Yesterday I published a blog post detailing the apparent regulatory inconsistencies facing the advancement of Pacific Booker’s Morrison Mine project. Today during question period I rose to explore this issue further with the Minister of Environment. Today’s question built upon an initial question I asked the Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources on March 5, 2020.

Below I reproduce the text and video of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: On March 5, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources a question concerning regulatory inconsistencies in the provincial government’s handling of Pacific Booker’s proposed Morrison mine. I’d like to explore this a little further.

In 2015, after reviewing the project for a second time, the Ministry of Environment issued a section 17 order that the project undergo further assessment. Despite numerous exchanges with the environmental assessment office and the completion of an in-depth study of Morrison Lake, Pacific Booker has been unable to clarify the precise nature of what is actually required in the section 17 order. For Pacific Booker, this order has been tantamount to a rejection of its project without the ministry formally saying no.

Government recently amended the environmental assessment process to provide certainty of process and clarity of regulatory considerations. When presented with an application for an environmental assessment certificate, the minister is given three options under the 2018 Environmental Assessment Act:

(1) grant the certificate,
(2) grant the certificate with conditions attached or
(3) reject the project.

Pacific Booker’s treatment doesn’t align with the new assessment standards. They’ve been given the opposite of regulatory certainty, and their project has been shunted off for a further assessment. My question is to the Minister of Environment. Considering the recent changes to the environmental assessment process, will he amend the 2015 order to clarify the nature of the work required by Pacific Booker Minerals?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I recall the question to my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, in March quite well. As the Minister of Energy and Mines said at the time, he and I can’t speak to the specifics of why the old government made the decision that it made with respect to the proposed Morrison mine.

The member is also correct. We made significant changes to the Environmental Assessment Act through revitalization, and we’re proud of that as our government. We brought new transparency to the act. We’ve included engagement of Indigenous peoples and local communities at the front end, and we have taken steps to ensure that good projects that respect the environment, that respect Indigenous peoples and that respect the public can be approved more quickly with greater certainty.

However, with regard to Pacific Booker, the member is correct. Under the old act, the decision was made to require additional information from the proponent before a final decision on the proposal was made.Under the new legislation or the transition regulation, there is no ability to take a project like Morrison that has proceeded this far down the process and transfer it to the provisions of the new act. But it’s my understanding that the company is currently working through the required regulatory process for further assessment in tandem with the environmental assessment office.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I think the minister may have missed the point. Pacific Booker doesn’t know what the section 17 order does because what they’re supposed to do has not been conveyed to them with any certainty. So they are left with an uncertain order, of which they don’t know how to respond. So it’s not possible for them to move through the regulatory process when that process has not been defined in which they could go.

They have conducted detailed assessments of Morrison Lake and its internal wildlife, including measuring water quality and lake mixing patterns as well as investigations into fish habitat and spawning patterns. They have pledged to use cutting-edge technology to reduce groundwater seepage from the tailings storage facility. They’ve even completed a request, and they were the only one asked to do so, to comment on the implications of Mount Polley for their tailings management.

Throughout the protracted environmental assessment process, Pacific Booker has stated its preference to use local suppliers and to hire local workers. The project would generate over 1,000 jobs in the region near Smithers, and it would provide millions of dollars in tax revenue. At a time when the provincial economy is reeling due to the efforts of COVID-19, the project would give that region a much-needed economic boost.

My question, again, to the Minister of Environment is this. Given the extensive work undertaken by Pacific Booker Minerals to examine and reduce the environmental impact of the potential Morrison mine project and the potential economic benefit to the province, will this government commit to ensuring that the company receives a timely, unbiased review of the latest proposal, and in particular, is given clear instructions from your office so that it knows what boxes need to be ticked so that they can follow due process, rather than second-guessing certain people who haven’t made that very clear?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you again to the member for the supplemental question.

The company, of course, has to provide some very specific additional information that was required under the order. The order was specific. Some examples of the type of additional information required are sockeye salmon use of Morrison Lake, upper and lower Tahlo Creek and the Morrison River, hydrogeological and groundwater data for areas between the mine and Morrison Lake and further engagement with the Lake Babine Nation and other impacted First Nations.

I’m advised that the company made its latest submission to the environmental assessment office in December and that environmental assessment office staff met with the company this past February as additional information was required from the company. It is certainly not the intention of our government to make proponents guess at what is required. I checked with the environmental assessment office, and my understanding is that staff there are working to help answer any questions that the proponent has with respect to the information required.

I’m advised that the company plans to provide an update to the environmental assessment office regarding their next steps, and the environmental assessment office will be very happy to assist them in a timely answering of the questions required by the order. As minister, I assure that when the application is complete and ready for reconsideration, it will be considered in a timely manner.

In 2002, Pacific Booker Minerals began the formal environmental assessment process required to obtain ministerial certification for Morrison Mine, their proposed copper and gold mine near Smithers, BC. A decade later, after $10 million worth of consultations, meetings, and assessments, the company decided to proceed to the next stage of the certification process in which the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) submits a formal environmental assessment report to the relevant ministers via the executive director. At the time of submission, all indications were that the mine would receive approval. EAO assessment reports had given the project a clean assessment and the company had proposed to undertake measures unprecedented in the copper mining industry to address the project’s environmental risks. Despite the positive environmental assessment, the Executive Director of the EAO chose to recommend that the project be rejected, advice which was followed by Environment Minister Terry Lake. The decision to reject proposed project was ostensibly made due to ongoing concerns about the effects of the project on local salmon populations and water quality in Morrison lake, among other things.

Yet the decision to reject the project on environmental grounds should raise immediate questions about why this project was nixed and not others, given the BC Liberal government’s environmental record in the mining sector. As highlighted in my question posed to the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources in the House back in March, this is the same government that went to Ottawa in 2014 to lobby the federal government to approve the Prosperity mine, a project that had received two negative assessments by federal review panels. Moreover, the BC Liberals presided over a compliance and enforcement regime that the auditor general described as “inadequate to protect the province from significant environmental risk” and unfunded taxpayer liabilities in the mining industry were estimated at $1.4 billion as of 2017.

The decision to reject the project had serious repercussions for Pacific Booker. Their share price plummeted from $14.95 to $4.95 in one day and many investors lost their life savings. What’s more is that the Ministry failed to inform Pacific Booker of its intention to issue an adverse recommendation and did not provide the company with an opportunity to respond to it, conduct which deviated from the standards outlined in their own user guide.

Rather than face the prospect of beginning the assessment again Pacific Booker decided to enter into litigation with the government over its decision to reject the project.  Among other things, the case was fought over whether the Ministry had violated standards of procedural fairness by denying the company the chance to respond to the Executive Director’s recommendation. During the court proceedings, Justice Affleck would describe the environmental assessment process as a “sham” and accuse the province of repeatedly “moving the goalposts” during the assessment process. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court would rule in favour of Pacific Booker, writing that the firm “ought to have been entitled to know at least the essence of the adverse recommendations and ought to have been entitled to provide a written response”.

The ruling from the Supreme Court quashed the decision to reject the mine and ordered the project to be reconsidered by the government. Yet once again, the government elected not to approve the mine and ordered that the project undergo further assessment with the requirement that additional information be collected. Despite repeated exchanges with the environmental assessment office in which Pacific Booker attempted to determine what exactly this additional information is, the firm has been unable to obtain a clear answer from government officials, placing the project in a state of limbo. As of early 2020, the company was still in the process of working through the Supplemental Application Information Requirements with the EAO, in accordance with the order issued by the Ministers.

Based on the previous government’s environmental record in the mining sector (raised earlier), there has been speculation that the decision to reject the mine had little to do with environmental concerns and everything to do with political calculation. What could these political concerns have been? It is difficult to determine one single political factor that led to the decision around the Morrison mine but several interrelated developments which are explored in more detail below provide insight into the political circumstances surrounding the project.

Two ‘Final’ Environmental Assessment Reports

In 2013, before the court proceedings began, a whistleblower provided Pacific Booker with a copy of an assessment report on the Morrison mine dated August 21^st. The report contained notable differences from its final version that was ostensibly used to inform the government’s final decision and released publicly. Subsequent emails obtained by the company through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request have revealed that the Minister had requested changes to the original document which should raise questions about the political neutrality of the decision to reject the mine.  On July 16^th 2014, the project assessment director Chris Hamilton wrote to Sarah Bevan: “Hmm, I recall the first PBM knew about the no was a phone call on Oct 1, a Monday. Could you be thinking about the two versions of the recommendations? One was dated Aug 21, the date of the referral and then Minister Lake had asked for changes to that doc, so the second was dated Sep 20. Could that be it?”

To date, the Ministry has denied any allegations of political interference in the environmental assessment process. In his affidavit in Pacific Booker v British Columbia, David Sturko claimed that: “The clarifications requested by Minister Lake were (a) correction of a factual error relating to the project’s anticipated contribution to Provincial Gross Domestic product, and (b) more specificity regarding the nature and basis of the additional factors I cited in my recommendations at the end of the document”.

The Relentless Pursuit of LNG

For some time, the Lake Babine Nation has been opposed to the Morrison mine. Members of the community have expressed significant concerns about the effects of the project on local salmon populations which are important to the nation for cultural, historical, and economic reasons. When the decision was made to the reject the project, a secondary justification that the director of the EAO provided in his report was the “moderate to strong” strength of the Lake Babine Nation’s claim to aboriginal title in the area. Based on the strong opposition of the nation to the project, it is possible they would have pressed an aboriginal title claim in court to delay or block the project from proceeding.

At the time the project was rejected this appeared to be the only consideration that the province had given to First Nations issues. However, subsequent developments have made political conflict involving the Lake Babine Nation increasingly salient to the delayed progress on the project. In 2016, the Lake Babine Nation cautioned the province that their cooperation on major LNG projects, including the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission line, could be contingent upon the government not overturning its decision on the Morrison mine. Referencing the pipeline, Chief Wilf Adam was quoted in Business in Vancouver as saying: “If they overturn or change their decision in favour of PBM to start this mine, then all gloves are off – and any agreement we made with the province,”.

Raising the issues that have emerged around the Lake Babine Nation is in no way meant to diminish the obligation that the government has to undertake meaningful consultation with indigenous communities before projects can proceed. Resource development needs to be based on equal partnership between all parties with interests at stake in proposed projects. Rather, highlighting the political conflict involving the Lake Babine Nation is meant to bring attention to the fact that decisions involving the Morrison mine may have been influenced by political calculation that had little to do with the proposed project itself.

Project Suspension

Just before the Ministry was ready to release the order requesting further assessment, the Morrison mine was placed under suspension after the Mount Polley Mine disaster, pending the outcome of a provincial review. At the time, the Pacific Booker was the only project that was placed under suspension while the government was investigating the Mount Polley incident. To date, no explanations have been given for why the Morrison mine was suspended and not others. The delay would last for approximately one full year before the order was released.

Pipeline Politics

At the time the project was rejected, the BC Liberals were embroiled in a dispute with Alberta over the construction of the Enbridge pipeline where the most contentious issue in negotiations was revenue sharing. The Liberals took the position that BC would need to receive a higher share of the royalties for the amount of environmental risk the province would absorb in order for the pipeline to proceed. However, comments from some observers had implied that taking this stance placed BC in a weak negotiating position due to the BC Liberal government’s poor environmental record. Further compounding the government’s problems was a looming election in which the NDP had attempted to make the Enbridge pipeline an election issue. Then BC NDP leader Adrian Dix had been heavily critical of the government’s environmental record and had accused the BC Liberals of selling out BC’s interests to the federal government and to Alberta.

Towards a Resolution?

While there is no smoking gun which serves evidence that the province had politicized the environmental assessment process, the suspicious circumstantial evidence that suggests otherwise does little to inspire confidence from British Columbians in their government and has damaged the province’s reputation as a good place to do business. Furthermore, the decision to reject the project has had significant ramifications for Pacific Booker and its investors. Small investors in the project have lost their life savings and have been forced to continue to work well into their retirement years.  Based on these factors along, this government has a responsibility to ensure that this project is given a fair hearing in what is now effectively its third environmental assessment.

As we celebrate the 50^th anniversary of Earth Day we recognize that we live in a world that is vastly different from what it was even just a few months ago. For the first time, Earth Day will be celebrated without large outdoor events where we come together and share our vision for a sustainable future. Instead, millions of people will come together via online platforms and global events featuring today’s scientific experts, thought leaders and our creative communities. Earth Day has been re-imagined by necessity due to the current crisis we all face.

The COVID-19 global pandemic has changed our lives profoundly and destabilized our economy in an unprecedented manner. Yet in every crisis, there is also opportunity and, in this crisis, we have an opportunity to rethink our way of life and how we live on this planet.

Although separate issues, there are parallels that can be drawn between the pandemic and the climate crisis. Both are global and require evidence-based solutions grounded in science. Both have laid bare the deficiencies and inequities in how we protect the most vulnerable in our society. Both require bold political leadership in a changing, threatened world.

Here in British Columbia, the response of our public health officials and the government to the COVID-19 crisis has shown our province to be a leader in acting quickly to avoid worst case scenarios. Strict measures like social distancing and non-essential business closures which were implemented early in BC appear to have ‘flattened the curve’. There has been a high degree of compliance to these measures and an outpouring of support in the community to assist those most vulnerable. While we are encouraged by the data we have seen, this is no time to let down our guard and relax the strict measures too quickly. Other jurisdictions in the world have shown that this has serious and life-threatening implications.

British Columbia has also proven to be a leader in response to climate change. We are well positioned to lead into the 21^st century with CleanBC, the new economic vision for how BC will prosper in a changing and challenging world.

In the context of responding to the pandemic, we have an opportunity to embrace a new approach to transitioning the economy. While the pandemic has had a devastating effect on the economy due to radical business and industry shutdowns, there has been an unintended, but beneficial consequence of a sharp drop in global greenhouse gas emissions. As the economy revives, we have a chance to reset priorities and move more quickly to renewable resources as a cost-effective solution to fossil fuels. The major disruption caused by the pandemic is an opportunity to make transformational change for a cleaner, healthier future.

While the pandemic has appeared as a clear and present danger that will play out over weeks and months, the climate crisis is an existential threat that has been playing out over decades. The radical economic measures taken in response to the pandemic are not the way to combat climate change, however we have an opportunity to rethink our behaviour and approach to transitioning the economy for the long term. We have come together in new ways to fight the pandemic. Perhaps we can emerge with a deeper understanding of our interdependence as a global community. Something to ponder on Earth Day 2020.

On Thursday this week members of the BC Legislature will vote on the BC NDP’s 2020 budget.

The BC NDP’s 2020 budget continues to build on the positive work done since my colleagues and I first signed the Confidence and Supply Agreement (CASA) in 2017. The Premier and I reiterated our ongoing support for the CASA agreement in letters we exchanged shortly after I left the BC Green Caucus to sit as an independent as their leadership race unfolds.

In my view, Budget 2020 delivers on multiple fronts by making investments which will benefit numerous demographic groups. And rather than becoming mired in politically expedient short-termism, the budget charts a path forward to an economy centered around sustainable development and innovation.

This budget reflects many of our shared priorities. While no budget will please everyone, and all budgets can be criticized for what’s not in them, taken together I am very pleased with what’s in Budget 2020 and look forward to supporting it in the upcoming vote.

Below I expand upon my media release from last week and provide further thoughts and reflections on Budget 2020.

Affordability

Currently, the high cost of living in urban areas in BC is putting the comfortable middle-class lifestyle enjoyed by previous generations out of reach for large segments of the population, and the government is addressing the issue by continuing to introduce measures designed to make life more affordable. The complete removal of MSP premiums should save a family of four $1,800 per year while raising the earnings exemption for those on income and disability should put more money back into the pockets of those who need it most.

I am absolutely thrilled to see the regressive form of taxation embodied in MSP premiums finally eliminated. I’ve been working towards this end since January 2015 when I first announced that the BC Green Party, if elected, would eliminate the MSP premium and replace it with a progressive form of revenue generation mirroring what was done in Ontario. Public support for this was overwhelming as indicated by the tens of thousands of British Columbians who signed petitions or emailed their MLAs, and by the fact that both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals eventually also embedded a promise to eliminate MSP premiums in their 2017 election platforms.

Ongoing funding increases to childcare in BC should help to alleviate an economic stress for young families while benefiting the entire economy through greater female participation in the labour force, families with more disposable income, and the creation of jobs related to early childhood care.

On the housing front, the combination of the speculation tax (which I spent much time working on collaboratively with the Finance Minister to ensure it was razor focused on urban speculation) and the construction of affordable housing should bring unit costs down, but these measures need to be combined with continued conversations with municipalities about ways to increase density to most effectively deal with the housing crisis. Further work is needed to combat underemployment (only 39,300 of the 65,400 jobs created last year were full-time) and to provide support to those dealing with addictions, homelessness, and mental health issues, but in a time of economic uncertainty the government is continuing to devote resources to ensuring that those who require assistance are able to get it.

Education and Youth

For years, BC has been the only province without an up-front, needs-based, post-secondary educational grant. The 2020 budget rectifies this situation by introducing the BC Access Grant. Making the grant up-front is especially important because it gives students immediate financial aid, allowing them to focus on their studies without the added stress of worrying about how they are going to pay tuition or loans. The grant will also be of medium-term economic benefit to the province, helping to address anticipated shortages of healthcare providers and workers equipped with the skills needed to power an economy driven by green energy and intangibles.

The growing number of students requesting access to on campus mental health supports has been well documented and the government has responded with the introduction of a new 24/7 mental health counselling service. This system will help to provide many students with the support they need to navigate the challenges of living away from home for the first time, the pressures induced by social media, and the financial stressors that come with being a student. The new support network is not panacea to the increasing number of young adults who experience mental health challenges, but its creation demonstrates that the government is taking students’ concerns seriously and is working to address them.

Additionally, after years of inadequate funding, the government is continuing to make investments into supplying the teachers, psychologists, and educational assistants needed to maintain our public education system’s status as one of the best in the world. Indeed, a primary driver of long-term economic growth, a well-educated, skilled workforce, can only be produced through investments into our public education system now.

Strong education systems  correlate with positive health outcomes, greater social mobility, and higher levels of civic engagement. However, the mismatch between four-year political timelines and the time it takes to see the benefits of investments into education can create incentives for governments to shirk their responsibilities to adequately fund public education systems. By taking the long view and investing substantial resources into our education system now, the government is continuing to demonstrate that it is committed to sustaining our province’s prosperity.

Capital Projects and Innovation

Government choosing to make record-breaking investments into infrastructure projects while capital is cheap is a prudent choice which will help the province to deal with multiple immediate and looming challenges. Transportation related infrastructure projects such as the Pattullo Bridge replacement, Skytrain expansions, and additional HOV lanes should tackle pressures associated with continued urbanization and help to reduce congestion and pollution while facilitating the smooth flow of goods and services. Hospital overcrowding, another pressing issue in the province, promises to see relief through the construction and renovation of multiple hospitals. Additionally, the construction and renovation of numerous schools will assist areas of the province dealing with demographic pressures, and ongoing seismic upgrading is a much needed investment after years of delayed progress.

Innovative design and the integration of BC engineered wood products and energy/energy conservation systems into these capital projects demonstrates British Columbia’s ongoing leadership in recognizing that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can be paired with job creation throughout the province. Although it is true that the province’s debt will increase in order to finance these record-breaking capital projects, our debt to GDP ratio remains at a sustainable level.

I was also pleased to see that  government is providing a roadmap to an economy with sustainability and entrepreneurship as its cornerstones, the importance of which I have emphasized to government in countless hours of discussions and negotiations.

We have the resources to transition to an innovation driven, low-carbon economy but businesses require the certainty that comes with a clear commitment from government to supporting emerging industries in order to feel comfortable investing in them. Although there are some measures which push in the opposite direction that I will continue to oppose, on balance, the province is signaling its commitment to supporting an emerging economy that realizes BC’s comparative advantages.

Measures such as targeted investments into the bioeconomy, the exemption of electric aircrafts and electric aircraft conversions from PST, and the pledge to establish a quantum computing institute all aid burgeoning industries capable of becoming areas of economic strength for the province. Ongoing incentives to purchase electric vehicles and charging stations are simple, smart demand-oriented policies which will continue to electrify transportation. More work is needed to encourage retrofitting and the development of renewable energy sectors which harness BC’s natural resources, but the province is well on its way to transitioning to the economy of tomorrow.

Rural Development

Rural areas of the province continue to be connected to high-speed internet, giving them access to the benefits of the digital economy, and forestry dependent communities will see much needed relief through The Forestry Worker Support Program. We need to continue to transition towards a more sustainable model of forestry which produces high value-added exports but the coastal revitalization initiative, investments into the bioeconomy, and the use of made in BC engineered wood are steps in the right direction.

The only way we’re going to compete in the resource world is not to just dig dirt out of the ground and think, somehow, we’re going to compete with a jurisdiction that doesn’t internalize the social and environmental externalities we value here. The way we do that is to be smarter, more efficient and cleaner. We do that by bringing the technology sector together with the resource sector. We do that by focusing on the value-added. We do that focusing on efficiency, being cleaner and selling those technologies elsewhere, like MineSense, Axine or others. I was pleased to see that the BC NDP government has recognized this in both Budget 2020 and their recent Throne Speech.

I feel that this government is on the right track. It understands where the future of our economy is. It doesn’t lie in simply continuing to dig dirt out of the ground. It never will. It lies in innovation. It lies in the harvesting our resources in innovative ways by bringing the tech sector together with that.

Concluding Remarks

Although the scale of action  may not be as large as some may desire, there is a lot to like in a budget that devotes resources to raising the standard of living for many now while articulating a positive long-term vision for the province. I look forward to supporting the budget on Thursday.

Today the BC NDP delivered the budget for the next fiscal year. Below I reproduce the media release my office issued in response to it. As you will see from the release (reproduced below), I was pleased with Budget 2020 and I look forward to expanding on these initial remarks when I respond in the legislature hopefully tomorrow.

Media Release

MLA Weaver responds to 2020 Budget
For Immediate Release
February 18, 2020

Victoria, BC — The BC NDP’s 2020 Budget is one that invests in the people of British Columbia and charts a path forward for a sustainable economy that works for everyone.

“I’m delighted to see this government continuing to work towards lowering the cost of living for middle class British Columbians,” said Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. “Actions such as the elimination of MSP premiums which I have long advocated for, the construction of new affordable housing units, the raising of earnings exemptions for those on income and disability assistance, and increased funding for childcare and public education should ensure that the benefits of economic growth in BC are widely shared”.

While the 2020 budget introduces several changes that positively impact the lives of British Columbians now, it is also forward looking, making significant investments into the future of the province and in particular today’s youth. Funding dedicated to increasing the supply of teachers, counsellors, and psychologists contribute to the positive social and cognitive development of our children as they move through school.

The creation of the needs-based, up-front BC Access Grant should equalize post-secondary educational opportunities in the province by allowing students to focus on their studies without worrying about how they are going to pay for their tuition. New 24/7 mental health resources for students at post-secondary institutions should no longer place young adults in a position where they feel like they have to choose between their personal well-being and academic success.

“BC’s 2020 budget also makes necessary infrastructure investments, at a time when access to capital is cheap, to manage a growing population while, at the same time, transitioning the province to a low-carbon economy by linking capital expenditures to Clean BC,” adds Weaver.

The construction of new hospitals, bridges, roads, houses, and schools promise to create numerous good, well-paying jobs in all regions of our province in addition to alleviating strains on public services.

“Innovative design and the integration of BC engineered wood products and energy/energy conservation systems into these capital projects demonstrates British Columbia’s ongoing leadership in recognizing that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can be paired with job creation throughout the province,” notes Weaver.

Although the budget does continue to devote resources to projects which I continue to oppose, such as the Site C dam and LNG developments, I am pleased that the government is now demonstrating its commitment to the economy of tomorrow by supporting the emerging bioeconomy, the quantum computing sector, the agri-tech and life sciences. The continued backing of renewable energy projects, ZEVs, and electric aircrafts will make our economic growth largely sustainable.

At its heart, the 2020 budget is one that places people first while embracing the opportunities created by technological and climatic change, ensuring that BC is well positioned to thrive moving forward.

MLA Weaver will monitor the progress and implementation of these budget measures to ensure they benefit the people of British Columbia.

-30-

Media contact
Judy Fainstein
Executive Director
Legislative Office of Andrew Weaver, MLA
+1 250-744-7615 | Judy.Fainstein@leg.bc.ca