation for a spill preparedness and response regime in British Columbia. The legislation, as we just heard from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, puts in new requirements for spill preparedness, response and recovery, and it creates new offences and penalties. However, the problem with this bill is not so much what’s in it but what’s not in it. This bill puts much, if not most, of the items of interest into regulations.

I’d like to give just a couple of examples of this. I think it highlights what we’re debating. We’re debating an enabling legislation. It is clearly an enabling legislation, essentially enabling government to put in place regulations that will govern a spill response and regime. Before I can even get to a couple of examples of what is in regulations, I have to start with a definition. It’s a definition of what is called a responsible person. In this legislation, this amendment, a responsible person means “a person who has possession, charge or control of a substance or thing when a spill of the substance or thing occurs or is at imminent risk of occurring.” That’s what a responsible person is — rather broad.

I would like to give some examples, because I think it ultimately highlights how much we are essentially debating on here that has to be put in regulations. Section 91.11 would be added to the Environmental Management Act. Listen carefully:

“A regulated person must ensure that (a) on or before the prescribed date, the regulated person has a spill contingency plan that complies with the regulations….” What does that say? There’s a prescribed date; we leave it to government to prescribe it. The regulated person, whoever that might be, has a spill contingency plan that complies with regulations — not very specific.

So “(b) the spill contingency plan is reviewed, updated and tested in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed frequency….” Okay. That doesn’t give us an awful lot of comfort as to what that means.

Then: ” (c) the spill contingency plan is made available to employees of the regulated person in accordance with the regulations….” Essentially, it’s saying: “Trust us.”

And “(d) the spill contingency plan demonstrates that the regulated person has the capability to effectively respond to a spill, and (e) if required by the regulations, the spill contingency plan is published in accordance with the regulations.”

You can’t make this stuff up: “if required by the regulations, the spill contingency plan is published in accordance with the regulations ” Does this mean we wouldn’t actually publish the spill contingency plan if it’s not required? Does it mean that if in accordance with regulations at the end, we can just publish whatever contingency plan we want? I mean, it’s bizarre.

Further down:

“(3) A regulated person must ensure that, in accordance with the regulations, (a) records respecting investigations, tests and surveys referred to in subsection (2) are prepared and kept for the prescribed period….” Again, what does that mean? And “(b) prescribed reports are prepared and submitted to a director….” What prescribed report? Then: “(c) employees of the regulated person receive prescribed training to prescribed standards” — I’m honestly not making this up — “employees of the regulated person receive prescribed training to prescribed standards.” “Trust us,” says the government. And ” (d) employees of the regulated person engage in spill response training exercises and drills in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed frequency.”

We are being asked to certainly trust that government will have the best interests of British Columbians at heart as they develop — in their words, not in our words — a world-leading spill preparedness.

That brings me to another point. You know, in the field of science, when we hear universities describe themselves as world-class, we know right away that they’re not, because the people who describe themselves as world-class clearly are not world-class.

World-class scientists are described by others as world-class. World-class institutions are described by others as world-class. When this government stands up and says it’s building a world-class spill response, I can assure you that it will be anything but world-class, because we would be expecting others to look at it and tell us if it were indeed world-class.

Given what we’ve seen around us under the professional reliance model that this government is so proud to put forward…. We only have to look at Mount Polley. Was that a world-class response? I don’t think so. What about what’s going on in Shawnigan Lake? Is this a world-class process for a world-class land use agreement for a world-class containment facility? I don’t think so. Is our LNG “we’re going to world-class standards, cleanest in the world” rhetoric…? I don’t think so.

This government is full of rhetoric. It’s full of rhetoric that’s substanceless, and frankly, I’m tired of it. I’m tired of hearing them call themselves world-class. British Columbians are tired of hearing them call it world-class. They’re not world-class. They’re parochial and inward-looking and missing the bigger picture of what’s going on in the world around us.

With that said, I did participate as an intervener in the Trans-Mountain hearings over the last couple of years. Let me tell you, that was a lot of work — hundreds of hours, hundreds and hundreds of hours by the team, poring through papers, many unresponded-to questions.

What I learned from that is that British Columbia — in fact, Canada — has simply not the capacity to respond to any spill of any magnitude — in particular, when it comes to diluted bitumen. We have no idea, at the basic level of science, as to what would happen if diluted bitumen were to spill in, say, the Fraser River. We know there’s a lot of suspended sediment there. We know that a lot of it would sink, but we really don’t have any idea.

Frankly, it is reckless. It is reckless for this government to be talking about even entertaining the Trans-Mountain proposal and putting in place these regulations now, while still allowing one tanker a week, laden with diluted bitumen, to leave the Burnaby ports through our coastal waters when we don’t even have a response capability today.

Where is this government actually standing up and being truthful to British Columbians that we need an immediate moratorium on the transportation of diluted bitumen in our coastal waters because, as admitted in this Environmental Management Amendment Act, we don’t have any standards here in B.C.? If there were a spill, my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the riding of my friend here in Saanich North and the Islands would be devastated, yet we have no management plan in place.

The government is trying to put a management plan in place, largely for land-based spills, but we have none now. It is reckless and irresponsible for us to continue to put diluted bitumen in pipes and to have that product shipped in our coastal waters. A relatively new Trans-Mountain Pipeline proposal that was built in the U.S. is already leaking. It’s already leaking. Right now, there’s cleanup and concerns happening there.

The basis of this bill obviously comes from the pressure of the major oil pipeline proposals. I recognize it’s coming in response to the government’s willingness and desire, or condition No. 3, to have in place what they call, through the usual hyperbolic rhetoric, “world-leading spill response.”

This is their attempt, but really, it’s an attempt that we don’t know anything about, because it just enables the government — as is becoming more and more typical — in negotiation with industry, to put in place regulations as they see fit and then surround it and wrap this in rhetoric about “world-leading” and “consultation” and “listening to First Nations,” etc.

One of the things that I do appreciate in this — because it’s a fundamental principle within the Green Party of British Columbia — is that it’s based on a polluter-pay model. The person who makes the mistake pays for the mistake, not the taxpayer. So in that regard, I support this aspect.

The other principles, not the only one of which is polluter pays, that this is based on are risk-based requirements, avoiding unnecessary duplication, a fair and transparent process, opportunities for First Nations and communities in preparedness response and recovery, and strong government oversight and continuous improvement.

Now, again, the strong government oversight is something that I would love to trust. I would love to trust that we would indeed have strong government oversight. But the evidence is that we cannot trust this government to provide that strong oversight. Again, I come back to Mount Polley. Again, I come back to Shawnigan Lake, and there are other examples out there.

Let me give you probably what I perceive to be the most worrying aspect of this bill. It may not seem like much. It’s on page 15 of the legislation. We turn to page 15, and we look at (d), where it says: “by adding the following paragraph.” I’m going to read this slowly. I can’t make this stuff up: “(d) exempting a person, an organization or a thing or a class of persons, organizations or things from any provisions of Division 2.1 or the regulations under this Division, in circumstances and on conditions that the Lieutenant Governor in Council prescribes.”

Essentially, this says: “Anything we have in here we can exempt, if we want, as cabinet.” “Trust us”? I don’t think so, hon. Speaker. That clause is deeply, deeply troubling.

While I will recognize that this bill is a step in the right direction, it’s not clear to me that I can support it at this juncture. It’s not clear to me that I can support it in light of the fact that I have no idea where the regulations are going.

I look forward to exploring that further at committee stage to see what the government has in mind so that we might, as a matter of record for future occasions down the road, get a sense of what the government’s intentions are with respect to each and every one of these sections, of which there are many, where everything is prescribed by regulations.

Video of Speech

Media Statement: January 28, 2016
New Federal Rules on Energy Projects Welcome in BC
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – New Federal rules on major energy projects announced today from the Government of Canada are welcomed by Andrew Weaver, Leader of the BC Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head.

“I am absolutely thrilled that the new federal Liberal Government continues to exemplify leadership on climate change” says Andrew Weaver. “As a climate scientist, I see including upstream emissions on energy projects as a major step forward for Canada. It is long overdue and the federal government deserves a lot of credit for introducing this substantive change to the NEB process.”

Earlier today the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change and the Minister for Natural Resources held a joint press conference on the new regulatory changes the Federal government is implementing.

“It’s encouraging to see some leadership from our Federal Government,” says Weaver. “I strongly agree with Minister McKenna’s comments about the need to reinstate Canadian’s trust in the environmental review process.”

For Kinder Morgan, the government will appoint a ministerial representative to consult the communities, including indigenous communities, who could be affected by the project. The new rules announced today will delay the Kinder Morgan pipeline review by at least four months – a cabinet decision on the project is now expected in December 2016.

“It’s important to note, however, that as the MLA for a coastal riding, this announcement does nothing to alleviate my concerns on spill response and spill preparedness. For British Columbians the central issue is about the potential for a catastrophic accident and not as much about the climate impacts of the project. On these grounds the project should still be rejected.”

The new rules will also affect at least two LNG projects in the province: the Pacific Northwest LNG project and the Woodfibre LNG project.

“I’ve stated many times that our climate goals are incompatible with the BC Liberals’ LNG strategy so I’m encouraged to see that upstream emissions will now be considered as part of the environmental review for LNG projects” says Weaver. “While I am hopeful that the inclusion of upstream emissions will be given the importance it deserves, I caution that it will be difficult for the Federal Government to accurately account for fugitive emissions in its assessment.”

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

On January 8th I submitted my final argument to the National Energy Board as part of the National Energy Board Hearings for the TransMountain Expansion Project. My final oral summary argument was given on January 20. The video of my oral testimony is now available and can be viewed below.

Video of Oral Summary Argument

Media Statement January 20, 2016
Andrew Weaver presents final oral argument in NEB hearings
For immediate release

Victoria B.C. – Today at 1:30 pm, Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Leader of the B.C. Green Party, presented his oral summary argument in the National Energy Board Hearings for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Representatives from the Coldwater Indian Band spoke before Andrew Weaver and he was followed by the Stz’uminus First Nation.

Andrew Weaver was the only MLA who applied to be an intervenor, reviewing the project both as a scientist, critiquing the Proponent’s understanding of how diluted bitumen would interact with the marine environment, and as an MLA, raising concerns shared by people across BC.

“I have been a part of this process for almost two years, examining the application and trying to get answers about the impacts it may have on our communities,” said Andrew Weaver. “The fact is that Trans Mountain have not demonstrated that they have the ability to respond to a dilbit spill in BC coastal waters. This is just one of many reasons that this application needs to be rejected.”

In his oral argument presented today, Weaver outlined a number of deficiencies, both with the application and with the NEB process. His testimony outlined that there are no conditions that could address the flaws inherent in Trans Mountain’s Proposal. He argued that the Board should recommend to the Governor in Council that the Application be dismissed altogether.

“Trans Mountain has failed to demonstrate that this pipeline is in the best interests of British Columbians,” Andrew Weaver told the Board today. “There considerable deficiencies inherent in existing and proposed spill response measure and the human health risk assessment provided by the Proponent does not adequately portray the potential health effects that may occur in the event of an oil spill.”  

In light of the evidence, Andrew Weaver and the BC Green Party have called for a moratorium to be put in place on the existing tanker transportation of Dilbit along the West Coast.

A transcript of Andrew Weaver’s oral argument can be found on his website:  http://www.andrewjweaver.ca/2016/01/20/final-oral-summary/

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