Media Release

Media Statement: March 6, 2014
Greens and NDP support further Public Consultation on Parks Amendment Act
For Immediate Release

Victoria BC – Today Andrew Weaver, for the second day in a row, worked with the official opposition to provide the government the ability to build the social license needed for the Park Amendment Act to move forward. The Park Amendment Act has received considerable opposition from numerous stakeholders across the province and it is clear that further engagement with British Columbians is warranted before the government makes these substantial changes to the legislation governing BC parks.

Yesterday, the NDP tabled a motion that would have delayed the passing of this Bill for a further six months giving the government an opportunity to engage British Columbians and address their concerns. Andrew supported the motion, arguing that the lack of “Public trust” was “a critical component of why [he was] supporting this amendment”.

Weaver argued in the house:

“Good governance requires outreach and consultation on controversial topics, and I encourage the government to actively engage the citizens of British Columbia in public forums before enacting this bill. The time proposed in the amendment is critical to allow for successful public buy-in of this bill.”

MLA Weaver gave his full support to the NDP motion; unfortunately, the motion was defeated.

Today, the Green Party MLA noted that “the government did not feel that the delay of this bill was in their interest” and he reiterated his view that “the Park Amendment Act does not have the social license to move forward.”  He then introduced a different amendment on the Park Amendment Act: to send the Bill to a committee.

Weaver argued that “Moving the Bill to a committee would allow for the multi-partisan engagement of stakeholders, it would show that the government is listening to the concerns of British Columbians, and it would ensure that the development of the language of this Bill satisfies the concerns of its many critics.”

In another notable show of multi-partisan cooperation, many members in the caucus of the official opposition spoke and voted in support of Weaver’s amendment. The motion to amend was voted down by the Government.

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

Earlier this session the government introduced Bill 4 – the Park Amendment Act. This act essentially allows the government to issue park permits for two activities that are unrelated to the mandate and purpose of our parks. The first is that park-use permits can now be issued for film production. Generally I support this development, and think that it could provide a boost to our film industry. The second is that park-use permits can now be issued for “research” activities.

Prior to this legislation, park-use permits could not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minster, they were necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park. This Bill now allows park-use permits for film production and for ‘research’.

Research can mean different things to different people. Research can mean a study on an endangered species, or it can mean exploratory drilling. Some types of research seem appropriate for our parks and fall within the purpose and mandate of our parks, others do not. Leaving out a definition of research without any parameters around what will and will not be allowed under a ‘feasibility study’ is leaving our parks open to possible industrial development in the future.

Current regulations and policy does define and constrain research activities that will be undertaken in our parks. However, regulations and policy can change without any public input and without public announcement. Legislation, on the other hand, is openly debated in parliament.

There is a lack of public trust on this issue. There is a lack of public trust that government has the best interests of our parks in mind, particularly given the strong opposition to pipelines going through our province. Instead of unilaterally weakening the laws that protect our Parks, the government should instead undertake an extensive public consultation in order to obtain the social license that is critical for this type of change to the Parks Act.

Today in the house I stated that:

“Public trust is a key component of why I am opposing this Bill. The public does not know why this Bill is being brought forward, and does not necessarily trust government to ensure that this Bill will not undermine our parks. Although the policies and regulations around the issuance of research permits do have specific constraints, these policies can be easily changed without going through the legislature. Today the public is concerned about pipelines and large industrial projects going through our province, and it is not surprising, therefore, that this legislation which weakens the requirements for the issuance park permits, has faced considerable backlash. Indeed, of the legislation introduced thus far this session, this Bill has gained the most significant and controversial media attention that I have seen in quite some time.”

I also stated that “Our parks are world-renowned and are a huge part of our tourism industry, they are enjoyed by thousands of British Columbians every year, and in many ways, represent the best that “Beautiful British Columbia” has to offer. This legislation weakens the current legislation of the Parks Act, and there are many who fear that it paves the way for industrial projects through our parks.”

Understanding the concerns around this Bill my staff and I were prepared to call for an amendment to delay the enactment of the Bill, allowing for public engagement and clarification of the Act. However, before I spoke to the Bill the official opposition, sharing many of my concerns, introduced an amendment calling for a delay of 6 months on the enactment of Bill 4. This is a move I fully support.

My Views towards the Bill in Full

The Park Amendment Act, introduced earlier this session, has some elements to it that I believe warrant support. In particular I was happy to see the inclusion of a more streamlined and accessible park permit issue process for activities related to film production. This legislation will likely attract additional filming business to the province, and I applaud the government for its foresight in including film production components in this Bill.

However, I have considerable concerns around how the concept of “research” is being proposed in this Bill. Good research is an integral part of forming good policy and I am a firm believer in the principle of evidenced-based decision making. The problem with how this legislation uses the term ‘research’ is that it does not define the term, it does not give any limiting parameters around what types of research would or would not be allowed, and it provides no guidelines on how the research activity is to be conducted. I am aware that there is a definition for research as well as guidelines around how research permits can be issued within the parks policy, but herein lies the problem. Policy and regulations can be changed and modified without public input or awareness, in contrast, modifying legislation has a clear accountability process.

The reason why we have parks in this province is to preserve and protect the most outstanding natural environments and ecologically diverse areas of British Columbia. Our parks exist for the use and enjoyment of British Columbians today and for the future generations of tomorrow. Indeed, the mission of BC parks is to “protect representative and special natural places within the provinces Protected Areas System for world class conservation, outdoor recreation, and education.” Furthermore, in its mandate BC Parks outlines its commitment to British Columbians through:

• 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.
• providing province-wide opportunities for a diversity of high quality and safe outdoor recreation that is compatible with protecting the natural environment.
• Maintaining British Columbia’s ecological diversity through the preservation of representative, and special natural ecosystems, plant and animal species, features and phenomena.

Operating on this understanding of the purpose of our parks, this Bill fails to define research in a way that ensures that the mandate and underlying purpose of why our Parks exist, is not undermined. One definition of research that I would argue is compatible with the mandate of our parks is one used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This organization defines research as “experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view.”[1] I would like to draw attention to that last section of this definition and highlight that research in this sense is done, and I quote, “without any particular application or use in view”. Being a scientist by trade, I believe this definition encompasses the spirit of what good research in our Parks should entail.

For example, research that is focused on understanding the endangered Vancouver Island Marmot within the Haley Lake Ecological Reserve is, in my opinion, entirely acceptable as the underlying motivation of the research is to acquire new knowledge of this species. This type of research is also directly compatible with the mandate and purpose of our Parks.  In comparison, exploratory drilling ‘research’ or widespread ore-sampling ‘research’ in the same type of protected area is not acceptable, as the motivation behind this type of research is likely for an industrial project which would directly contradict the mandate and purpose of our Parks. In my view, this latter type of research that supports a specific application or project within our parks, and which also inherently works against the purpose and mandate of our Parks, is problematic to say the least.

The proposed legislation will overrule previous clauses of the Park Act which ensure park use permits are not be granted unless it is clear that the permits “will not be detrimental to the recreational value of the park”. Current legislation also states that permits “must not be issued unless, in the opinion of the minister, it is necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved”. By allowing park use permits to be issued around this vague concept of ‘research’, particularly research focused on undertaking a “feasibility study” for virtually any type of “prescribed project”, we are opening our Parks to special interests whose intentions may not align with the interests of British Columbians.  It seems to me that this legislation is, intentionally or not, prioritizing industrial proposals over the preservation and protection of the parks of British Columbia. Given that we are discussing protected crown lands meant to preserve and protect places of ecological sensitivity, the habitats of endangered species, or places of historical and natural significance, should there not at least be some basic guidelines imbedded in the legislation around what type of research can be conducted and how it must take place?

Public trust is a key component of why I am opposing this Bill. The public does not know why this Bill is being brought forward, and does not necessarily trust government to ensure that this Bill will not undermine our parks. Although the policies and regulations around the issuance of research permits do have specific constraints, these policies can be easily changed without going through the legislature. Today the public is concerned about pipelines and large industrial projects going through our province, and it is not surprising, therefore, that this legislation which weakens the requirements for the issuance park permits, has faced considerable backlash. Indeed, of the legislation introduced thus far this session, this Bill has gained the most significant and controversial media attention. Six of the leading environmental organizations that are active in this province and which have memberships representing many tens of thousands of British Columbians, have condemned this Bill. Good governance requires outreach and consultation on controversial topics and I encourage the government to actively engage the citizens of British Columbia in public forums before enacting Bill 4

Our parks are world-renowned and are a huge part of our tourism industry, they are enjoyed by thousands of British Columbians every year, and in many ways, represent the best that “Beautiful British Columbia” has to offer. This legislation weakens the current legislation of the Parks Act, and there are many who fear that it paves the way for industrial projects through our parks.

As the Bill does not define the term research, and does not outline what constitutes a valid research activity within the protected areas of British Columbia, I cannot support this Bill. Before this legislation is passed I ask the government to explicitly define the term research, to produce research guidelines that would ensure any research activity done within our Parks would follow specific rules, and to amend the definition of a “feasibility study” to contain specific limitations and parameters which would ensure that these feasibility studies are compatible with the mandate of our Parks. Furthermore, as this research will take place on public lands, I believe that the Bill should clarify that any research activity which receives a park-use permit must be done in a manner that is consistent with the long-term health and purpose of the park. I ask that all of these requests be enshrined within legislation.

I think that in BC right now, there is a general lack of public trust at this juncture for changes to the way parks are administered, particularly with the uncertainty around major pipeline projects. Despite some positive aspects to the legislation, the fact that the public does not trust the reasons why government is making amendments to the Park Act is a serious concern.

I question whether the government has obtained the necessary social licence to make changes that could contribute to streamlining the development of industrial projects in our parks – projects which in some cases, a majority of British Columbians are opposed to.

I am opposed to the nature and direction that this legislation currently takes, and I urge the government to carefully consider the long-term consequences of passing this bill as it stands today.

Media Statement: March 4th, 2014
Expansion of Carbon Neutral Capital Program Welcome News
For Immediate Release

Victoria BC – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, is welcoming the expansion of the Carbon Neutral Capital Program announced by The Honourbale Mary Polak, Minister of Environment today. Currently the program provides $5 million annually to school districts for improvements and upgrades to buildings and services for energy efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The extension will provide an extra $9.5 million for post-secondary institutions and health authorities.

“What is critical is that this leaves in place the Carbon Neutral Government legislation requiring the public sector to show leadership in emissions reductions. I support the expansion of the capital program to hospitals, universities and colleges. In a media release last November I also called for the government to go further to develop an offset program and provide capital funds for the conversion of school bus fleets and BC Ferries to run on compressed or liquefied natural gas. While this is good news, I remain concerned the expansion of hydraulic fracking and proposals for LNG export plants will put our legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets in jeopardy” said Andew Weaver

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

Today I was up in Question Period and I called on the Minister of Health, Terry Lake, to protect Vancouver Island patients by insisting that Island Health release its evidence in support of their new controversial patient care model. I also called on the Minister to initiate an independent review of the model.

Island Health’s controversial new patient care model, titled Care Delivery Model Redesign (CDMR), will be implemented at Victoria General and Royal Jubilee Hospitals on April 23, 2014. Under CDMR Island Health would cut 100 baseline nursing positions and replace them with 95 baseline Health Care Aid positions. Whereas Registered Nurses have a 4-year bachelor’s degree, Health Care Aids have up to 6 months of training.

Here is the question I asked:

On April 23, Island Health will implement a new patient care model—Care Delivery Model Redesign (otherwise known as CDMR) — at Victoria General and Royal Jubilee Hospitals. In their CDMR Fact Sheet, Island Health claims that the model will lead to “improved quality and patient safety”. Island Health claims the model is based on evidence but has yet to make their evidence publicly available. An internal surveys show that 88% of nurses working under CDMR at Nanaimo Regional Hospital would not feel comfortable having a family member cared for on their unit. And last week I held a town forum on CDMR that raised a number of additional concerns.

As a publicly-funded body, Island Health has an obligation to be accountable to British Columbians.

Will the Minister of Health step in to insist that Island Health release its evidence for public scrutiny?

Answer from The Honourable Terry Lake, Minister of Health
(Hansard Blues extract)

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for the question. I had mentioned that I’ve had an opportunity to travel around the province and meet a lot of the people who care for our patients in all kinds of settings. I think members on both sides of the House agree on the tremendous work that nurses and other health care professionals do for British Columbians.

It’s about appropriateness of care — the right care, the right provider, at the right place, right time, with the right resources. This is an effort on behalf of Island Health to ensure that we have those five Rs in place. This patient care model is to wrap services around the patient, which in some cases is appropriate in some situations. Some wards, where there are more personal care duties, are where you can use other professionals to aid the highly-trained nurses, who can then spend more time doing patient care plans.

This was a result of a study done by Island Health. It’s about providing the right care to the right patient at the right time with better outcomes. That is the goal, and that is what I believe will be happening, at the end of the day, with this new model.

Here is my supplemental question:

The research is clear. Increasing the Nurse to Patient ratio beyond 1 to 4—as will happen under CDMR—leads to higher mortality rates and higher morbidity rates. Just last week, a study of more than 400,000 patients in 300 hospitals across Europe published in the prestigious medical journal Lancet found that increasing a nurses’ workload by even 1 patient, increased the mortality rate by 7%.

There’s also substantive research to suggest that increased nursing levels:

• reduce length of hospital stays
• reduce the rate of adverse events;
• reduce nurse turnover rates.

All of these are actually cost savings measures.

This is why jurisdictions like California have responded to the evidence and legislated nurse-staffing ratios. CDMR goes against this research.

Honourable Speaker, The Minister of Health has a responsibility to protect patients.

Will the Minister step in to protect patients by insisting that Island Health release its evidence for public scrutiny and by initiating an independent review of the program?

Answer from The Honourable Terry Lake, Minister of Health
(Hansard Blues extract)

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned in my first answer that it’s the appropriateness that’s important. We must be led by evidence. The member is quoting from a study in the Lancet that looked at surgical patients, not medical patients, not rehabilitation patients — surgical patients.

In that particular instance it may not be appropriate to move away from the one-to-one type of nursing model that is in place for surgical patients that are being looked after, after a surgery. However, for rehabilitation, the use of health care aides, along with LPNs and led by RNs, is a much more efficient system, allowing nurses to do the job that they are highly trained to do.

That is the appropriate situation, and that is the intent of looking at new and better ways of caring for our patients in the hospital system of British Columbia.

……………….

Last week I held a public Town Hall on CDMR with representatives from the Association of Registered Nurses of BC, the BC Nurses Union, the UVic School of Nursing and the UVic Nursing Students Society. Island Health was invited but unfortunately declined to participate.

As a publicly-funded body, Island Health has an obligation to be accountable to British Columbians. As Minister of Health, Mr. Lake has a responsibility to protect patient safety. There is enough credible research out there to raise serious questions about the controversial patient care model. That is why I have called on the Minister to insist that Island Health release its evidence for public scrutiny and to initiate an independent review of the model.

Sources:

Nurse Staffing and Financial Outcomes http://ww.w.massnurses.org/files/file/Legislation-and-Politics/3_08CE_NurseStaff.pdf

Improving Nurse-to-Patient Staffing Ratios as a Cost-Effective Safety Intervention: http://vwvw.massnurses.org/files/file/Legislation-and-Politics/Cost_Effectiveness_Study.pdf

The Association of Registered Nurse Staffing Levels and Patient Outcomes: http://www.ona.org.3pdns.korax.net/documents/File/pdf/KaneRNStaffingPatientOutcomesMedCare.pdf

State-Mandated Nurse Staffing Levels Alleviate Workloads, Leading to Lower Patient Mortality and Higher Nurse Satisfaction: http://innovations.ahrq.gov/content.aspx?id=3708

Nurse staffing and education and hospital mortality in nine European countries: a retrospective observational study: http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673613626318.pdf

 California Nursing Staff Level Regulations: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/services/DPOPP/regs/Documents/R-37-01_Regulation_Text.pdf

Media Statement: March 3rd, 2014
MLA Charts Own Path on Budget Vote – Andrew Weaver
For Immediate Release

Victoria BC – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, voted today for Budget 2014 to proceed to the Committee of Supply. While the budget does not contain many of the priorities the BC Green Party is seeking, the tabling of a balanced budget offers a good starting point that Andrew Weaver, as the only BC Green Party MLA, can build on.

“This is certainly not a budget I would have tabled — that is why I continue to raise my concerns.  Yet the question for me is this: How can I best represent my constituents? Being an effective MLA is about more than just opposing for the sake of it — it is about being constructive and genuinely willing to work across party lines.”

The BC Green Party believes that living within our means is crucial as we build a more sustainable and equitable society. This budget lays out a balanced fiscal plan, which includes small steps towards reducing our debt. It does this while also substantially increasing funding for Community Living BC, and taking an innovative approach to funding research into cancer prevention with revenue generated from increasing the tobacco tax.

This budget also provides direct benefits to the constituents of Oak Bay-Gordon Head through the film tax credit, funding for Camosun College and an increase in the Property Transfer Tax exemption limit. These initiatives help make life slightly more affordable and open up new business opportunities for the region.

Yet while there are strong points in the budget, it falls short of offering a consistent vision for a transition to an economy where we live within our means. This budget does not do enough to directly address our social challenges, such as our country-leading child poverty rate, nor does it offer a concrete and consistent plan to meet our climate action targets, both of which are necessary to ensure that future generations are not burdened by the decisions we make today.

“We still need a back-up plan in case LNG development fails; we need a more consistent approach to making BC more affordable for families and to dealing with systemic issues like adolescent mental health; and we need to re-commit to our 2020 greenhouse gas reduction targets. However, as an individual MLA, I must make a decision about how best I can make a difference. With Budget 2014, I believe it starts by supporting the idea of a balanced budget and by constructively building on the small steps the budget takes to make life more affordable, while challenging the government to go further.”

A more comprehensive analysis of the budget can be found here.

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