Media Statement: May 19, 2016
Andrew Weaver – NEB decision on Kinder Morgan completely flawed
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. –  In response to the Kinder Morgan announcement by the National Energy Board, Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head has issued the following statement:

“I’m not surprised by the announcement. Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline, and the approval process it went through, appeared rigged from the start,” says Weaver. “As a participating intervenor I watched as other intervenors withdrew in frustration because they knew their participation was futile.”

“Within the limited constraints of the NEB process I submitted nearly 500 questions to Kinder Morgan which focused primarily on the risk and impact of a potential oil spill, the scientific underpinning of the oceanographic analysis used, and the extent of consultation done by the company. It was clear that the process for this project was not about assessing the best scientific evidence, or whether it was in the interests of British Columbians, but was more of a box-ticking exercise.”

“Fundamentally we don’t have the science or the capacity to deal with a diluted bitumen spill on our coast. The provincial government has voiced its opposition to this project already, and even with all the conditions placed on the project, I don’t see how the province could now turn around and approve it.”

Andrew Weaver was the only BC MLA to seek and receive intervenor status for the NEB Hearing Process. He has been involved in the process since December 2013 when he applied.

-30-

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

Parliament Buildings
Room 027C
Victoria BC V8V 1X4

Introduction

Since writing our first backgrounder, we have continued to research the issues surrounding genetically modified foods, and the legislative options available in the BC context. The issue of GMOs is broad and complex and is tied to many larger questions including: our relationship to our food, the effects of large-scale conventional agriculture on human and animal health and the environment, population growth, global warming, industry funding of science, technological advance and its associated risks, and our ability to ensure a sustainable and secure food supply for the future. It is important to be cognizant of these broader issues in developing a response to GMOs, to ensure a well informed and holistic response that does not have unforeseen adverse consequences. We must also work within the context of BC, using the tools we have at our disposal to most appropriately and effectively respond to the issues and questions associated with GMOs.

Jurisdiction

Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) share responsibility for food policies on health and safety, regulation, and labelling. The BC Liberal government has said that the responsibility for GM products rests solely with the Federal Government (see here and here and here).

However, in 2001, the BC NDP argued that GM labelling is a consumer information matter, which falls under provincial jurisdiction according to the Constitution Act (1867). During second reading of Bill 18 Genetically-Engineered Food Labelling Act,  NDP Attorney General Graeme Bowbrick noted “The province has jurisdiction to legislate on a matter of property and civil rights, which is interpreted to include the authority to legislate with regard to consumer protection and consumer information.”

The Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act (2016) gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to make regulations establishing or adopting certification programs, including making regulations respecting the quality standards of food or agricultural products. However, provincial certification will only apply to operators producing and selling their products within BC; those that sell their produce to other provinces will still require federal certification.

In order to fall within BC’s jurisdiction, the impact of any legislation must only be felt within BC and it must not have the effect of prohibiting or controlling the importation of goods into the province. Otherwise, legislation would infringe upon federal jurisdiction over inter-province trade and commerce and therefore be invalid.

Regarding pesticides, a province may prohibit the use of a registered pesticide, or it may add more restrictive conditions on the use of a product than those established under the Pest Control Products Act. This may provide a relevant parallel for the Province’s ability to restrict GM crops that have been approved Federally, or to impose stricter regulations on the use of GM crops within the province.

Effects and Costs of Mandatory Labelling

The BC NDP estimated that mandatory labelling would cost $11.8 million (in today’s dollars; see Note 1 below), which equals 0.1% of total retail food sales in BC. If implemented, mandatory labelling in BC could result in nation-wide labelling by companies, as is happening in the US, where Vermont labelling legislation (going into effect on July 1st, 2016) has led to large companies – including General Mills, Mars and Kellogg – to label their products nationwide.

Potential Ways Forward in the BC Context

Many potential legislative responses to GMOs fall under federal jurisdiction, including the approval and regulation of GM crops for growth and sale in Canada.

In BC, two key responses may be warranted. First, the Ministry of Agriculture could establish a robust tracking and monitoring regime, to track where GM crops are grown in BC, and to pro-actively monitor any actual or potential environmental and agricultural effects of GM crops. The Province does not currently track or monitor GM crops in BC. If any action is warranted, we must first identify and fully understand the scope and impact, if any, of GM crops in our province.

Second, BC should establish an expert panel, made up of independent researchers, to assess the current and potential future impacts of GM agriculture in BC, and to assess the jurisdictional ability, logistics, and costs of implementing mandatory labelling in BC or of increasing the regulation or restriction of GM imports into BC. Independence is important since many studies on GMOs are industry funded, but not all. Some evidence suggests that industry funding systematically biases studies towards favourable outcomes (see Note 2)

So what do you think?

Please continue to share your thoughts on what we should do in BC to address potential or perceived concerns associated with certain GM crops.

Note 1: adjusted 2001 NDP estimate ($9 million) for inflation (BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Regulatory Impact Statement, April, 2001)

Note 2: Healthy People and Communities—Steering Committee, Multi-Sectoral Partnerships Task Group, 2013: Discussion Paper: Public-Private Partnerships with the Food Industry;

Ayevard, P., D. Yach,  A.B.Gilmore, and S. Capewell, 2016: Should we welcome food industry funding of public health research? The BMJ, 2016, 353:i2161. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2161.

Last week I argued that the Leader of the Official Opposition acted in a cowardly fashion in attempting to shut down estimates of the Office of the Premier. I pointed out that it was cowardly for two reasons. First, the fact that the Leader of the Opposition would run away from an opportunity to question the Premier on a diverse array of issues is cowardly. It’s his job to do so. It certainly appears that he is afraid of challenging the Premier face to face.

If the Leader of the Opposition is afraid, that’s one thing. I was not afraid. I would have been willing to take much more than my allocated time on Thursday if extra time was available. I had prepared six longer primary questions (which would spin off into numerous smaller follow ups). I had other secondary questions that I would have loved  to raise on a diverse range of topics, from housing through social services through education and so forth. And this brings me to the second reason why I think it’s cowardly.

Just because the Leader of the Opposition no longer wants to ask questions does not give him the right to go against a long standing tradition of organized time allocation and take away my right as well. The people of British Columbia deserve better leadership and better opposition.

Today in the Legislature I rose on a point of order. As you will see from my Point of Order, it is my view that the estimates of the Office of the Premier have not yet concluded due to a procedural error. Once more, the BC NDP asked the Chair to not allow me time.

The text and video of my point of my point of order are reproduced below. At the end, I once more link the Video showing proceedings that closed Premier’s estimates.

UPDATE:

On Tuesday, May 17 the Chair provided a very thoughtful and thorough analysis in ruling against my point of order. I appreciate the work that went into it. I have reproduced the ruling at the end of this post.

Text of my Point of Order

A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order. This is the first time I have been able to rise on this point of order for two reasons. First, on Thursday of last week, I spent much of the day in communications with a variety of offices to determine what transpired with respect to the closing of debate on estimates for the Office of the Premier. I also only received the relevant Hansard clip on Friday.

As I’d mentioned to the Speaker’s office on Thursday last week, my office had coordinated through the Opposition House Leader’s office that I would be speaking to the Premier’s estimates. It was agreed that I would rise early Thursday morning.

Between 6:20 and 6:25 on Wednesday last week, at 292 minutes, 14 seconds of the online Hansard video on May 11, the Premier rose in estimates and stated the following: “With that, Mr. Chair, I rise to report progress and ask leave to sit again.” The Chair then said this: “Hon. members, you heard the motion. All in favour say aye.” The motion carried.

At this point, the committee had risen, and it was very clear that the Chair left his seat. There appeared to be some commotion in the chamber after the passing of this motion. Conversations went back and forth between the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition. The Chair remained standing during these conversations. Some notes got passed around. The Clerk also stood to speak with the Premier. The Chair returned to his seat but said nothing while the Clerk was standing and speaking to the Premier.

Eventually the Chair issued a single word. “Premier,” he said. At this point the Premier is audibly heard on Hansard saying: “It’s not mine.” She’s referring to a motion written on a piece of paper that had been passed to her. The Premier then says the following: “By agreement with the opposition, I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolution and ask leave to sit again.” After this motion passes, the Premier states this: “Are you sure that was legally done?”

In my view, there is a very clear procedural error here. The Chair at no time called the committee back to order while sitting in the chair. Since the earlier motion to rise and report progress had indeed passed, the second motion regarding completion would, in my view, be out of order, as the committee had not been called to order again. It had simply risen.

As such, it is my view that the estimates of the Office of the Premier have not yet concluded. Hon. Chair, I would kindly ask that you consider these comments and consider providing a ruling to this House at a later time. Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter.

M. Farnworth: This is not a procedural point of order. In fact, it would be classed as argument. So, hon. Chair, I respectfully ask that you rule that this is, in fact, not a point of order.

The Chair: Hon. Members, I would take the member’s point of order on advisement. Thank you.

Video of my Point of Order

Video Close of Proceedings on May 11

Point of Order — Chair’s Ruling

The Chair: Before I recognize the Minister of Finance, I have a statement to make.

On Monday, May 16, at the commencement of Committee of Supply, Section B, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head rose on a point of order regarding the conclusion of estimates of the Office of the Premier on Wednesday, May 11. I have reviewed the Votes and Proceedings, the Hansard transcript and the video of the proceedings in question.

I acknowledge the question the member raised, but I do not agree that the Committee of Supply was not properly constituted and that, therefore, it could not consider or adopt the motion regarding Vote 10, the 2016-17 estimates for the Office of the Premier.

The proceedings unfolded as follows. An initial motion was moved by the hon. Premier that the committee “rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.” The Chair put the motion to the committee, and the motion was carried. Normally, the presiding officer would leave the chair and report to the Speaker. However, that did not occur.

Although the presiding officer rose briefly, he was immediately advised that it was the will of the committee to complete consideration of the estimates of the Office of the Premier. At that point, the committee had not formally closed proceedings, nor did the Chair declare that the committee was adjourned. In addition, Office of the Premier staff remained in the Chamber, though it is required that all public servants must depart immediately upon the adjournment of Committee proceedings.

The presiding officer resumed formal proceedings and recognized the Premier, who moved the motion to report completion of the estimates for the Office of the Premier. This motion, and the motion to approve Vote 10, were duly adopted with consent of the committee had altered its original decision to report progress by unanimous agreement of all members duly present and assembled in the chamber at that time.

The Chair did not call the committee back to order, as a recess or adjournment had not been declared. There had simply been a pause in the proceedings in order to confer and clarify with committee members on the status of business. This is not an unusual practice, as presiding officers often will consult informally with members during proceedings to clarify the status of business under consideration or to coordinate matters relating to the management of parliamentary business.

While the video recording captured the informal discussions of members, pursuant to the longstanding Hansard transcript practice they were clearly not part of the formal proceedings. Further, it should be noted that during the entire proceedings, the mace remained in the lowered position, indicating that the House was in committee. In addition, the Speaker had not resumed the chair nor received a report from the committee.

In other words, at all times during the closing of the estimates of the Office of the Premier, the Committee of Supply remained constituted. The presiding officer followed the correct procedure to continue in committee and allow the will of the committee to be respected. It is immaterial that the informal discussion among members to complete the estimates occurred off the record and were recorded on video as interjections.

The Chair heard these discussions and continued to preside in Committee of Supply, rather than reporting to the Speaker. The Premier’s final motions were moved with the unanimous consent of the Members present, were deemed in order and duly passed.

Accordingly, the remainder of the proceedings and the closing of the Estimates of the Office of the Premier on May 11 were in order.

Thank you.

A. Weaver: I just wish to thank you for a very thoughtful and thorough analysis of my point of order, and I do appreciate the work that went into it.

Today I had the distinct honour of addressing delegates to the 67^th Annual General Meeting and Convention of the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities (AVICC) in Nanaimo. As noted on their website, the AVICC

“… is a body formed for the purpose of representing in one organization the various municipalities, regional districts and other local governments of Vancouver Island, Sunshine Coast, Powell River and the Central Coast.“

The AVICC has 51 member municipalities, districts and local governments from these regions. Below I reproduce the text of my speech.

Text of my Speech to the AVICC

Please let me start by thanking the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities for granting me the opportunity to speak with you today.

The last time I addressed the AVICC was at the 62^nd AGM and Convention on April 8, 2011 at the Mary Winspear Centre in Sidney. I spoke as a UVic-based climate scientist on the challenges and opportunities associated with global warming.

If someone had told me then that I would be standing before you five years later as the MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and leader of the BC Green Party, I would have told them that they must be crazy.

But here I am. And here we are.

Ultimately the reason I got into politics is probably very similar to the reason why you got into politics.

I cared deeply about my community and I wanted to do what I could to better it for present and future generations.

I was profoundly troubled by the direction this province was heading.

I could no longer stand on the sidelines and watch the dismantling of British Columbia’s provincial leadership on the climate change file as our government pursued an utterly unrealistic fossil fuel windfall from a hypothetical Liquefied Natural Gas sector in a desperate attempt to win an election that nobody thought they would win.

Well we are already seeing these promises unravel as the province chase a falling stock, doubling down and selling out future generations along the way. And I’ve been saying the same thing now for more than three years. The market did not, does not and will not, any time soon, support a BC LNG industry anytime soon.

Rather than chasing the economy of the last century we should be positioning ourselves as leaders in the 21^st century economy.

We have a unique opportunity in British Columbia because of three strategic advantages that we have over virtually every other region in the world.

1. Our high quality of life and beautiful natural environment attracts, and retains, some of the best and brightest from around the globe —we are a destination of choice.
2. We have a highly skilled work force. Our high school students are consistently top ranked — with the OECD specifying BC as one of the smartest academic jurisdictions in the world.
3. We have access to renewable resources — energy, water, and fibre — like no other jurisdiction. We have incredible potential to create a clean, renewable energy sector to sustain our growing economy.

But for British Columbia to actually capitalise on our strategic advantages, we must ensure we protect them.

A quality public education is not the luxury of a strong economy. A quality education is what builds a strong economy.

A Loraxian approach to resource management does not protect our renewable resources, natural environment or build public support. We need to move away from the professional reliance model and ensure our regulatory framework is complied with and enforced.

And we must start thinking about the long-term consequences of our decisions, decisions that put people, rather than vested interests or re-election goals first and foremost.

We should be using our strategic advantage as a destination of choice to attract industry to BC in highly mobile sectors that have difficulty retaining employees in a competitive marketplace.

We should be using our boundless renewable energy resources to attract industry that wants to brand itself as sustainable over its entire business cycle, just like Washington and Oregon have done.

We should be setting up seed funding mechanisms to allow the BC-based creative economy sector to leverage venture capital from other jurisdictions to our province.

Too often the only leveraging that is done is the shutting down of BC-based offices and opening of offices in the Silicon Valley.

And following the recommendations of both the B.C. Mayors Climate Leadership Council and the BC Climate Leadership team we should continue steadily increasing emissions pricing.

By doing so we send a signal to the market that incentivises innovation and the transition to a low carbon economy.

And the BC Greens have a plan about what to do with the revenue. The funding would be transferred to municipalities across the province so that they might have the resources to deal with their aging infrastructure and growing transportation barriers.

By investing in the replacement of aging infrastructure in communities throughout the province we stimulate local economies and create jobs.

By moving to this polluter-pays model of revenue generation for municipalities, we reduce the burden on regressive property taxes.

Stable, local jobs give rise to vibrant, resilient municipalities. Yet, building strong municipalities is about more than making smart economic choices at the provincial level.

It is also about ensuring that municipal governments are empowered to make the investments their communities need. It is about asking ourselves: “How do we finance our municipalities now and how might we better finance them in the future”.

It’s critical to immediately initiate a provincial dialog on the future of municipal financing. There is far too much downloading and deregulation that is putting increased pressure on municipalities.

Whether it be dealing with the failure of issues that fall under provincial or federal jurisdiction, pressures on municipal spending through the introduction of regulations that they have no control over, programs paid by municipalities for which they have little control over costs, or the cancellation of funding of programs that are still require to be offered, municipalities are often left on the hook.

Take an issue that affects everyone here. Coastal communities often need to step in to clean up derelict vessels. They often bear the cost of the clean-up even though it falls in the jurisdiction of higher levels of government. This is a glaring example of a dereliction of duty exhibited by both provincial and federal governments.

Is continuing to burden homeowners with property tax increases year after year really the best approach?

Or, could provincial and municipal governments instead work together to create a more progressive financing system that promotes, instead of impedes, the type of fundamental economic activity that we all value, such as buying a home.

It’s also critical that we bring the typically urban-based tech and rural-based resource sectors together. Innovation in technology will lead to more efficient and clever ways of operating in the mining and forestry industries.

I was recently told the story of a BC-based technology innovator partnering with a local mine to dramatically improve the efficiency and environmental footprint of their mining operations.

Rather than hauling thousands of unnecessary tonnes of rock to a crusher for processing, the new technology allowed the rocks to be scanned for gold content on site. This meant that prior to trucking, the company could determine if it was more cost-effective to simply put the rock to one side for use as fill later.

We should be investing in innovation in the aquaculture industry, like the land-based technologies used by the Namgis First Nation on Vancouver Island who raise Atlantic salmon without compromising wild stocks.

These are just a few of the many ideas that could help us move to the cutting edge in 21st the century economy.

Fundamental to all of these ideas is the need to ensure that economic opportunities are done in partnership with First Nations. And that means working with First Nations through all stages of resource project development – from conception to completion.

The Green Party of BC is a solutions-oriented party — one that fundamentally believes that policy should flow from evidence. I like to call this evidence-based decision-making, as opposed to what happens too often in politics today — decision-based evidence making.

We have a vision of a compassionate society that lives within its means while preserving the environment around us. It is a vision that guides us to think about the long-term consequences of the decisions we make today.

If you’ve been watching the BC Greens in the Legislature over the last three years you’ll see I’ve tried to offer government solutions to problems that are facing all of us.

As I learned in my scientific career, and as I tried to teach my students, criticism is easy. But what’s more difficult, yet far more valuable, is being constructive in one’s criticism.

If you don’t like my idea, tell me what you would do instead. That is the approach I have taken in the legislature. That is the approach of the BC Greens.

MSP reform, housing, affordability, and sexualized violence are issues that we’ve been able to make significant progress on this year.

I believe that the BC Greens have helped to shape the narrative and in a not insubstantial way have been strong agents of change on these files.

Most recently it was announced that another one of my private members bills is supported by the government — a bill requiring responsible pet ownership.

So what are the essential traits of a successful leader? I firmly believe is that it is being principled, honest, authentic, trustworthy and having integrity.

Leaders must have the courage to be honest with British Columbians about the risks and consequences of any government decision.

Leadership builds public opinion – it doesn’t follow it.

In the shadows of the massive challenges that we face, our province needs new leadership.

Leadership that offers a realistic and achievable vision grounded in hope and real change.

Leadership that places the interests of the people of British Columbia — not vested union or corporate interests— first and foremost in decision-making.

And it’s not only today’s British Columbians that we must think about, it’s also the next generation who are not part of today’s decision-making process.

We need leadership that will build our economy on the unique competitive advantages British Columbia possesses, not chase the economy of yesteryear by mirroring the failed strategies of struggling economies.

Leadership that will act boldly and deliberately to transition us to 21st century economy that is diversified and sustainable.

Yes BC needs leadership. But leadership doesn’t just rest with one person. Everyone here has the opportunity and responsibility to take this mantle of leadership on.

Leadership means inspiring others to act in ways that contribute to the betterment of their society.

We are all here because we believe BC has the potential to show this leadership.

I hope to offer that vision and that leadership to the people of British Columbia over the coming years and I look forward to working with all of you to make that a reality.

The fact is, very few of the important challenges facing our society can easily be placed within the traditional left-right political spectrum.

Addressing these challenges requires us to come together from across the political divide. It requires us to cooperate and collaborate across all levels of government. And it requires us to develop a social license before, not after, a policy pathway is chosen.

I’m asking everyone in this room to consider working together to find real solutions to the important problems that face us today —problems in affordability, homelessness, poverty, climate change, education and health care.

To conclude, I leave you with what Stephen Lewis stated at his UBCM speech in 2012. He noted that British Columbia has the most lunatic political culture in Canada. Everyone laughed.

But quite frankly, I think we should all have been ashamed.

We can do better. We will do better. And I commit to you today, on behalf of the BC Greens, we will to do our best to work with you to solve the challenges each and every one of your communities face.

Thank you and thank you to the AVICC for giving me the opportunity to present to you today.

Today in the legislature I had the great pleasure of introducing Denis Canuel. Denis runs a professional gardening business here on southern Vancouver Island. He was the recent victim of a vicious dog attack featured in the Saanich News.

Later in the afternoon I introduced my private member’s Bill M212 — Animal Liability Act, 2016. Based on similar legislation in Manitoba, this Bill will ensure that owners of animals are held liable for the actions of their animals. Below I reproduce the text and video of my introduction of the Bill. I append our media release at the end.

Text of my Introduction

A. Weaver: I move introduction of the Animal Liability Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Animal Liability Act. Earlier this year a number of vicious dog attacks occurred in the Lower Mainland. Over the years, British Columbians have called on B.C. legislators to act.

According to the Canada Safety Council, more than 460,000 dog bites occur in Canada each year. Just last week, there was a case of unprovoked dog attack reported in Saanich, an attack that nearly left an individual without his employment for years to come. In this case, the dog was a repeat offender.

Here in B.C., we do not have adequate laws that ensure owners are liable for the actions of their animals. Indeed, we only have liability being imposed on the basis of scienter doctrine, negligence or, in some cases, the occupier’s liability act.

This bill would ensure that owners are liable for any damages resulting from harm that the animals cause to a person or property. This bill, based on similar legislation that exists in Manitoba, is designed to ensure that owners of animals take their ownership seriously and are held responsible for the actions of their pets.

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

Motion approved.

Bill M212, Animal Liability Act, 2016 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Video of my Introduction

Media Release

Media Release: April 6, 2016
Andrew Weaver – Legislation needed to ensure responsible pet ownership in B.C.
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Today Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, tabled legislation that would ensure pet owners are held responsible for the actions of their animals.

“Thousands of people are bitten by dogs in B.C. each year,” says Weaver. “While provinces like Ontario and Manitoba have enacted legislation to ensure that public safety is put first, BC is falling behind. We need appropriate measures in place to hold the owners of dangerous pets to account.”

Weaver introduced the Animal Liability Act, 2016, which is modeled on Manitoba’s legislation, to make owners directly liable for any damages caused by their pets. The Bill would not apply to damages caused by livestock.

“As it currently stands, when someone gets bitten by a dog the options available for legal recourse hinge on the dog having a previous history of violence. That’s simply not enough,” says Weaver. “This legislation does not affect the vast majority of caring, responsible pet owners. It targets negligent pet owners who are not appropriately socializing, training, or restraining their animals in public places.”

“In most instances I would expect this legislation to be used in situations where an irresponsible owner fails to take appropriate precautions and their violent dog attacks someone. If someone happened to have a particularly aggressive cougar, llama or emu and they let it run around biting people, however, it would certainly apply,” Weaver added. “We need clear liability legislation so that owners are required to ensure their pets behave safely and are held to account if their pet does behave in a dangerous manner.”

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