Media Statement: Monday March 21, 2016
B.C. Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver Reacts to Woodfibre LNG Approval and PNW LNG
For immediate release

VICTORIA B.C. – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, has issued the following statement in response to the federal government’s request for more information from PNW LNG and the approval of the environmental assessment for Woodfibre LNG:

On Pacific Northwest LNG:

“I am deeply alarmed at BC’s Minister of Natural Gas’s comments that a properly functioning environmental assessment process constitutes a ‘needless delay’,” said Andrew Weaver. “The BC Liberal’s reckless BC LNG economics and environment of ‘getting to yes’ no matter what, calls into question whether the environmental assessment process under the BC Liberals is indeed credible.”

“There are a growing number of examples where an environmental process seems to be more about ticking boxes than about reviewing impacts. A process whose purpose is to evaluate whether a project should proceed will struggle to remain credible when the government is frantic to say yes to everything.”

“An LNG export industry is a financially foolish venture for a Province like B.C. to be pursuing, especially with other options readily available. The BC Liberals refuse to recognize that the future of the BC economy is not rooted in the energy projects of the past, but in environmental tourism, clean-tech and knowledge-tech industries.”

On Woodfibre LNG:

“It is incredibly unfortunate that the Woodfibre LNG proposal was examined through the lens of Harper’s Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. This act gutted the existing environmental assessment process,” said Andrew Weaver. “Given that the federal assessment was substituted in favour of a BC assessment under the Harper administration, I am concerned that the review that took place did not ensure that environmental impacts were appropriately accounted for and mitigated.”

“This is the wrong project, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. It will hurt our climate leadership, it lacks a strong economic case, and it has received no social licence for what is being pushed forward. The community has not given its permission.”

“I think it is essential that we follow the position that Prime Minister Trudeau himself established that while ‘government’s grant permits, only communities grant permission’. We look forward to working with the federal government to quickly update and implement the environmental review processes they are using.”

“At the end of the day however, it is the BC Liberal government that is pushing for LNG in BC, and they hold ultimate responsibility for the lack of social license for this project and for an inadequate environmental assessment process.”

Neither Woodfibre LNG nor PNW LNG have made a Final Investment Decision (FID).

– 30 –

Media contact
Mat Wright, Press Secretary
Office of Andrew Weaver, MLA
1-250-216-3382
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Media Statement: March 21, 2016
Andrew Weaver responds to BC Supreme Court Ruling on Contaminated Soil Dump at Shawnigan Lake
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head issued the following statement in response to the BC Supreme Court Ruling that a contaminated landfill is not a permitted land use at South Island Aggregates Quarry:

“I want to recognize the hard work of Shawnigan Lake residents in coming together as a community and standing up for their rights in the face of government inaction. This is a vindication of their concerns, and wouldn’t have been possible without their tireless effort.”

“I look forward to reviewing the ruling and working with local politicians and residents to ensure that we continue to move this issue forward in a way that protects the rights of the Shawnigan Lake community.”

– 30 –

Media Contact

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

Today in the legislature I had the distinct honour of introducing Guy Dauncey. I took this opportunity to celebrate his recent election as a Fellow of  The Royal Society for Arts. Guy is in fine company. He joins such past fellows as Charles Dickens, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, John Diefenbaker and Stephen Hawking. Congratulations Guy… and well deserved.

Below are the text and video of my introduction.

Text of Introduction

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Guy Dauncey, who’s in the gallery today. Guy was recently elected a fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. The Royal Society for Arts is a London-based, British organization committed to finding practical solutions for social chances. Their mission is “21st century enlightenment, enriching society through ideas and action.”

Guy joins a worldwide network of innovators who have received this prestigious award. The royal society was founded in 1754 in Covent Garden, London, based on the belief that the creativity of ideas could enrich social progress. He is in good company, along with Charles Dickens, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, John Diefenbaker and Stephen Hawking.

Guy is an author, speaker, organizer and consultant who specializes in developing a positive vision of a sustainable future and translating that vision into action. Guy epitomizes the aim of the RSA to bring about positive social change. He has worked tirelessly since the 1970s towards achieving a brighter future and a sustainable planet.

Please join me in welcoming Guy Dauncey to the House today, in recognition of this incredible honour he has received.

Video of Introduction

Today in the Legislature I rose at second reading to speak in support of the historic Bill 2 – 2016: Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act. This bill is being supported by all parties. It provides the legislative changes required to enable the recent negotiated agreement between 26 First Nations, the province, non-government organizations and forest companies that protects vast areas of our Great Bear Rainforest.

Below are the text and video of my speech. Near the beginning a speech you will see that a class of grade 5 students from Vancouver were introduced by George Heyman, MLA for Vancouver-Fairview. It was a light moment for both sides of the house as we collectively greeted the students.

Text of my Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise with my colleagues on both sides of this House to support, as well, Bill 2, the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act.

This is truly a remarkable event when we find 26 First Nations, the province of British Columbia, several — in fact, numerous — non-governmental organizations and forest companies coming together to reach an agreement in terms of what can be logged, what will be logged, what should not be logged and how logging should be done in an area on the west coast of our province known as the Great Bear Rainforest.

The bill before us, Bill 2…. Let’s be clear that this bill is really a bill about what can be logged, what can be cut. It leaves a lot, as we’re seeing from other bills, up to regulations that will be put forward through order-in-Council at some point in the future. I don’t want to diminish the importance of this bill, of course, but again, I want it to be very clear that what we are debating is what can be cut in the Great Bear Rainforest, rather than, in some sense, the ways in which we do cut or the overall ecosystem-based approach to forestry that’s being taken.

Let me also acknowledge that, as with any bill or any agreement, there will be those who think that government gave away too much. There will be those who think that government didn’t give away enough. There will be those environmental groups that think this was a sellout. There will be those environmental groups that think this is a great success.

This is true of every agreement that is made. But what’s important to recognize is that we were not at the table. Who was at the table? Well, 26 First Nations, a number of environmental groups and a number of forest companies. To get agreement on this is truly an important event.

G. Heyman: With respect to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Heyman: Thank you very much, and thank you to the member.

Joining us in the gallery above me today is a grade 5 class. In fact, the class is split in two from Talmud Torah School in Vancouver-Fairview. I met them at the door. They’re accompanied by teachers Lisa Romalis, Becky Chan and Nicole Andersen.

This is almost a school within a school. There are 75 grade 5 students. We had a very brief discussion about the bill that we’re debating right now, and they’re pretty excited about being here for such a momentous occasion. I hope that the House will make them very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to sit down and allow the member for Vancouver-Fairview to introduce a class, because it is so incredibly important that we engage our youth in our democracy. So thank you to the member, and thank you to the class for being here, even though I can’t see you up there.

On to the agreement that we’re debating, Bill 2, Great Bear Rainforest Act. I’m sure that each and every young person in that class is going to go home riveted to the screen and watch all debates today and make sure that they study this, because there will be a test on Friday next week on what you have learned about the Great Bear Rainforest. I’m just joking.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: There’s no test. I’m only joking.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Oh, it’s Good Friday, of course. It’s a holiday.

Coming back to the agreement, as I mentioned, there will be some who don’t think enough was given. There will be some who think too much was given. But I say to those people and to those groups: “You were not present at the table. I was not present at the table.” Those who were present at the table — 26 First Nations, the province, non-government organizations, forest companies — came to an agreement, a monumental agreement, that protects vast areas of our Great Bear Rainforest.

Now, the issue of protection is a complex one. As we know, the forests make up more than half of the Great Bear Rainforest — a total of 3.7 million hectares, or 9.1 million acres. The land use orders in this bill identify 1.36 million acres of managed forest that will support a sustainable harvest. That creates stability for First Nations, workers, communities, investors and customers alike.

One-third of the Great Bear Rainforest is fully protected in parks and conservation areas, and about 9 percent of the total — it’s about 15 percent of the forested area — is available for timber harvesting in the managed forests. The managed forests comprise 550,000 hectares, or about 1.36 million acres, where harvesting of old growth and second growth is guided by ecosystem-based management.

We’ll explore at committee stage what this government’s interpretation of ecosystem-based management is, but I would like to outline the subtle differences between the various land use zones. It is complex, and it is something that I think that not all will appreciate.

So 471 hectares are fully protected in what are known as parks and protected areas. Now, protected areas generally have one or more existing or proposed activities that are not usually allowed in a park — i.e., perhaps a proposed industrial road, pipeline, transmission line or communications site. Allowable activities and management direction are determined by specific provisions and special conditions when the area is established as well as relevant sections of the Park Act and the Park, Conservancy and Recreation Area Regulation, as identified in the order-in-council.

Conservancies are also being used. Now, 1.5 million hectares, or about 3.7 million acres, are in a designation that protects ecological values and recognizes the importance of specific areas for First Nations.

What are conservancies? Well, conservancies are slightly different, again, from the protected areas. They are Crown land set aside for four things: “(a) the protection and maintenance of their biological diversity and natural environments; (b) the preservation and maintenance of social, ceremonial and cultural uses of First Nations; (c) the protection and maintenance of their recreational values; and (d) the development or use of natural resources in a manner consistent with (a), (b) or (c).” As I say, conservancies are a designation that protects ecological values and that recognizes the importance of specific areas to First Nations.

So 764,000 acres are being designated biodiversity, mining and tourism areas. These are areas where the primary use is biodiversity conservation and protection of ecological and cultural values. Commercial forestry and hydroelectric generation linked to the power grid are not allowed.

Then there are the special forest management areas, 675,000 acres of which are preserved. These are areas where hydroelectric generation and mining and tourism development are allowed as long as they maintain ecological integrity. Commercial forestry is not allowed. It is expected that some of these will become biodiversity, mining and tourism areas or conservancies over time. The land plan and the land use zones are quite complex and lead to a rather beautifully coloured map — which I’m not allowed to show, as it would be considered a prop — that we have to consider when we look at the Great Bear Rainforest.

When I quote a couple of leading voices on this agreement, I think it’s important to recognize that there is widespread support. Vicky Husband, as we all know, one of B.C.’s leading environmental voices, said: “It is impressive that environmental negotiators were able to get so much when government wanted to give so little. But she is dismayed the deal has allowed the government to cast itself as green, when it is still allowing ancient forests to be logged and grizzly bears to be shot.” So there’s support but qualified support.

Rick Slaco, who chairs a group representing the logging companies in the region, stated: “What we’re getting for it is a dedicated land base, a defined amount of harvest, a harvest that is conflict-free, a harvest we can plan our business around. It comes with a social licence.” He also noted: “The significant part of this agreement for the forest industry is that we’re still going to cut trees down. We’re going to cut down less of them” — he should have said “fewer of them” — “and cut them down in a different way.”

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I’m glad that the class has now left. I was just correcting the grammar for them there. I should add “sic” in brackets for Hansard there.

“We didn’t do this to go out of business,” he says.

We have qualified support from Vicky Husband, a well-known name. Frankly, to get qualified support from her is quite a sign that this is a deal that has got widespread support in the province — and from the forest industry as well, when so much land is preserved, is also quite a significant coup that we have.

I do caution some temperance on the rhetoric that we’re hearing from the government. I recognize that the government is proud to bring this to us today, as we are all proud in British Columbia to be able to support this. However, statements like: “We’re green world leaders. This is our gift to the planet….” It’s a little tough to take from a government that’s purporting to develop an industry that the rest of the world is either moving away from or already has a glut of supply in.

Let’s not forget, too, that in fact, the deal that saved the Great Bear Rainforest has actually been announced something like 15 times already over the past number of years. While an often-cited announcement, it is important to recognize that it is this government and this Legislature that has the honour of being able to prove it today.

While I do caution the temperance, government doesn’t need to oversell this. This sells itself. There’s no need for rhetoric to say how great government is in doing this. This sells itself. We will praise this agreement on this side of the House as much as anybody. So I suggest that in some sense, credibility is lost a little bit if government touts its own success. Let others tout this success, because this is a success, and we are here to actually support government on this.

But it is not the thing that makes B.C., giving a gift to the entire world, green leaders of the world. It’s an important step, an important conservation step, a historic agreement, that puts the rights of First Nations front and centre and the rights of ecological systems there front and centre. We’ll explore this in more detail at committee stage.

As I mentioned, this bill really, again, is about very specific details focused on determining the allowable annual cut and forest licences, tree farm licences, that will be affected. It’s not light reading for grade five elementary students who may attend it here. The summaries are much easier to grapple with. As the government has suggested, this bill will: “Enable implementation of unique ecosystem-based management rules to the Great Bear Rainforest that move beyond current legislation while ensuring that normal rules under the Forest Act still apply.” This is important, but we need to explore what government is thinking “ecosystem-based management” means.

Government also is suggesting this will “Legally establish a Great Bear Rainforest area and assign an initial allowable cut of 2.5 million cubic metres per year for ten years for the entire area. But after ten years, the allowable annual cut would be determined by the chief forester under section 8 of the Forest Act, as is the case in other management units” — again, something that needs exploration at committee stage as to what government is thinking here in the longer term.

The government says that this agreement will “Establish new timber supply areas and reconfigure existing ones to better reflect the boundaries of the Great Bear Rainforest.” Again, something that we’ll explore further at committee stage with respect to what the boundaries are, and how they are defined, of the Great Bear Rainforest.

The government also says that this bill will “Provide for the designation of new special forest management areas that prohibit commercial timber harvesting areas.” Again, here, we’ll seek information further as to what commercial means in this regard and how the different land use zones come in to play.

Government says that it plans to “Enable regulations to specify where forest practices may differ from those under the Forest and Range Practices Act and regulations.” Again, this needs to be explored more comprehensively in the committee stage.

Finally, this bill, government states, will “Allow the minister to set ‘partitions’ at the licence level, where partitions can be set to ensure a certain portion of a licensee’s annual cut is directed in a particular geographic area or restricted to a particular tree species” — again, a topic that I think needs to be explored further at committee stage.

In conclusion, I, like the rest of my colleagues in this chamber, am delighted to stand and support this historic agreement. I look forward to committee stage, to explore some of the thinking of government as we move towards a discussion of what it has in mind with respect to the regulations that it is empowering in the introduction of this bill.

I leave government with a final note. Let us celebrate your successes well. It is far better than when government touts its own successes too much, because people don’t actually value and appreciate the success when it is done that way. It is better when others call you world class. It is better when others congratulate you. When one congratulates one’s self or one calls one’s self world class, it makes one wonder if you are world class or whether we should be congratulating you.

Video of my speech

On March 8th I introduced Bill M205: Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies Act. This bill, based on similar legislation in Ontario, was designed to address the pervasive occurrence of sexualized violence plaguing universities, colleges and other post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. If enacted, it would create a legal responsibility for them to develop and maintain policies that would work to prevent the occurrences of sexual violence and provide support for victims. The act would allow university- and college-specific policies to be developed that would meet the needs of students, including education and protection, while working to create a safe environment for all students to come forward to report a sexual assault.

Today in the legislature I rose to question the Premier as to whether or not she supports the need for sexual assault policy legislation for post-secondary institutions. I was very pleased with the Premier’s response. Not only did she respond with a strong statement acknowledging the importance of this issue, but more importantly, the Premier noted the urgency with which we must act on it. She committed to work with me to bring the legislation forward in a timely manner. In fact she stated that her hope was that it would happen this session.

As noted in my press release (reproduced below), I am thrilled by the Premier’s response and welcome the opportunity to work with her, and with students across the Province, to ensure campuses become safer places. I want to thank the Premier for her willingness to make this important issue a priority.

It would not be appropriate for me to take full credit for the introduction of this bill. I am incredibly fortunate to work with exceptional people who helped with its development. I am indebted to Claire Hume, Stefan Jonsson, Evan Pivnick, Aldous Sperl and Mat Wright for their efforts in this regard. In addition, I am very grateful to Brontë Renwick-Shields, Kenya Rogers, Jean Strong and the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre, for their willingness to educate me on the importance of this issue. Finally, and collectively, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the incredibly courageous survivors of sexualized violence who had the courage to speak out.

Below I reproduce both the text and video of my Question Period exchange with the Premier.

Question

A. Weaver: Last Tuesday the Premier told News 1130 that she acknowledged more needs to be done to support the survivors of sexual assault on B.C. post-secondary campuses. The Premier stated:

“Rape kits need to be available, trained staff need to be available, and some universities and colleges are doing a more thorough job than others. So the Minister of Health is going to go out and have that conversation, because we have to make sure that help is available.“

I fear that the Premier may have missed the larger point about the conversation we need to have. With respect, we don’t just need more rape kits. We need to take this issue head on, recognize that our post-secondary campuses aren’t always providing a safe environment for B.C. students, and we need to have a plan in place to prevent assaults from happening in the first instance.

When the University of Ottawa surveyed its student body last year, it found that 44 percent of female students experienced sexual violence or unwanted sexual touching while attending the university. I’m asking the government to take a clear leadership role and make a clear statement that this is a responsibility they will act upon.

To the Premier, does she support the need for sexual assault policy legislation for post-secondary institutions?

Premier’s Response

Hon. C. Clark: Being raped is one of the worst things that can happen to any woman, whether that is intimate-partner assault, whether that’s sexual abuse at the hands of a family member or whether it’s an assault from a stranger. Any woman who has experienced it will tell you that it leaves a lifetime of scars.

We hope for women who are raped that they can find a way to heal, and many do. Some will say they became stronger as a result. But all women who have been sexually assaulted are changed.

It’s something that should not be happening in our society. Sadly, it appears to be more prevalent on university campuses than most other places in our society. There is more that we can do and more that we should do.

The Minister of Advanced Education has begun that work. I certainly welcome the interest of the member from Oak Bay. I’ve had a chance to look at his bill, Bill M205, and I’d certainly look forward to working with him on finding a way that we can either pass this bill or amend it and pass a similar version to it in our Legislature.

We need to do more to protect women on campus from sexual assault because these life-changing, traumatic events don’t need to happen. As a society, we can and we must do more to prevent them.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you to the Premier for her response. I’m very pleased to hear this. As the Premier and government will know, without a legislative requirement to develop a policy, we risk continuing the status quo where institutional optics are sometimes allowed to trump student safety.

For example, a student at Thompson Rivers University, who was recently assaulted twice in one term, was told: “Maybe you would be better suited to a different school.” UBC made headlines last year when it turned out that reported cases of sexual assault on their campus were less than a quarter of those reported by the UBC RCMP detachment. Just yesterday, at the University of Victoria, a student noted that she felt “completely invalidated and silenced” by a UVic investigation into her sexual assault.

Addressing this has to be about our institutions, our students and not post-secondary institutions. My question to the Premier is this: what is the timeline for government to introduce such legislation?

Premier’s Response

Hon. C. Clark: I can’t give a definitive timeline today, except to say that I recognize, along with the member, that this is an urgent issue. A rapist’s best friend is silence. A rapist’s best friend is shame. A rapist’s best friend is the failure of authorities to recognize a complaint when it comes forward and fail to act on it.

We will not reduce the prevalence of sexual assault until we strengthen the institutions that are there to protect women, until we ensure that women feel safe coming forward and saying that they have been sexual assaulted. They will only do so when they have the knowledge that someone will act on what they’ve told them and keep them safe.

We have much more to do, and I welcome the member’s active interest in this. I thank him for presenting his bill. We will work with him on it on an urgent basis and try and get something passed with respect to changing policy as soon as we possibly can.

Video of Question Period

Media Release

Media Release: March 16, 2016
Premier pledges to work with Andrew Weaver to pass Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies Act
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – In response to a question from Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, the Premier pledged that her government would pass his Private Member’s Bill, or develop comparable legislation to address the prevalence of sexual assaults on post-secondary campuses.

“This is a strong statement from the Premier and her government that they acknowledge the importance of this issue,” says Weaver. “Most importantly, the Premier acknowledged the urgency with which we must act on this issue and has committed to work with me to bring forward legislation in a timely manner.”

“I am thrilled by the Premier’s response and welcome the opportunity to work with her, and with students across the Province, to ensure campuses become safer places,” notes Weaver. “Sexualized violence affects everyone in our communities, regardless of gender identity.”

Andrew Weaver tabled the Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies Act, 2016 last Tuesday. The Bill, if passed, would create a legal responsibility for every University and College in B.C. to develop and maintain policies that would provide education for students, support for survivors and would work to prevent the occurrences of sexual assault on campuses.

There have been several highly publicized incidents in the news lately. When a student at Thompson Rivers University was sexually assaulted twice in one term she was told ‘Maybe you would be better suited to a different school.’ UBC made headlines last year when it turned out that their reported cases of sexual assault on campus were less than a quarter of those reported by the UBC RCMP detachment. Earlier this week it was reported that a UVic student felt ‘completely invalidated and silenced’ by a UVic investigation into her sexual assault.

“We can’t know the actual scale of the problem unless we have post-secondary institutions honestly reporting about it,” says Weaver. “Based on the little data available, and the widespread culture of under reporting that exists, any post-secondary institution that takes this issue on seriously would likely see their reported assaults far exceed other institutions. No public institution wants to have that negative attention; they want to be seen as safe places for students to study.”

“A legislated approach is required to ensure best practices and consistent standards are met, while establishing a clear legal responsibility for post-secondary institutions to maintain these policies,” said Weaver. “I want to thank the Premier for her willingness to make this important issue a priority”.

– 30 –

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