Yesterday the Premier and Prime Minister made a joint announcement promising another $680 million subsidy of the BC natural gas sector. In this, the latest example of corporate welfare for the fossil fuel sector, the BC NDP government promised substantive taxpayer-funded handouts aimed at electrifying upstream natural gas activities.

Of course, investing in electrification infrastructure that moves our province to a greener economy must be a priority, but it is a missed opportunity when it is only to potentially offset future emitters, and the rest of the economy- and our emissions targets- are left treading water. The government could, and should, have simply required electrification through regulation. Instead, this latest announcement expands upon the litany of previous subsidies doled out by the BC NDP government to try and and deliver what the previous BC Liberal government couldn’t — a single LNG export facility,

Below I reproduce the media statement we released in response to this announcement.

Media Statement

B.C., federal governments announce $680 million to support future fossil fuel development in the province
For immediate release
Aug. 29, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Provincial and federal governments announced today they will subsidize fossil fuel development further by committing $680 million to electrify natural gas facilities that have yet to be built.

“By prioritizing this $330 million to potentially reduce the future emissions from fossil fuel companies, the NDP government is not only providing more subsidies for the growth of the fossil fuel sector, but are also neglecting their responsibility to this province to be making the investments for an alternative future,”  B.C. Green Party Leader Dr. Andrew Weaver, MLA from Oak Bay- Gordon Head. ”Investing in electrification infrastructure that moves our province to a greener economy must be a priority, but it is a missed opportunity when it is only to potentially offset future emitters, and the rest of the economy- and our emissions targets- are left treading water.

“British Columbians are looking for leadership that is investing in their future by supporting the industries of tomorrow, not the dinosaurs of yesterday. With this massive subsidy, the NDP are investing in the very industries whose practices for the last many decades have contributed to the climate change crisis that is affecting British Columbians every single day- the heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and species declines. Government’s own strategic risk assessment they released without so much as a statement last month contained clear warnings to this affect- again, warnings scientists have been making for decades.

“We should seize the opportunity to be a global leader in building a clean, vibrant economy based on new industries that aren’t the source of climate change. Instead, with today’s announcement we are asked to celebrate that we may slightly reduce the pollution coming from our oil and gas sector, even as it continues to grow. I know we can do better.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon L.C.  McGinley
Press Secretary, B.C. Green Caucus
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Today in the legislature I rose during budget estimate debates for the Ministry of Finance to ask about the growing liability that British Columbia is incurring through the deep well royalty credit program. Last spring I extensively canvassed the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on the same topic. It was revealed that that as of December 31, 2017 there are $3.1 billion in unclaimed credits. It turns out that another $383 million was added last year.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange. The BC Green Caucus remains profoundly troubled by the generational sellout embodied in the BC NDP corporate welfare aimed at trying to attract LNG to BC.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: This is for the benefit of the children in the gallery from, I believe, Surrey Christian School. What we’re doing here in the Legislature is we’re debating estimates for the Ministry of Finance. It’s a time for opposition MLAs, the Liberals or the Greens here, to pose questions to the minister about various budgetary issues that are related to her file. I’ll be asking about some finance questions with respect to natural gas royalties.

The reason why I’m posing these to the minister is that I did ask last time: the deep-well royalty credit program is actually administered by the Ministry of Finance. The qualified wells receive these credits automatically, and they don’t need to apply separately.

The credit was first created in 2003, expanded in 2014, and in last year’s public accounts, the unclaimed balance of deep-well credits totalled $2.59 billion. A further $3.5 billion has already been cashed in to reduce royalties that would otherwise have been payable. This program has reduced gas producers’ existing and future royalty liability to the Crown by nearly $6 billion.

My questions in this area are this: how many deep-well credits were issued over the past year and to whom?

Hon. C. James: The member asked how many deep-well credits. We don’t have the information around the breakdown of which are new credits and which are continuing credits with us, but I’m happy to get that information for the member of which are new. We don’t have that breakdown with us, and we’ll get that information.

On page 120, it identifies the number for new, and that would be $383 million. Then the identifier — the member asked how many and who got them — is personal tax information so we can’t provide that. But we’re happy to get the information and get it back to the member around the number of new credits for this year.

A. Weaver: Further on…. I suspect I’ll get a similar answer, and I welcome the information at a later date. How many deep-well credits have been issued since 2014 and to whom?

Hon. C. James: We’ll add that to the information for the member. We don’t have that information with us.

A. Weaver: My question, then, is: why is there not a standard public disclosure of these credits and royalties that are received? There is, for example, for stumpage fees in the province, under the harvest billing system. Why are we not making public the royalty credits that are being claimed here?

Hon. C. James: This credit, the deep-well credit, fits under FOI, and under FOI, we can’t release taxpayer information. I can’t give an explanation around why it would be different, as the member talks about, in stumpage. But the requirement is under FOI to protect individual taxpayer information, which would include, of course, the names and the identifiers.

A. Weaver: The inconsistency, as was noted, is with respect to the harvest billing system, so perhaps we could explore that at some other date.

What’s the total value of deep-well credits that are still outstanding and that could be claimed against?

Hon. C. James: As the member pointed out, $2.6 billion in ’17-18. The ’18-19 numbers get reported out in Public Accounts. That tracking is just being done now, and they get reported out in Public Accounts.

A. Weaver: My final question is with respect to FOI, freedom-of-information, requests that went to the Ministry of Finance. The file number, for reference, is FIN-2019-90584. This was a freedom-of-information request put in by an independent person outside of the Legislature. What was being requested there was a list showing the total royalty credits granted to each company that applied for such credits in the most recent fiscal year.

Now, the freedom-of-information requests from the Ministry of Energy and Mines and from the Ministry of Finance provided completely different answers. The Ministry of Energy and Mines had no issue and provided, actually, the detailed credits, by whom and to whom, whereas the Ministry of Finance withheld all information.

So my question to the minister is: why is there a discrepancy between information we’re getting from the Ministry of Energy and Mines versus the Ministry of Finance?

Hon. C. James: The FOI request that the member is referring to was asking about the infrastructure royalty credits. The infrastructure royalty credits actually have a provision where when someone applies for the credit, they give permission for their information to be shared. That’s why Energy and Mines was able to share the information, because the infrastructure royalty credits have that application for the individuals when they apply. So that’s, obviously, a different program than the deep-well credits

Yesterday during question period yesterday I rose to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources questions about the ever increasing liability British Columbians are taking on as the number of orphan gas wells grows out of control. I remain deeply concerned about the Minister’s grasp of the file and profoundly troubled by the lack of substance in her answers to our questions.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Yesterday my colleague from Cowichan Valley asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources how many gas wells in British Columbia are leaking, and she didn’t know. Well, here’s some information for her: out of the 134 wells in the province with confirmed gas migration — that’s leaking problems, as documented by the Oil and Gas Commission — almost half are owned by one company, the Shanghai Energy Corporation.

This company, which has strong links to the Communist Party of China, is buying up wells in our province at an alarming rate. They now own 1,128 wells, with 863 active, 184 inactive and 13 that are being decommissioned.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources: does she think that the Communist Party of China buying up stranded assets in B.C. is concerning, and does she think that the Shanghai Energy Corporation will be a good corporate citizen and clean up their activity and all their leaky wells when the time comes?

Answer

Hon. M. Mungall: We have an open marketplace for tenures and for gas wells. That means that companies from around the world are able to purchase these tenures as well as the wells and so on. They then have the duty to be good corporate citizens, no matter who they are, no matter where they come from. We have the Oil and Gas Commission, as well as this government, who is taking its role as a regulator very seriously to ensure that, again, no matter who they are, no matter where they’re from, that any corporation who’s doing business in British Columbia and business in our oil and gas sector is following the rules.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I’m not sure I understood what the answer to the question was there, but nevertheless, let me try again.

Ranch Energy was one of three companies that became insolvent last year, leaving a forecasted $12.3 million deficit in the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission’s orphan reclamation fund. Currently — I know these facts are troubling to the minister — there are 310 sites designated as orphan sites, requiring further restoration. But there are 300 to 500 Ranch Energy wells that could be added to this, creating a further potential liability of $40 to $90 million.

Yesterday the minister told the chamber that things have gotten a lot better since her government was sworn in. Yet over the last two years, B.C.’s orphan well sites have increased by — get this — 48 percent. Bankrupt companies have left the province with massive cleanup bills.

Last month we heard from the Auditor General. There are more than 10,000 active wells, with a $3 billion price tag for decommissioning them. All the while, her ministry is giving massive handouts, corporate handouts. It’s not an open market. It’s a subsidized market by this government because the market would not exist in a free and open market, because it does not compete on the international scene.

What is the minister’s plan? Please, please, I beg you — no more non-answer, no more rhetoric, no more 16 years nonsense. Answer the question for a change.

What is the minister’s plan to ensure British Columbians are not on the hook for the cleanup costs of this industry? There is no excuse for not hearing an answer here.

Answer

Hon. M. Mungall: The member might recall that just over a year ago we passed legislation — it was Bill 15 at the time — to address the issue of orphaned wells. We have done a considerable amount of work. Part of that bill was to address how we are funding the orphaned well reclamation fund.

The previous government had it funded through a taxation on production. We have moved from that because that was not an effective way to fund this fund. We’ve moved away from that, and we have a liability levy so we’re actually able to get the financial resources so that we can start reclaiming the orphaned well sites.

We have a multi-year plan to reclaim all of these sites. It involves Treaty 8 First Nations, who are doing a wide array of work to do this reclamation, including having nurseries with the appropriate vegetation of native plants so that we can truly reclaim these sites and the land to the state that they need to be in for future generations

Last week the BC NDP and BC Liberals joined forces to pass Bill 10, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019. This bill created tax credits and a fiscal regime for what will become the single largest point source of carbon emissions in Canada’s history two days after a government report confirmed that Canada is warming at twice the rate as the rest of the world, with the North, the Prairies and northern British Columbia pushing to nearly three times the global rate.

The BC Greens already voted against the Bill at first reading and at second reading (where we introduced three amendments to kill the bill that were all defeated). During our numerous speeches, Adam Olsen, Sonia Furstenau and I argued that it’s time politicians level with British Columbians about the economic and environmental consequences of this historic betrayal of future generations.

During committee stage of the bill, my BC Green colleagues and I voted against each section of the bill. It was during this stage that I was also able to find out that LNG Canada has no requirement to hire locally, despite BC NDP promises to the contrary. In addition, I was able to determine that the BC NDP have a moving definition of what “cleanest LNG in the world:” actually means.

Section 1	Section 2	Section 3	Section 5	Title

When section 4 of the bill was discussed at Committee Stage, the BC Liberals proposed an amendment that would strike out section 4b in the following:

4  The following Acts are repealed:
    (a) Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, S.B.C. 2014, c. 34;
    (b) Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act, S.B.C. 2015, c. 29.

That is, the BC Liberals did not want their Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act repealed.

While the amendment was being debated there were a dozen or so MLAs in the chamber, and when the Assistant Deputy Speaker called for a verbal vote on the amendment the “Ayes”  won. This simply means the MLAs in the chamber collectively said “Aye” louder than those saying “Nay” (I stayed silent). Given that the BC NDP lost the verbal vote, a number of them (and I) called for “Division” (a standing vote). Not interested in quibbling about how the deckchairs on the Titanic should be arranged as it starts to sink, I left the room. My colleagues Adam and Sonia were in other meetings in the building and were not present.

The standing vote led to a tie: 41 BC Liberals for the amendment; 41 BC NDP against it. The 3 greens were not interested in amending a section we were about to vote against and so were not present. The tie was broken by the Assistant Deputy Speaker (a BC Liberal) and so the amendment passed, but not without controversy. The Assistant Deputy Speaker is supposed to be a non-partisan role.

In cases where  there is a tie, there is a convention that should be followed to preserve confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker’s office. But here, the Assistant Deputy Speaker voted her “conscience” and the amendment passed. Moments later the amended section was put to a vote. Adam Sonia and I voted against that.

On Thursday last week the bill came up for third reading. Adam, Sonia and I rose to speak a final time. Sonia was shut down early by the speaker and so was unable to move an amendment to send the bill to a Legislative Committee. Adam and I both moved amendments, that Sonia spoke to, as we tried to persuade the BC NDP and BC Liberal MLAs the scale of the sellout embodied in Bill 10. Sadly, our two amendments failed and third reading passed.

Amendment to Committee	Hoist Amendment	Third Reading

Below I reproduce my third reading speech as well as my speech to Adam’s hoist motion in both text and video format. I also reproduce a copy of the media release that we issued once Bill 10 passed.

Without a doubt, witnessing the BC NDP and the BC Liberal MLAs collectively vote against the three BC Greens fourteen times on this bill made it abundantly clear to me:

The BC Liberals and the BC NDP are two sides of the same neo-liberal coin.

3rd Reading Videos

Text of 3rd Reading Speech

A. Weaver: I must say I am deeply troubled and deeply disturbed by the precedent set today in this Legislature at a time when it is quite clear from the standing orders as to the rules and regulations with respect to reading at third reading. We have been following very clearly the rules as demonstrated in the standing orders. I rise to speak to speak at third reading against this same bill.

My colleague from Cowichan Valley didn’t have the opportunity to bring forward this important information that has been brought to light during the debate, important information that is required by members of this chamber in order to make their decision, important information that reflects on the very nature of the bill-debating before us. The natural gas tax credit. The changes in the calculations that are being put forward.

It is only through a complete understanding of the complexities of the nuances in this bill, in the context of the global picture, that we are able to make an informed decision in this House. To have my colleague — to have her shut down in debate because of an interpretation that I believe is flawed is simply outrageous.

I do apologize for my comments here, but never before have I — in sitting here for six years in this chamber — seen what I believe to see: an interference of a member’s right to enter a debate on an issue subject to the standing orders that we have had guide this place for generations. I continue, as to provide the important information.

I see the House Leader for the government. They’re talking to the Speaker. I would suggest that is out of order as well in this moment here. So I continue.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Chair would welcome any comments related, relevant, to Bill 10. So nobody is stopping anybody making those comments. I would urge the member to limit those comments just to the bill. Please carry on.

A. Weaver: These comments are to Bill 10. Bill 10, as has being articulated here, introduces three things. One, it tries to repeal the LNG Income Tax Act.

I would like to publicly note that right now, the House Leader of the government is providing advice to the Speaker in the Chair. In my view, that is outrageous. That is not something that should be happening. This is a non-partisan position. To see witness the Speaker getting advice being provided is surprising.

On to Bill 10.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat. The Chair will again urge all members who wish to speak on this bill in third reading: keep your comments relevant to the bill. That’s all we are asking for. The member wishes to continue? Please proceed.

A. Weaver: I do wish to continue, and I do apologize for challenging the decision there. But as I said, it’s troubling. I will continue on focusing solely on the bill, the number of points raised in the bill.

As I pointed out, there are three points in there. The first, of course, is the repealing of the LNG Income Tax Act. The second is the repealing of the Petronas agreement, the LNG project development agreement, which we now know — through the rather interesting amendment put forward by the opposition that has passed — will not be repealed as part of this. We enjoyed watching those deliberations and interesting to see how that moved forward.

We also know that the B.C. NDP, in this bill, are trying to retain the giveaway, the natural gas tax credit giveaway that is embedded in the original LNG Income Tax Act. We have three aspects of this bill. We have articulated in second reading time and time again….

I see in the gallery a young group of children, and I welcome them to this place. I would suggest to them, as we continue to explore this bill and the ramifications of this bill, that members in this House actually think about their future, members in the House actually recognize that this generational sellout embodied in this giveaway is not doing their future any good. Frankly, it is a betrayal of their future.

As my colleague from Cowichan Valley tried to articulate, there have been a numerous number of articles appearing that have highlighted the reason why this bill and the actual elements in it are inconsistent with the government’s goal to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is inconsistent to give away a tax credit to this industry that would not otherwise be here in British Columbia in a desperate attempt to try to deliver what Christy Clark couldn’t. That’s it. That’s the only rationale I can see behind this moving forward.

As my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, who will speak after me, brings forward information on the bill, I would hope that members opposite, members in the B.C. Liberals, who have been saying for so long that they do not believe that this giveaway is actually fiscally responsible…. The member for Langley East was quite clear in that regard. The member from Abbotsford — not only was the member for Abbotsford West clear, his deconstructing of the job narrative that was supposed to be here was compelling. This government did not provide any information to back its claims that this agreement embodied in this bill would actually hire British Columbians.

In fact, just today I received an email from a contractor up in the north who validated the concerns I raised about Boskalis hiring temporary foreign workers. Today I received that email.

We are going to vote on a bill at third reading where information provided at the committee stage was either not provided in entirety or not delivered. We have yet to be given information. We were told in committee stage that we had to ask the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology questions before we get answers to the issues of how this would affect jobs. Those questions were delivered to the Finance Minister in committee stage, yet we did not get answers to those questions. How is it possible that we could actually vote in favour of bill where the answers were not forthcoming to fundamental questions raised by members of opposition and by members in the Green Party at committee stage?

It seems to me that if ever there was a reason to actually not continue forward and vote on this, if ever there was a reason to actually send this bill to committee for further deliberation and debate, that information would be the fact we didn’t get answers. It’s for that reason that I move:

[That the motion for third reading of Bill (No. 10) intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting therefore the following:

“Bill (No. 10) not be read a third time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.”]

A. Weaver: The rationale for proposing that this bill be sent to committee, as put forward to you a few seconds ago, is that the information we were trying to seek at committee stage was not forthcoming.

The information about jobs, the information about where the $23 billion was going to come from, the fiscal breakdown, was not forthcoming. The information on contractors, who was going to be contracting — not forthcoming. Information on emissions and whether this initial final investment decision is actually a pathway to a four-train system — not forthcoming.

It is only through the exploration of this matter further at committee stage, it is only by bringing in expert testimony — the expert testimony from people like Katharine Hayhoe, who my colleague from Cowichan Valley tried to bring forward here…. She tried to actually bring that information to this chamber, to allow members to actually inform themselves prior to a vote.

The only means and ways that members truly will be able to actually recognize the scale of climate change, the scale of what is before us here with this bill, in terms of the generational sellout of those young children and their friends up in the gallery…. It is only through exploring this at committee stage that we will actually be able to get to the bottom of whether or not this truly is in the best interest of British Columbians.

We know that members of government’s caucus have not even been briefed on the details of this bill, and we have, as three Green MLAs, had to brief them on the details of this bill. It is sad that we have, in this chamber, so many MLAs who have not spent the time to actually go and get the information on what we’re debating before us.

That is why a committee, a legislative committee exploring this issue, bringing forward recommendations, deliberations on what is supposed to be a big project for B.C. but is, in reality, the single biggest point source of emissions that this country has ever seen, at a time that this government’s claiming it’s championing climate change policy.

This needs to go to committee, and I certainly hope members in the government will join us in supporting this, for democracy is about seeking input. It’s about making decisions based on evidence. It’s about going to the communities across British Columbia — whether it be the farmers, the farmers in the Peace, who came to us, who came to our caucus to brief us on the profound issues they have with the way the fracking is happening on their farmland, that they are considered second-class citizens.

The fact that the committee would be able to explore the views of the youth of today — the views of the youth of today who today, across this country, are getting ready for Friday. It’s another day of walkouts in schools, another day of walkouts as youth point to the political leaders and say: “You are ignoring us. You’re not going to have to live the consequences of the decisions you are making. Yet we are, and you are not including us. You are not thinking about our future in your decisions. You are thinking about your re-election. You’re thinking about what it takes to score a tick box in a ‘I did what Christy Clark couldn’t.’ And you’re doing what you think is actually the best thing that you can do based on focus groups, polling testing, etc., not doing what’s right, not doing what’s principled.”

It is sad. The saddest moment, for me, again coming back to why this should be sent to committee, is I look to what was raised when I was interviewed by CFAX this morning…. I was challenged by Al Ferraby, and I enjoy being challenged. I was challenged by Al Ferraby, who said: “What’s this about you not wishing to participate in a vote?” And we talked about that. He said: “What’s this about the member for Abbotsford West with this phrase?”

Well, I could talk about this later. But the point I’m trying to make is that I’m hoping, for the first time in the six years I’ve been here, members in government, back bench, will reflect upon these words, reflect upon those children in the gallery, as they stand up at third reading and determine the future of this bill — the future of this bill which my colleagues, numerous times over the last few days, have pointed out betrays our climate commitments, betrays future generations, provides false promises to the people in northwestern B.C., who are already seeing the temporary foreign workers coming in.

We know that the only way to actually get to the bottom of these very important questions is through committee, because we did not get the answers at committee stage. We need to send this to a standing committee.

Again, wouldn’t it be a joyous occasion if members opposite, who have criticized this deal for being fiscally irresponsible…. We agree with them. We agree with them that it’s fiscally irresponsible. If they then joined us in voting to send this to committee, to allow a committee to actually explore the level of fiscal irresponsibility embodied in this bill, to challenge the claims, give us the chance to explore with the Minister of Jobs, Trades and Technology what the real job deals are. Have there been secret sweet deals signed with certain people about bringing in temporary foreign workers?

With that, I’ll take my place and certainly hope that others will join me in supporting this amendment

Text of Speech in Support of Hoist Amendment

A. Weaver: I rise to speak very briefly in support of my colleague’s, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, hoist amendment on the bill.

My colleague, I think, has made a very, very compelling case as to why we need the additional six months’ time to reflect upon it. More so, I would suggest, members in this House, have not received the information that they need to make a decision. I’ve heard many talk about the importance of evidence-based decision-making. It’s something that’s fundamental to who we are as members of the B.C. Green caucus. I’ve heard others in this place talk about the importance of that. Yet, we know that the information, the evidence on which to make such a decision, has not been presented to us here in committee stage.

We know that this bill has three components to it. It has a component to repeal the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. There’s a component to repeal the LNG Income Tax Act. And there was, at the same time, a component of the bill to retain the tax credit — the corporate welfare on steroids — that existed within the LNG Income Tax Act. We know, in what has got to be described as a bizarre set of things that have happened here, that we’ve broken precedent in this place. We’ve broken historical precedent in Westminster parliamentary democracies during the course of these debates, not once, but twice during the course of these debates. That, in and of itself, I would suggest should give us pause to reflect upon this bill with the additional time that we would get through this hoist amendment.

We had an amendment put forward by the B.C. Liberals, an amendment to quibble about where the deck chairs on the Titanic should be prior to the Titanic sinking to the bottom of the ocean. We had an amendment that actually led to a tie vote — 41-41. With respect, in the long, rich tradition of Westminster parliamentary democracies, we had a precedent set that goes directly against the historic nature of this building, where a Chair votes out of conscience in a partisan manner with the opposition. This is outrageous. It’s outrageous, given that we, at the same time in the U.K., had the ruling set out why the Speaker in the U.K. ruled with government. That is the role in a Westminster parliamentary democracy of a Chair, to ensure that the debates flow forward.

That was our first precedent-setting decision. Very, very unfortunate. But that was not the only one. The second one, too, gives reason to pause as to why we need to reflect upon this bill for a few more months, because clearly, the process in this place, leaves a lot to be desired. That was my colleague from the Cowichan Valley, who spent many, many hours going through the media to determine what information was missing, in order to inform members on the decision that was going to be made today — information that was not present, not given during committee stage, information that she took upon herself to find and bring forward. She was shut down at third reading. The member was told to sit down. Her voice was silenced. Outrageous.

Two times during the course of the last 48 hours, two times we’ve had such statements. That is why it’s critical for us to reflect upon this.

With that, I’ll take my place and suggest to members opposite that this is the time for us to actually reflect upon the implications of this. I certainly hope we’re joined in voting in support of my member’s amendment.

Media Release

BC enables landmark emissions source same week report finds Canada warming at twice the global rate
For immediate release
April 4, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Today, the BC NDP and BC Liberals passed into law tax credits and the fiscal regime for what will become the single largest point source of carbon emissions in Canada’s history two days after a government report confirmed Canada is warming at twice the rate as the rest of the world, with the North, the Prairies and northern British Columbia pushing to nearly three times the global rate.

“This legislation is not only lacking vision to bring BC into a competitive economic future, it is compounding the massive challenges we have before us today in the form of extreme weather events: massive fires, droughts, and flooding,” said Dr. Andrew Weaver, leader of the BC Greens and award-winning lead author of four United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. “The BC NDP and BC Liberals are together sending BC down the wrong path with new fossil fuel subsidies and the expansion of the oil and gas sector while much of the world is transitioning to a clean economy based on innovation and sustainability.

“Our caucus used every tool at our disposal to oppose this legislation. We forced 14 votes in order to give MLAs repeated opportunities to stand up and vote against this bill, to vote with their conscience, and to question whether this was the path they support our province pursuing. When the BC Liberals brought forth an amendment to the bill itself, our caucus chose to abstain; we will take no part in debating, passing or defeating an amendment on a piece of legislation we fundamentally oppose. Every MLA who felt conflicted in supporting giving massive tax breaks to what will become the single largest point source of carbon emissions in Canada’s history right after endorsing CleanBC’s objectives to reduce BC’s emissions, should have voted against this legislation.”

The BC NDP have ignored the rising economic costs of the environmental impact from the increase in floods, forest fires and drought that this project’s emissions will contribute to when they talk about its potential benefits. Last year, BC’s forest-fire spending increased from an average of $214 million to $568 million. Floods cost $73 million last year and studies show a major Fraser River or coastal flood could cause damages up to $30 billion.

“What is so disappointing about the passage of this bill is not only that the costs will fall squarely on communities across the province – but that there is a viable alternative in front of us,” said MLA Sonia Furstenau of Cowichan Valley. “Rather than put our effort into working with communities and First Nations across the province to implement an economic roadmap that increases their resilience to climate change, we have yet another government that has worked hard to aggressively secure tax cuts for a new major fossil fuel development.”

“There were 83 legislators from both the BC Liberals and BC NDP who supported a project that will pollute until after our children have retired,” said MLA Adam Olsen. “Now, more than ever, BC needs the Greens to be here in government. We may just be three MLAs, but we will continue to do everything in our power to set BC on a sustainable course. We must allow science to inform our policy if we want to ensure our children inherit a world worth living in.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
+1 250-882-6187 | macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Today I rose during committee stage debates for Bill 10, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019 to explore how government could possibly suggest that LNG Canada’s facility in Kitimat would be the cleanest in the world and so exempt from increases in the carbon tax above $30/tonne. As I have mentioned numerous times in the past, LNG Canada have no intention of using electricity in the compression of natural gas. They will burn natural gas, thereby emitting vast quantities of CO₂ in the process.

Yet Freeport LNG in Texas is already using GE electric compressors thereby eliminating greenhouse emissions in that phase of LNG production. It is unclear to me how it will be possible for LNG Canada to claim that they are the cleanest facility in the world. The responses I received from the minister were entirely unhelpful in shedding light on this issue.

I reproduce the text and video of our exchange below.

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Langley East for those questions.

I have a number of questions to build on this theme. I, too, am having a very difficult time understanding how LNG Canada could make a set investment decision with the uncertainty in terms of what is, in fact, the cleanest LNG in the world. My first question to the minister is: is she aware of Freeport LNG in the United States?

Hon. C. James: I know the member will have had many of these conversations, I’m sure, with the Minister of Environment, as well, as he looks at developing the specifics. The specifics aren’t developed as yet, but obviously, the Freeport LNG and the coal-fired electricity that they utilize will be part of the range of plants that will be looked at and the indicators that will be developed by the minister.

A. Weaver: Again, so we’re going to define an LNG plant as an LNG plant. We’re not defining an LNG plant as some hypothetical production upstream where someone gets electricity from or not, because there are a multitude of ways. You can go on the spot market, and you can buy wind power at 2½ cents a kilowatt hour. You can go on the spot market, and you can by coal power at night pretty cheap. You could buy natural gas from Alberta and avoid the carbon tax.

The relevant question in defining “cleanest LNG in the world” is the facility, and as we know, Freeport LNG uses General Electric compressors, electric compressors, to compress the natural gas.

We know, under the B.C. Liberals, that they initially signed an agreement with LNG Canada. I believe it was 8.2 cents a kilowatt hour to get electricity if they moved forward, and there was the industrial rate if they actually used electricity in the compression. We also know that the B.C. NDP basically exempted LNG Canada from the requirement of using electricity in the compression and gave them the same 5.4 cents a kilowatt hour, I think it is, industrial rate.

We know that we could not, today, deliver into that industrial rate for the requirement of LNG Canada unless two things are done: either (1) we call upon the Columbia River entitlement, or (2) we build enhanced capacity. This government has chosen to build that enhanced capacity through the building of Site C, as opposed to distributed renewable at a fraction of the cost. So we know that the ratepayer is going to end up paying ten to 15 cents a kilowatt hour for the electricity produced at Site C to sell it to LNG Canada for its other operations at 5.4 cents a kilowatt hour. It’s pretty crazy economics.

Even with that, LNG Canada will be using natural gas in the compression — not electricity, natural gas. That natural gas has been given to them for free, in essence, because of the royalty structure in place, again, by the B.C. Liberals at the time to incentivize deep wells, which were difficult and were risky back it must be almost 20 years ago, 18 years ago. But now it’s applied to 99 percent of wells, including all shallow wells.

So we give them the natural gas essentially royalty free — 3 percent or something ridiculous — to actually use in compression, a Crown resource being given away to this company to use in the compression. Now we’re hearing that we’re going to actually exempt them for carbon tax increases above $30, and we are hearing that LNG Canada have actually made a final investment decision. Yet they’re doing so under this cloud of uncertainty, which is also….

I come back to the first question here. How is it that the minister can now suggest at all that LNG Canada have any hope to have access to $30 a tonne, in light of the fact that they are not using electric compression? Because there is no way you can weasel out of any other way but saying they are not the cleanest in the world. How can the minister, other than trying to redefine what an LNG plant is by assigning coal-fired electricity emissions hypothetically, by forgetting about the fact that a lot of the gas in the U.S. is conventional, as opposed to unconventional gas up in B.C., which has rather much larger fugitive emissions…?

How can the minister actually stand here and tell this House that LNG Canada has some certainty that they’ll make the $30 limit on carbon tax? What other agreements have they signed?

Hon. C. James: I appreciate the information that the member is providing. I know that consultations, as we’ve talked about, continue to go on. The Minister of the Environment is working on the specifics, and I know the Green caucus is part of those consultations, as industry is part of those consultations. So certainly, I know those discussions will occur.

I’m obviously not going to talk about the specifics that the minister is in the process of developing. That’s for the minister to discuss. I know there’ll be lots of opportunities for those conversations both in the consultations that will occur but also in estimates, if the member feels there are opportunities there.

To the member’s specific question around the agreement: were there additional pieces written into the agreement? The agreement is the agreement. It is in front of the members. It is in front of the public. These are the measures that we have agreed to. Again, they’re LNG Canada’s estimates, and their estimates that they believe they will fit the criteria of the program. That’s the determination they utilized.

A. Weaver: It would be a fair question to ask this: how are you defining — when I say “you,” it is the government, not the minister — what an LNG facility is for the purpose of calculating emissions? We actually have definitions in existing legislation. Are you changing those definitions? How is it possible that you could allude to electricity — which has been done — produced through the burning of coal? How could you possibly include that in a definition of what an LNG facility is?

Hon. C. James: I refer the member to page 22 — the last paragraph, which talks about LNG facilities. It says about the LNG facility: “It will include fugitive emissions, venting, natural gas combustion at the LNG facility and emissions from electricity supplied to the facility from the British Columbia electrical grid.” That’s in the agreement. But again, specifics are being developed by the minister and will be determined as that process continues.

A. Weaver: How are you going to compare this in LNG Canada, in B.C., to another facility not in B.C.? Is it also from natural gas supplied by B.C.? To what extent is there a requirement to actually use gas from B.C.? There is no requirement in the legislation. We can use gas from Alberta.

To me, there’s just nothing defined here. We’re actually being asked to take a leap of faith. We’re asked to take a leap of faith: “Trust us. We know that LNG Canada can meet the $30 a tonne exemption, because they think they can.” We’ve got no articulation of any rules at all.

We’ve got no mention of electric compression. We’ve got no mention of where the gas will come from in that calculation. Is it sourced gas from B.C., or is a fraction from Alberta? Is it fracked shale gas, or is it conventional gas? Is it Horn River gas, which is dry? Is it Montney play gas, which is wet? Is it gas from the U.S. that’s coming up? It’s just a grand leap of faith.

Like the member for Langley East, I cannot believe that LNG Canada signed on to this unless they were given specific certainty that, in fact, the only carbon tax they will pay is the first $30, and everything above that will be exempt. I cannot believe that they signed this. So I ask the minister this: has the minister at any point, or anyone in her government, assured LNG Canada that all they will pay is $30 a tonne of carbon tax, yes or no?

Hon. C. James: No.

Video of Exchange