Legislation

It may seem odd that I would rise today to speak in favour of The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act which resides in the riding of Chilliwack-Hope (MLA Laurie Throness), but I was contacted by a number of constituents who had summer homes in the area. This is what prompted me to examine this legislation more deeply. Below is the text of my speech.

While the member for Chilliwack-Hope is probably wondering what the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head is doing standing up to speak in favour of the Cultus Lake act, I will add that I had a number of constituents who e-mailed me specifically about this act because they have summer homes in Cultus Lake. They pleaded with me to support this act. I’d like to read one of the e-mails that I received from the constituents. It said as follows:

“We are two of your constituents who have a summer home at Cultus Lake. Currently the residents of Cultus Lake Park do not have a democratic election process. Residents can only vote for two of seven politicians who represent them. By you voting yes for this bill, it will make a considerable improvement in democracy and accountability for the Cultus Lake Park, thus improving the future sustainability for this wonderful area, which is enjoyed by thousands of B.C. residents every year.”

Now, of course, as soon as an e-mail mentions the word “sustainability,” my ears perk up, so I took some time to explore this bill further.

The Cultus Lake Park Amendment Act takes an important step forward in the lead-up to the 2014 municipal elections to ensure that the residents of Cultus Lake are adequately represented in their government. The act would change the number and composition of representatives from the current structure of seven representatives, two of whom are Cultus Lake residents, to the new structure of five representatives, three of whom are Cultus Lake residents.

By increasing the representation of local residents, this bill will further empower those residents to sustainably manage a park that is enjoyed by so many British Columbians, including residents from the Oak Bay–Gordon Head riding here on southern Vancouver Island.

I, too, would like to thank the government and the member for Chilliwack-Hope for his work to bring and introduce this bill forward, and I very much look forward to supporting its adaptation at second and third readings and committee stage.

Yesterday I rose in the house to give my qualified support to Bill 20. While this bill is part of a two-step process to reform municipal elections financing, many, including me, wished that it had also brought in donation limits prior to the 2014 municipal elections. Just prior to me speaking, Linda Reimer, MLA for Port Moody-Coquitlam and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development spoke. She noted:

All of the [Local Government Elections] task force recommendations are being implemented in this legislation, with the exception of those expense limits. They will be addressed in the second phase and implemented for the 2018 local elections. Expense limits set a maximum amount of money that candidates, elector organizations and third-party advertisers in local elections can spend on election campaigns.

The Local Government Elections Task Force recommended that expense limits be established in local government elections but didn’t recommend what the limits should be. We fully intend to put in place expense limits, but we felt it would not be appropriate to add expense limits to the mix of the significant reforms that we already have in place in an election year. UBCM supports this two-phased approach.

The first phase is the legislation that we introduced already. The legislation, as I said previously, represents the most significant reforms to local government in more than 20 years. And of course, the second phase will be our expense limits.

Below is the text of my speech. Please note that I believe it would be in everyone’s interest i government brought in financing limits this years fall sitting (if it is after the municipal election) or, at latest, spring 2015.

I rise to offer a few initial comments on Bill 20 with a wicked cold. I would much rather be in bed today, but I felt this was an important bill to speak to as we move to municipal elections this fall.

I recognize that the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act makes many needed changes in our local elections system. I was very happy to see that the legislation included further clarity around disclosure requirements and third-party advertising sponsorship. The added authority to Elections B.C. is also a welcome step in improving our democracy.

One noticeable absence in this bill, as alluded to by a number of previous speakers, is reform to the municipal spending limit for municipal elections. Now, I recognize the arguments put forward by the previous member with respect to the fact that the committee did not make recommendations on specific amounts, but the reality is that this is what people want. It’s been an ongoing issue for many years, and my main critique of this legislation before us today is that such spending limits are not included.

The government has had many opportunities since the Local Government Elections Task Force introduced its recommendations for improving local democracy in 2010, yet it still has not acted to limit campaign expenses.

Here’s a specific example. If we look at the numbers from Vancouver’s 2011 election, we see that Vancouver’s mainstream municipal parties collectively spent $5 million. That’s roughly $12 for every eligible voter. Now, compare that with Montreal, where candidates can spend 30 cents per voter, or Toronto, where candidates can spend 85 cents per voter. I think it’s pretty clear the difference — an order of magnitude difference.

It’s important that we take steps to limit the extent to which money can currently impact our municipal election results. Just as in the provincial system, in municipal elections people vote, not unions or business. It’s really time that we follow the lead that was set by our federal government in terms of putting campaign limits and also banning the donations from union and business interests — vested interests, I might add.

Because whose interests are ultimately served? Is it the voter, or is it the person with the biggest paycheque? Sometimes it seems to me that it’s the person with the biggest paycheque, and if that biggest paycheque is unbounded, the person with the biggest paycheque is the wealthiest person.

It’s particularly important in the context of this newly proposed four-year municipal election cycle. Some have argued that extending the term lengths for elected officials without introducing spending limits further tilts the balance of power in favour of those who can spend the most. While there certainly are merits for elected officials having a longer term in office — I support that — it’s perhaps unfortunate that this proposed extension comes at a time when one of the largest issues facing local government elections is campaign spending.

Of course, I want to recognize that it would have been impractical and even somewhat unfair to introduce legislation that would change campaign spending protocol during an election year, but I come back to the fact that the government has had quite some time to actually develop this legislation.

That being said, the people of British Columbia need some certainty that this government intends to follow through with its promise and cap election spending before the next local election. To that effect, I am pleased to hear the speech by the previous member. The previous member spoke to the fact that this would, in fact, be the case.

The government has had a number of years since the task force recommendation. It’s time to act expediently to bring these changes forward. I look forward to hearing from the government regarding the timeline for bringing in these reforms and will withhold further comments until the committee stage.

Bill 18 – 2014:  The Water Sustainability Act is now entering third reading. This is an historic piece of legislation that completely overhauls the 1909 Water Act and now includes groundwater regulation. This is a welcome piece of legislation that I am pleased to support. Below is the text of my address at second reading.

I would like to start my speech the exact same way that the member left off her previous speech, which is offering my congratulations to the minister for tabling what I believe is a historic bill for the province of British Columbia.

We’ve been blessed here in British Columbia with some of the best access to fresh water compared to any other jurisdiction in the world. Our abundance of clean, fresh water has meant that the pressures to monitor and regulate its usage have taken much longer to manifest themselves. We’ve not felt the immediate pressures that some jurisdictions have, in which failure to regulate water usage meant the difference between life and death.

Yet what is clear is that from an economic, social, environmental and cultural perspective, how we manage our water will have significant impacts on the current generation as well as future generations, particularly in light of the climate change as outlined in the recently released Working Group II report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

To quote the West Coast Environmental Law: “Water and how we treat our water is one of those fundamental issues that touches on so much of who we are, what we do and how we build our economy.” Our failure to better regulate our water usage today will have ripple effects and potentially significant consequences for future generations — if not across our province, certainly in specific regions.

After more than 100 years I think we can all agree in this House that updated legislation is long overdue. The original Water Act from 1909 was written for a different time with different issues facing our water resources. It is ill-suited for the current area of climate change pressures, rising competition over usage and increasing importance of managing our water supplies in such a way that ensures opportunity and sustainability for future generations.

The new Water Sustainability Act represents an important step forward to meet many of these challenges, and I’m pleased to say that I find much to support in the many innovative environmental measures proposed to manage our water resources.

In particular, the incorporation of the long-promised regulation of groundwater is an important addition. The inclusion of a system for licensing and regulating groundwater users helps to fill a glaring policy gap that was allowing a number of industries to profit from our Crown resources, with no system to ensure the sustainability of their use. In addition, British Columbia did not receive adequate compensation for the use of this resource.

I’m also encouraged that the government chose to include a number of ecological considerations in the decision-making process about water use. Specifically, innovative components that include the water sustainability plans, water objectives, the protection of sensitive streams, environmental flow needs and mitigation measures are all very positive.

I look forward to examining exactly how these provisions will operate in greater detail at the committee stage. Here I want to note my support for the fact that they were not only considered but included in the bill.

I also think the government’s decision to sever the water pricing discussion from this act is a very good one. As the ministry has no doubt seen, there are a great variety of positions on water pricing, and a separate engagement process will allow all interested stakeholders to provide the ministry and the minister with their perspective.

My own view is that the province should seriously look at differential pricing for water based, in part, on how that water is being used. Some guidance could be taken from the bill before us today, particularly in regards to ensuring the beneficial use and aligning the differential pricing with the “water objectives” of a given region. In general I’m supportive of the process the government has initiated to solicit feedback on water pricing, and I look forward to discussing this aspect at a later day.

As population grows and the direct impact of climate change on local weather is felt with increasing frequency and intensity, the sustainable management of our water resources will become more important.

Without a doubt, there are many positive aspects in this bill pertaining to the determination of “critical environmental flow thresholds.” However, it remains unclear to me whether government possesses the level of in-house scientific understanding required to properly manage our water resources, particularly our groundwater supplies.

As we’ve seen recently in California, climate change can have massive impacts on water supply. For example, we can expect precipitation to increasingly fall in the form of rain instead of snow, leading to changes in snowpack and water availability throughout the year. This is not an issue of water availability but of water storage for our surface water access. This, in turn, could have significant impacts on groundwater recharge and needs to be accounted for in the regulations that will govern groundwater withdrawal.

I’m also uncertain about the merits of continuing with the first-in-time, first-in-right priority for waters rights, as mentioned by the member for Stikine. My view is that this system is also outdated and needs updating and is potentially contradictory to many of the sustainability provisions that this bill puts in place. I look forward to unpacking the reasoning behind the continuing use of this system further at committee stage.

Finally, my main concern with regards to this bill concerns the government’s ability to effectively implement it. I’m left wondering if the government currently possesses and will continue to possess the necessary resources and internal capacity to enforce many of the provisions in this bill.

The overall downsizing of the public service is starting to cause alarm bells to go off in certain areas, especially with regards to available scientific expertise and enforcement. Cuts in the scientific capacity of government will have a negative effect on its ability to manage its natural resources. This comes at a time when the stresses that are placed on our resources have never been more diverse and more complicated. I hope that we can include a discussion on this important topic as the bill moves through committee stage.

In summary, Bill 18 provides a broad framework for a new water management system in British Columbia. However, many of the details are left to regulations that have yet to be written, and so, ultimately, the overall success of this bill will be judged once these regulations become public. I believe it’s essential for the government to continue to offer British Columbians an opportunity to provide feedback as the regulations are developed.

Finally, as I began, I’d like to finish by congratulating the minister for tabling this historic bill. I very much look forward to working with her going forward to make sure that this bill lives up to its full potential.

Tens of thousands of people in BC have voiced their opposition to the recent passing of Bill 4 – the Park Amendment Act. They are demanding its repeal because of fears around industrial development taking priority over the protection of our most significant areas of ecological diversity and natural beauty. I share many of their concerns.

The Problem with Bill 4 – the Park Amendment Act.

The Park Amendment Act is a controversial piece of legislation that now allows the BC Government to issue park use permits for activities that are not necessarily related to the mandate and purpose of our BC parks. The Act allows for permits to be issued for two general categories: film production and research.

Previously, for a park use permit to be granted the applicant had to prove that the activity, for which they required the permit, was necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved. Bill 4 changes this.

Now, the Minister of the Environment has the ability to issue permits that fall under the vague and undefined term “research” for any type of “feasibility study” for any kind of “prescribed project”.

Without any limitations on what these studies or projects might entail, without any guidelines for how the studies or projects are to be assessed, and without defining the term “research”, the Act, in essence, can allow for a park use permit to be issued for virtually any type of activity. The language is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. In theory, I could sip a beer while watching Hockey Night in Canada and qualify and call this research as part of a ‘feasibility study’ under this Act. Conversely, exploratory drilling could also fall into this category.

To be fair, there are regulations within the Ministry that do define the term research, and there are guidelines over assessing what kind of activities are to be allowed in BC parks. However, they are not law – they are regulations, and they can be changed by the ministry without any public consultation, public debate, or public scrutiny. The passing of Bill 4 means that the law protecting our Parks has been weakened, while the ministry has increased its power and adopted a “trust us” approach.

It is also important to acknowledge that, under the existing Park Act, no major industrial project can actually occur within a protected area. If a major project wants to cross a park, the general practice in BC allows for proponents to propose a boundary adjustment to a park in order to accommodate their project. This proposal then is reviewed by the ministry and if a park boundary is to be changed it must be passed in the Legislative Assembly.

Bill 4 doesn’t change that. It simply allows research permits to be issued to conduct a “feasibility study” on a “prescribed project” (a pipeline or a road for example). This doesn’t mean the project will go through, and it doesn’t mean the research will be benign, but it does signify that industry might be able to get an earlier foot in the door towards applying for a boundary adjustment change, and may invest significant capital in doing so.

Adding to the uncertainty surrounding the underlying motivation for this Bill is the fact that a number of BC parks are facing possible boundary adjustments in order to accommodate major industrial projects. Under a Freedom of Information request submitted last year, the Ministry of Environment released which parks stand to be affected by certain projects. For example, the proposed Kinder Morgan Pipeline Expansion alone is expected to affect nine provincial parks and will require significant boundary adjustments to at least three of these parks. Furthermore, given the BC Liberals push for natural resource development, it’s no surprise that so many people are suspicious of this Act, and are worried that its purpose is merely to expedite industries application process.

Holding the Government to Account

When it was introduced, Bill 4, the Park Amendment Act, clearly did not have the social license to proceed. The proposed changes caught most people by surprise, major environmental groups condemned it, and the Bill was strongly opposed in the Legislature.

Working with the official opposition, I spoke against the Bill, highlighting the concerning and vague language used as well as the lack of public consultation and support for instituting these changes. I proposed that before passing in the House, the Bill should at least go to a committee review stage, in order to give the government time to build up the social license needed for this bill and to address the many concerns voiced. I also proposed amendments to the Bill, including adding a definition for “research”, as a way of trying to ensure that the Bill did not undermine the mandate and purpose of our Parks. Unfortunately, these were defeated by the government.

What Happened in the House 

Despite being given opportunities to engage the public, and despite the public outcry, Bill 4 – the Park Amendment Act, received royal assent on March 24, 2014. In defending the bill, Honourable Mary Polak, the Minister for the Environment stated that “the intention of this amendment is to provide the legal statutory certainty for the granting of research permits, commercial filming permits, that we have granting but have been advised that we do not have sufficient legal certainty in order to proceed as we have.” She assured the house that the 30-page Park Act still “contains all the guidance necessary to ensure that we don’t have mining in our parks, that we don’t have drilling for oil in our parks, that we don’t have major industrial activities taking place in our parks”. As British Columbian, our job is now to ensure the minister is true to her words.

Should we be concerned?

At roughly 14 million hectares, British Columbia has the third largest park system in North America (second only to the federal parks system of Canada and the US). Over 14.4% of the province is protected under the Parks system, and over 90% of British Columbians have visited a provincial park at some point in their lives and 60% regularly visit at least one park each year.

Over the last 10 years our parks have undergone 44 boundary changes totaling roughly 811 hectares of lost park land. Although only 8 of these changes were for proponent-based projects (industrial projects), the rest being largely administrative in nature, this number accounted for almost 70% of the total area removed from our parks. Clearly, although they only account for a small number of total adjustments, the proponent-based industrial projects are the ones that have the biggest impact to our Parks.

Equally important however is that this is a relatively small amount of land when it is taken in the context of 14 million hectares that are protected. In addition, just a few weeks ago that number was increased by 55,000 hectares.

The good news is that even though this Bill does allow for research permits to be granted, possibly for major industrial projects, the park boundary would have to be changed before the project itself could be approved. For our provincial parks, any boundary change has to come through the legislative assembly. And here, at least, there is an avenue for public attention and debate to occur over a park boundary change. You can be assured that I will be closely monitoring any future park boundary changes.

Bill 4 is a piece of legislation that is far too vague and gives too much power to the ministry. It clearly did not have the social license needed and continues to face strong opposition. If used inappropriately the Bill has the potential to undermine the legislated protection of our Parks. For these reasons I opposed its passage in the house, and will do whatever I can to ensure it is not used to abuse the underlying purpose of our Parks (as detailed in the BC Parks Mission Statement):

BC Parks is committed to serving British Columbians and their visitors by protecting and managing for future generations a wide variety of outstanding park lands which represent the best natural features and diverse wilderness environments of the province. 

The Next Steps

I’ve tried to lay out a balanced and fact-based approach to this legislation. You can read why I opposed the Bill here and what I said in a subsequent post here.

I hope that this post helps people to understand this issue, its complexity, and the importance that will now be placed on ensuring that every boundary adjustment is transparent and fully understood so that our park system remains protected and continues to serve the interests of British Columbians.

If you are concerned about this Act, here are some options available to you:

1 – Sign a Petition

Some groups have called for an appeal to this Bill. It can be found here.

2 – Write a Letter

The minister has explained that this was essentially a housekeeping Bill — one that gave the ministry the legal authority to do what it had already been doing. However, my main criticism of this Bill, aside from the use of incredibly vague language, is that it clearly did not have the required social license to move forward. If you share this concern I would encourage you to write to the minister about your views on the process, and how in the future the government needs to first engage in public consultation, before imposing such a controversial bill. Please provide me with a cc of your letter so that I can speak to your concerns in the future.

The Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act passed second reading yesterday and now moves into committee stage. As noted in a government press release when the Act was first introduced in early-March:

“While a complete re-write of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act is planned for spring 2015, government is adopting a phased-in approach to modernizing the legislation. The first step is to introduce amendments, modernize outdated provisions and reform the current act, which will allow for faster implementation of key recommendations.”

A detailed list of key recommendations can be found in the B.C. Liquor Policy Review Final Report.

Below please find my speech at second reading on this important piece of new legislation.

Today I also popped into the Tuscany Village Metro Liquor store in my riding to pick up some BC craft beer. Coincidentally, Barkerville Brewing Company , located in the City of Quesnel, were on location providing samples of their 18 Karat Ale. I chatted with the proprietor (Russ Ovans) and his daughter (Svea Ovans) about the BC Craft Beer industry. They are pictured in the image above. Barkerville Brewing Company officially opened for business on February 14, 2014, making it one of BC’s newest craft beer brewers.

To begin, I’d like to thank the member from Chilliwack for highlighting so many of the outstanding microbreweries that have spawned in the capital regional district. In fact, there’s a craft beer revolution that started in greater Victoria that’s spread throughout British Columbia.

I have the pleasure to actually have a very good friend who wrote the book on the craft beer revolution, called precisely that. His name is Joe Wiebe, and he’s a constituent in the Victoria region here locally.

The Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act is the initial piece of legislation that will bring some needed changes to the distribution of alcohol in our region, in our province. Building on the legislative changes that have occurred over the past decade, the government has recognized that a detailed examination on how liquor is managed in this province is overdue and has stated a number of reforms they intend to bring forward. The legislation before us today takes a first step in instituting some of these changes.

Guiding these proposed reforms was a substantial public consultation that allowed British Columbians to contribute to the report that outlined how B.C. should reform its laws around the sale and distribution of alcohol. This sort of public outreach to determine the direction of public policy helps ensure that a social licence is earned and that trust is created between a government and its citizens. I want to applaud the government’s efforts and, in particular, the member for Richmond-Steveston, who went forward with this consultation process to establish the social licence before instituting or proceeding to bring this legislation forward to us today.

The legislation before us will allow for certain reforms that I believe warrant recognition. I’m pleased to see that by this summer small vendors will be able to sell alcohol at farmers markets. As I understand, these vendors will also be able to provide samples to interested customers. This is a great initiative that promotes small business in the microbrewery and wine industries of our province.

The B.C. Craft Brewers Guild reports that the sale of craft beer in B.C. has doubled in just the past four years, going from 9 percent of all B.C. sales of beer in 2009 to 19 percent in 2013, while the Liquor Distribution Branch reports sales by microbrewers shooting up by 38 percent. This is not without substantial economic impact. The Conference Board of Canada reported late last year that for every dollar Canadians spend on beer, $1.12 is generated for the Canadian economy.

More generally, according to the organization called Conversations for Responsible Economic Development, CRED — this is my favourite statistic — within Canada, more people work in the beer economy than in the oil sands economy. I reiterate that for the record. More people work in the beer economy than in the oil sands economy in Canada — 163,200 jobs in the beer economy, 112,000 direct jobs in the oil sands economy. These are numbers that we should be proud of. B.C., and in particular the capital regional district, has led the way in the craft beer revolution — and the fine wine revolution in the Okanagan — in Canada.

As these changes are rolled out over this year and the next, it’s very important that they are implemented in a responsible manner that makes public safety a priority. My comments to this regard will echo those of the previous speakers. The government has implemented significant changes in the last years that sought to decrease the prevalence of drinking and driving. I hope to see this continue, to take the societal effects of alcohol consumption seriously, even as we introduce some of these necessary changes.

We must also ensure that as these reforms are implemented, we continue to engage the small business communities of this industry. For example, there may be small businesses established under previous legislation that might be affected down the road. Some may be committed to long-term leases in their existing sites. Others may find it difficult to compete if, as is being discussed, grocery stores are allowed to sell beer and wine. As we know, small business is the engine of the B.C. economy, and steps must be taken to ensure the continued success of this sector.

For the most part, my concerns with the legislation before us and with some of the other proposed reforms are that they may negatively impact small businesses.

Change happens. We all recognize that. Updating liquor laws may require that we alter the established order of things. However, by ensuring we have an open and ongoing conversation with those who will be impacted, we can at least try to mitigate the amount of disruption that these changes cause.

Reforms to liquor store licensing may have a large impact on small businesses. The bill before us starts to lay the groundwork for substantial changes in this area, so we must be particularly vigilant in our approach to dealing with these small businesses.

One of the most substantial reforms around liquor licensing that this government intends to introduce is to allow liquor store licences to be bought and sold freely across our province. This will directly impact on how the industry operates, particularly in light of the cap on the number of liquor licences available.

Based on what has been made public so far, this proposed change is likely to considerably increase the value of these licences. Indeed, with the implementation of this reform, it’s conceivable that the buying and selling of liquor licences becomes a market in and of itself, divorced from the local market demand for liquor. This could then result in a situation where, for example, a small retail outlet in, say, Burns Lake sells its licence to a retail outlet in Vancouver.

While there’s nothing inherently wrong with licences moving freely across our province, there is an argument to be made here for fairness in our rural communities. As liquor store operators in small communities suddenly have these very profitable licences, they may decide, in fact, to sell their licences to a business in a larger city. This could then leave the rural community — in my example it was Burns Lake — with liquor stocks well below what the market demand is, based purely on the profitability of a larger market like Vancouver.

I’m also interested in the potential effects of continuing to cap the number of liquor store licences in the province while simultaneously creating a new market for these licences. This approach may impact the government’s flexibility to make necessary corrections in the future. Again, another example — the city of Vancouver is having enormous difficulty issuing new taxi licences because of the lobbying efforts of existing taxi licence holders who want to maintain the status quo and the value of their licences. Conceivably, a similar situation could arise with B.C. liquor stores. This is something that we need to be careful of.

In conclusion, my view is that this legislation contains a number of practical changes to our liquor laws. It’s worth noting that the government intends to have an incremental approach to roll out these proposed changes and that the bill in front of us today introduces reforms that are far from the most controversial. Nevertheless, I think the introduction of this bill allows this House to discuss some of the key principles that should baseline any reform, while the bill itself will help to provide new business opportunities for small business owners across the province.

I look forward to more detailed discussion of the specific elements contained within the bill at the next stage of discussions.