On Monday I rose to speak at second reading in support of Bill 2-2015 BC Transportation Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act.

Currently in Vancouver, the rapid transit assets owned by the province are split between three crown corporations.

• The Expo Line and the West Coast Express is held by B.C. Transit
• The Millennium Line is held by Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd.
• The Evergreen line is held by B.C. Transportation Financing Authority

Bill 2 would consolidate all these assets under the BC Transportation Financing Authority while maintaining the level of service. This would allow for streamlining, cost saving and better management. While this bill helps to cut down on bureaucratic clutter, it does not deal with the larger issues facing transit in Metro Vancouver.

Below is the text of my contribution to the debate.

My contribution to the debate at second reading

I rise to speak just briefly at second reading of this bill to outline an issue that I think may have been overlooked over this bill. As the bill notes, there are currently…. These rapid transit assets owned by the province are split amongst three Crown corporations in the area: Expo Line and the West Coast Express held by B.C. Transit, the Millennium Line held by Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. and the Evergreen line held by B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. Bill 2 would consolidate these into one entity while maintaining the level of service.

Now, it’s hard to argue that consolidation of assets spread around three is not actually a good thing. It would streamline administration, provide cost savings and, presumably, better management of the whole system at all. These assets, of course, would be transferred into and operated by TransLink.

Cutting down the bureaucratic clutter in the region of Metro Vancouver, I would argue, is a good thing. Nobody quite knows who is on second base at times or first base at times with the plethora of these Crown corporations with their different jurisdictions.

But here is the problem. TransLink has lost the support of the public. Nowhere is this more true than seeing the discussions happening with respect to the upcoming plebiscite in Vancouver.

This no longer becoming a question of: should Vancouver have transport or not? This is not a question of: is the PST increase a means and ways of funding the transit improvements in Vancouver? What’s happening in Vancouver is that this plebiscite is becoming a plebiscite on TransLink, and that is most unfortunate.

That’s most unfortunate because here in this bill we have bringing together assets into a Crown corporation that has lost the public trust. In doing so, the public will question the rationale behind this. The public will question whether or not bringing in TransLink is the right thing to do. The public will question whether or not this is actually going to improve service.

Accountability is the keystone — and was the keystone — of the original vision of TransLink. It was envisioned as a regional authority to be run by a local and elected board. But now, of course, it’s no longer the case. We have an appointed board. We have an appointed board which is not accountable to the voters. The council of mayors, which makes recommendations and have to live with the consequences of decisions being made, is elected. But they don’t actually have the control over the process and decision-making.

This bill is bringing more assets into an organization, TransLink, a Crown corporation that will have more control and more voice over what the mayors must implement, at the same time as it’s losing the confidence of the general public. In order to deal with the root cause, the root problem, that exists — that is, the lack of public support for TransLink — we’ll need to explore, in committee stage, how the government plans to actually assure us that as it brings more and more assets into the Crown corporation for transit, it does so in means and ways that do not ignore the underlying fundamental issue, which is rebuilding public trust and public confidence in TransLink.

On December 10th, 2014 the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations released his decision concerning how hunting licenses would be allocated between industry and resident British Columbia hunters. After consulting with constituents and stakeholders, I released a media statement raising concerns that the interests of resident British Columbia hunters were being set aside in favour of special industry interests. A few days later, I provided a more thorough analysis of the issues involved.

On February 6, amidst widespread pressure from BC resident hunters and the BC Wildlife Federation, the government  revised its decision on wildlife harvest allocations slightly. But this was not enough.

Today, BC’s resident hunters held a rally on the Legislature lawn. I had the privilege of speaking at the rally and I reproduce the text of my speech below.

I also had honour of presenting a petition from over 16,000 British Columbians on behalf of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation today. The text of the petition is reproduced here:

“We, the undersigned, representing residents of British Columbia and supporters of resident hunting in the province, state that changes to the Province’s Wildlife Harvest Allocation Policy announced in December 2014 provide an unwarranted larger share of hunting permits to BC’s professional guides and outfitters, who primarily guide non-resident trophy hunters, at the expense of BC resident hunters.

The wildlife allocation made available to Guide Outfitters Association of BC members is unprecedented in North America and there is no economic justification for these allocation changes, which will adversely affect BC’s resident hunters.

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that the provincial government repeal the changes to the Wildlife Harvest Allocation Policy announced on December 10, 2014 by the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and limit non-resident hunters and Guide Outfitters Association of BC members to the Wildlife Harvest Allocation specified in the 2007 Wildlife Allocation Policy.“

Finally, today I introduced my first Private Member’s Bill: the Wildlife Amendment Act. My introduction is reproduced below. We’ve written up a more thorough discussion of the implications of the bill elsewhere.

Speech at the BC Resident Hunter Rally in Victoria

I’d like to begin by thanking all of you for coming to the legislature today. I know a lot of you had to travel quite far and take time off work to be here. But I am glad that you did. This issue is too important to let it quietly slip off the public radar and I commend you for being here today; for speaking up on behalf of hunters across BC; and for realizing that the February adjustment to the allocation policy was simply not good enough. It was little more than a patronizing response to your heartfelt feedback and concern for the future of hunting in BC.

The erosion of hunter’s access to BC game is yet another example of government putting the needs of special interests ahead of those of British Columbians. Hunting is a foundational part of life for many people in BC. As you all know so well, it is way to connect with nature, spend quality time with your loved ones, and provide a clean, healthy source of protein for your families. Having that connection to one’s food, knowing its true value, and appreciating where it came from means that you have a profound understanding of the importance of conservation.

It has been a great honour for me to work closely with the B.C. Wildlife Federation – the province’s largest conservation organization – as I attempted to educate myself on allocation issues over the past few months.

Hunters in B.C. have had a rich history of conservation in our province, working tirelessly to ensure animal populations are healthy, abundant, and that their habitats are protected.

Despite running on a “families first” platform, the BC Liberal government has continued to put the vested interests of a select profitable few ahead of its own residents. In the hunting sector especially, we have seen a steady erosion of your rights as they continue to be reallocated to the guide outfitting industry.

The December hunting permit amendment may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, but the BC government has been making the shift towards prioritizing the needs of industry over its own residents for the last decade.

The government’s actions have not been guided by the values of British Columbians. Nor have they been guided by independent expert advice. The numbers put forward in December weren’t even close to the allocation splits recommended by the ministry.

What troubles me is that according to the lobbyist registrar, the Guide Outfitters Association has had over 2,000 person meetings with government officials since 2011. Quite a number of them included Premier Clark.

It’s clear that government has an ear to the concerns of guide outfitters.

But today and together we’re here to say to government that that’s not enough. Together we are demanding that government listen to British Colmbians, the people that they are supposed to represent.

The increased allocation of BC’s wildlife to guide outfitters is an issue that affects all of us, not just the people here today.

I look forward to tabling the BCWF petition opposing the permit allocation amendments shortly. That should help government understand just how many people care about the unfair treatment of resident BC hunters.

I will also be tabling a bill that, if enacted, would make trophy hunting for non-residents more difficult by requiring them to remove the meat from their kills and transport it back to their home address.

For local sustenance hunters – the vast majority of hunters in B.C. – this bill merely echoes what they are already doing; harvesting wild game to bring the meat home to feed themselves and their families. For non-resident trophy hunters coming to B.C. in search of antlers or a hide this poses a larger logistical challenge of exporting large quantities of meat.

It is not a perfect solution to our problems, of course, but it will make the government engage in a conversation about where their interests lie and emphasize the importance of supporting sustainable, respectful hunting practices in our province — practices that are embodied by BC’s resident hunters and the BC Wildlife Federation.

Thank you.

Introduction of the Wildlife Amendment Act

I move introduction of the Wildlife Amendment Act for first reading.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill that, if enacted, would restrict the practices of non-resident trophy hunters who come to B.C. to kill large game by making two specific amendments to the Wildlife Act.

The proposed changes remove grizzly bears from the list of animals exempt from meat harvesting regulations and ensure that all edible portions of animals harvested in B.C. are taken directly to the hunter’s residence.

As the legislation currently stands, the edible parts of big game animals (except cougars, wolves, lynx, bobcats, wolverines, and grizzly bears) must be removed from the animal and packed out to one’s home, or importantly for non-resident hunters, to a meat cutter or a cold storage plant. These last two options provide trophy hunters with legal meat laundering opportunities. By adding “directly or through” to the clause, hunters can still use meat cutters and cold storage plants to process their harvests, but it can’t end there. The meat must make it to their home address. If they want to donate that meat to charity after the fact they are welcome to do so, but they have to take it home first.

Hunters are already required to remove the edible portions from black bears. If enacted, this bill would bring meat harvesting standards for grizzly bears up to the same standard.
British Columbians, and in particular BC resident hunters, support these change. A 2013 McAllister Research poll found that 88% of British Columbians oppose trophy hunting. In addition to that, 95% of hunters said they believe you should not be hunting if you are not prepared to eat what you kill.

For local sustenance hunters – the vast majority of hunters in B.C. – this bill merely echoes what they are already doing; harvesting wild game to bring the meat home to feed their families. For non-resident trophy hunters coming to B.C. to kill an animal only for its hide, skull, or antlers this poses a logistical challenge of exporting large quantities of meat.

I look forward to second reading of the bill.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Media Statement: March 2, 2015
MLA Weaver Introduces Bill to End Trophy Killing of Grizzly Bears
For Immediate Release
 
Victoria B.C. – Today, Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, tabled his first private members bill with the aim of providing government with the tools it needs to end the trophy killing of grizzly bears in the Province of British Columbia.

“This bill is about supporting sustainable, respectful hunting practices in B.C.,” says Andrew Weaver. “It is about putting B.C. hunters first and taking clear steps towards ending the trophy killing of grizzly bears in our province.”

If enacted, this Bill would add additional requirements to hunting in B.C. First, it would remove grizzly bears from the list of animals exempt from meat harvesting regulations. Hunters are already required to remove the edible portions from black bears. This bill would bring meat harvesting standards for grizzly bears up to the same level.

Second, it would ensure that all edible portions of animals harvested in B.C. are taken directly to the hunter’s residence. This provision is meant to limit foreign hunters’ ability to come to B.C. for the purpose of trophy hunting, by making them responsible for removing the meat of any animal they kill.

For local sustenance hunters – the vast majority of hunters in B.C. – this bill merely echoes what they are already doing: harvesting wild game to feed their families. For non-resident trophy hunters coming to B.C. to kill an animal only for its hide, skull, or antlers, this Bill would create new complexities and logistical barriers.

A 2013 McAllister Research poll found that 88% of British Columbians oppose trophy hunting. In addition to that, 95% of hunters said they believe you should not be hunting if you are not prepared to eat what you kill.

“Earlier this year, the government began allocating more hunting opportunities to guide outfitters at the expense of B.C. Hunters,” says Weaver. “We need to pressure this government to recommit to putting the interests of British Columbians first, by rebalancing the new allocation policy in favour of B.C. hunters and by passing this Bill.

“The Federation appreciates the support of MLA Andrew Weaver on wildlife allocation, harvest, and sustainability issues,” says George Wilson, B.C. Wildlife Federation president.

Weaver also presented the House with a 16,139 signature petition from the B.C. Wildlife Federation opposing the permit allocation amendments and spoke to several hundred B.C. hunters a rally today in front of the legislature.

-30-

Media Contact

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

Today in the Legislature we continued debate on the Speech from the Throne and voted on the amendment put forward by Selina Robinson, NDP MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville, as well as the sub-amendment that I put forward.

In an earlier post I noted that the role of government is to offer British Columbians a vision. The role of opposition, if they do not like the vision government is offering, is to offer a counter-vision. I tried to offer such a counter-vision in my response to the Speech from the Throne.

Unfortunately, I felt that amendment (reproduced below) put forward by the BC NDP wasn’t constructive.

I agree that the government did promise to give every British Columbian a general practitioner by 2015. I agree that seniors do not have flexible options for home care. I agree that young people in the province face uncertain job prospects, in particular in light of the fact that we’re re-engineering our education system for a hypothetical industry that I’ve been saying for more than two years now is not supported by the economic reality that the world is oversupplied with natural gas. However, it is our responsibility as opposition, when we don’t agree with government’s vision, to offer a vision that we can hang our hats on. And that is why I offered my sub-amendment (reproduced below).

Below you will see that both the sub-amendment and amendment were defeated. I am grateful to the BC NDP and Vicki Huntington, the Independent MLA from Delta South for supporting my sub-amendment. I could not support the BC NDP amendment without the sub-amendment first being passed as in my view it’s not enough to offer blind criticism, without offering up alternate solutions and ways forward. Had the sub-amendment passed, I would have voted in support of the amendment.

Sub-amendment Vote

To sub-amend the amendment by striking out the “period” after 2015 and inserting the words “and recognizes that leadership in government requires a commitment to seek out and incorporate ideas from others, while leadership in opposition requires a commitment to offering solutions, and hence calls on this House to collaborate on the development of a new vision for British Columbia that builds on the good ideas of all members, regardless of their party affiliation.”]

Amendment Vote

[Be it resolved that the motion “We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious Speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session,” be amended by adding the following:

“and that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia regrets that the families in the province have seen their wages fall as they pay more for their basic services, while the government gives a break to the highest two per cent of income earners; regrets that the government has failed to meet its commitment that all British Columbians will have access to a general practitioner by 2015; regrets that seniors still do not have flexible options for home care or assisted living; regrets that young people in the province face uncertain job prospects as the government has bet on one sector rather than working with businesses and workers across B.C. to reach their potential; and regrets that the government will not fulfill its commitment for at least one LNG pipeline and terminal online in B.C. by 2015.”]

Since I was first elected in 2013 I have participated in countless votes on motions, legislation, and budgets. In every single instance I have carefully considered how I should use my one vote to best represent the British Columbia I wanted to help create.

I am one of only two members in this Legislature who doesn’t have their vote decided for them by their party. That means, I am also one of only two MLAs whose vote on the budget isn’t a foregone conclusion. Before we even see the budget, we know that all BC Liberal MLAs will support it and that all BC NDP MLAs will oppose it.

This is a problem. I believe that MLAs have a responsibility to base their positions on evidence, to contribute ideas, not just criticism, and to first and foremost represent their constituents, not their parties.

MLAs are given a single vote to indicate broad support or opposition to the full suite of measures that are contained in the budget—both those that we agree with and those that we disagree with. It is impossible to properly represent the complexity of a budget vote by just looking at the vote itself. That’s why I always post my entire budget response, where I lay out my praise and concerns in detail.

After carefully reading through this budget, I found that I could not support it.

It has become increasingly clear that there is a growing trend where the government takes small steps on the periphery to make peoples’ lives better, without addressing the fundamental systemic and structural issues that underpin our biggest challenges—including affordability, sustainability and economic prosperity.

This includes how we fund government services. Through a combination of complacency and choice this government has come to rely on low and middle income British Columbians paying more than many can afford. In doing so, we help perpetuate and add to the growing affordability crisis we have in B.C.

Instead, we need government leadership that is bold enough to tackle these important structural issues. This includes shifting the way we fund government away from regressive user fees like MSP premiums, towards more progressive options, like income taxes. It also means taking real, concerted steps to mitigate and adapt to the economic, social and environmental effects climate change will have on our province. We can also be making smart targeted investments to support the development of 21st century industries like the clean tech sector, rather than simply relying on 20th century fossil fuel industries.

These are just a few alternatives that I offered in my response to the budget and my response to the throne speech.

We need leaders who will pursue opportunities and address our challenges before they arrive on our doorstep, not after. We need leadership that recognizes the importance of not only living within our means financially, but also socially and environmentally.