Today the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision on the long awaited Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) court case. In what should be the final death knell for the project, the Federal Court of appeal ruled that:

1. The Board unjustifiably defined the scope of the project under review not to include project-related tanker traffic. This exclusion permitted the Board to conclude that, notwithstanding its conclusion that the operation of project-related marine vessels is likely to result in significant adverse effects to the Southern resident killer whale, the project was not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. The unjustified exclusion of project-related marine shipping from the definition of the project rendered the Board’s report impermissibly flawed: the report did not give the Governor in Council the information and assessments it needed in order to properly assess the public interest, including the project’s environmental effects—matters it was legally obligated to assess.
2. The Government of Canada was required to engage in a considered, meaningful two-way dialogue. However, for the most part, Canada’s representatives limited their mandate to listening to and recording the concerns of the Indigenous applicants and then transmitting those concerns to the decision-makers. On the whole, the record does not disclose responsive, considered and meaningful dialogue coming back from Canada in response to the concerns expressed by the Indigenous applicants. The law requires Canada to do more than receive and record concerns and complaints…The duty to consult was not adequately discharged.

The result is that the soon-to-be-taxpayer-owned project must redo “phase 3” of the consultation process and send the project back to the newly-constituted NEB process for a reassessment of the effects of increases in marine shipping.

As readers might imagine, I am delighted by the decision. My colleague Adam Olsen, MLA for Saanich North and the Islands and I both feel vindicated after many years serving as intervenors in the NEB process. We are grateful to the Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish, Coldwater, Secwepemec and other First Nations, along with the cities of Burnaby and Vancouver, for their efforts to ensure that the appropriate evidence was brought before the Federal Court of Appeal. We should not forget that the resources that could have been put to use in their communities were instead directed to the legal challenge.

The decision today is both a victory for science and evidence-based decision-making (ruling 1. above) as well as a victory for indigenous rights (ruling 2.). As the only sitting MLA to seek intervention status, my focus as an intervenor was almost exclusively on the former, culminating in an Open Letter to Prime Minister Trudeau in November, 2016.

I was very disappointed by the petty response of Rachael Notley to the decision. As I summarized in a tweet earlier tonight:

It’s time to stop playing politics with younger generations’ future. The fed gov needs to show real climate leadership with a plan to meet our targets that doesn’t rely on selling out First Nations’ rights, the coast & the economic activity our communities depend on.

In response to the ruling, my office issues a media release which is reproduced below.

Media Release

Weaver: Federal Court Ruling show politics put ahead of evidence and reconciliation in federal approval of pipeline
For Immediate Release
August 30, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, congratulated the First Nations and local governments on the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling today that federal government made its decision without considering all evidence and failing in their legal duty to consult First Nations. Weaver, who was an intervener in the National Energy Board hearings, says the ruling is further proof that the project should have never been approved.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for First Nations’ rights and for all those who have long held that this project was not approved based on evidence,” said Weaver.

“I am particularly glad to see the court’s judgement that there was an unjustifiable failure at the heart of the federal government’s approval of this project: the failure to assess the impacts of marine shipping on the environment. This was an outrageous omission on the part of the federal government that flies in the face of their stated commitment to evidence-based decision-making. The NEB acknowledged that the marine traffic from this project posed significant harm to the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales. The government must now justify to Canadians, and to the world, why it is willing to herald the death knell of this irreplaceable species if it continues to pursue this project.

“Coming off of the two worst wildfire seasons in B.C.’s history, it’s clear that we cannot continue down the misguided path of expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to begin the immediate transition to the low-carbon economy. B.C. is a leader amongst the provinces, adopting carbon tax increases that are ahead of federal requirements. Our Caucus is working closely with the B.C. NDP minority government to create a clean growth strategy that will further advance our efforts. I hope the federal government will now realize that there is an enormous opportunity to support B.C.’s leadership, rather than attempting to force our province to shoulder the huge environmental and economic risks that this project presents.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

The BC Government today released the interim report  of the B.C. Minister of Agriculture’s Advisory Committee for Revitalizing the Agricultural Land Reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. As noted in the accompanying press release, the committee identified 13 recommendations for legislative and regulatory change, and four recommendations for action to protect the ALR. It also identified 14 key issues that are still under consideration for its final report.

Our caucus issued the press release reproduced below welcoming the report and urging the government to act quickly on the recommendations to limit house size on ALR land and to return the entire ALR to a single zone.

Media release

B.C. Greens welcome ALR report, urge government to act on house size restrictions and zone change
For immediate release
August 8, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – The B.C. Green caucus welcomed the Ministry of Agriculture Advisory Committee’s agricultural land reserve (ALR) revitalization report released today. The Caucus emphasized that the government should act quickly to adopt the recommendations to limit house size on ALR land and to return the entire ALR to a single zone.

“The ALR is crucial to supporting B.C. agriculture, farmers and our local food security,” said Adam Olsen, B.C. Greens spokesperson for agriculture.

“It has been increasingly under threat due to the preponderance of mega mansions, stemming from speculation in our real estate market. This is driving up prices at a time when the industry is facing a demographic crisis and young farmers are struggling to afford to buy land. I am pleased to that the committee recommends that the province limit house size on the ALR and I urge the government to swiftly adopt this recommendation.”

B.C. Greens leader Andrew Weaver added that the government should also adopt the committee’s recommendation to return the ALR to a unified zone.

“The previous B.C. Liberal introduced the zone changes in 2014, which opened up precious farmland to oil and gas exploration, among other non-agricultural industrial activity,” Weaver said.

“That was a short-sighted decision made at a time when we should have instead been investing in the sustainable industries of the future. As the world shifts to the low carbon economy, it is essential that we take every opportunity to support economic development, especially in rural communities, in sectors that will sustain us in the long-term. I thank the committee, especially Chair Vicki Huntington, for their excellent work on this report. We are reviewing the other recommendations in detail and look forward to working with government to advance legislation that will ensure a strong, revitalized ALR so that British Columbians can benefit from a thriving agricultural sector for generations to come.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

The BC Government today released the Fish Processing Facilities Compliance Audit Report that was commissioned following findings by Tavish Campbell that effluent containing the Piscene Reovirus (so-called “blood water”) was being discharged from a BC fish processing facility.

This issue was explored by my colleague Sonia Furstenau during question period late last year:

The report provides a clear illustration of the type of problems that have arisen from the previous BC Liberal administration’s severe cutbacks to compliance and enforcement initiatives within government.

As the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy noted in the government’s statement accompanying the report’s release:

“The industry has been largely operating under an outdated permitting regime, going back several decades. We are taking immediate steps to ensure permits are updated and strengthened at fish processing facilities throughout B.C.”

Between ICBC, money laundering, the housing crisis and a litany of environmental disasters, it’s increasingly clear that the previous government badly mismanaged our province.

Government has a responsibility to ensure the public interest by proactively updating laws and regulations to fit changing realities. Instead, the previous government left British Columbians with mounting debts while they pillaged the public books and turned a blind eye to harmful activities. We have taken significant steps to remedy this, including banning big money and reforming the lobbying industry, but we must take every opportunity in this minority government to clean up B.C. to prevent such blatant misuse of power.

Below I reproduce the media statement that the BC Green caucus issued in response to government’s release of the report.

Media Release

Findings of fish processing compliance audit show need for reform: B.C. Green caucus
For immediate release
July 4, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – The B.C. Green Caucus is calling on government to step up marine monitoring and protection in the wake of an audit of fish processing facilities. Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, says the report shows a disturbing pattern of widespread mismanagement by the previous B.C. Liberal government that must be addressed.

“Between ICBC, money laundering, the housing crisis and a litany of environmental disasters, it’s increasingly clear that the previous government badly mismanaged our province,” said Weaver. “Government has a responsibility to ensure the public interest by proactively updating laws and regulations to fit changing realities. Instead, the previous government left British Columbians with mounting debts while they pillaged the public books and turned a blind eye to harmful activities. We have taken significant steps to remedy this, including banning big money and reforming the lobbying industry, but we must take every opportunity in this minority government to clean up B.C. to prevent such blatant misuse of power.”

Sonia Furstenau, environment spokesperson, added that the findings show why government should adopt Mark Haddock’s recommendations to reform the professional reliance model.

“As the previous government cut the funding needed to fulfill government’s duty to protect the public interest, they saddled our province with completely avoidable messes,” said Furstenau. “Many British Columbians were horrified, like I was, to see Tavish Campbell’s videos of blood water effluent that prompted this audit. It is no wonder people don’t trust the process when we must rely on private citizens and the media to bring such serious issues to light. Adopting Mark Haddock’s recommendations – and the ministry’s recommendations following this audit – will go a long way to restoring the public’s trust that government is looking out for their health and safety, as well as the long-term sustainability of our natural resource sector.”

Adam Olsen, spokesperson for agriculture, said the findings underscore the litany of threats facing B.C.’s wild salmon and added the release of infected blood from farmed fish is another reason why the government should keep its promise to transition away from open-net pen finfish aquaculture.

“Wild salmon are culturally, economically and environmentally essential to our province, yet we are allowing them to be hit at every stage of their development,” said Olsen. “Now we learn they have also been exposed to ‘acutely lethal’ levels of effluent.”

DFO’s 2018 salmon outlook for B.C. states that of 91 different groupings of salmon, only 28 are expected to be at or above the amount necessary for a healthy population.

“This is absolutely unacceptable – we can and we must do better if we want our grandchildren to live in a province with wild salmon,” added Olsen.

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Today I was afforded the distinct honour of giving a keynote presentation at Clean Energy BC’s Global Electrification Summit. I took the opportunity to take the audience on a journey from the past to the future — from where we were when Gordon Campbell was BC’s Premier, to where we went when Christy Clark was BC’s Premier, to where we are in this minority government guided by our Confidence and Supply Agreement, to where we can go, when we focus on our potential in the Clean Energy sector.

Below I reproduce the text of my speech.

Text of Speech

Introduction

Thank you. It’s a distinct honour for me to be here and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at Clean Energy BC’s Global Electrification Summit.

I entered politics via an unusual route. Prior to my election as the MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head (and subsequently becoming leader of the B.C. Green Party), I was Lansdowne Professor and Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and analysis at the University of Victoria.

With a PhD in applied mathematics I’d spent 25 years working in the field of atmosphere/ocean/climate science.

I decided to seek election with the BC Green Party in 2012 as I could no longer stand by and watch the dismantling of British Columbia’s climate policies and leadership in clean energy innovation.

Over these past 25 years Clean Energy B.C. has been the voice of British Columbia’s Clean Energy sector and I am sincerely grateful for your contributions to our province.

The BC Green Party and I share your goal to support the growth of British Columbia’s clean energy sector and we will continue to do what we can to improve the regulatory and economic environments for clean energy production through our work in the B.C. legislature.

Clean Energy B.C.’s vision statement is to have British Columbia, Western Canada and the Western US all having access to clean, reliable, cost effective energy produced by the private sector.

It’s to see British Columbia leading the world in modelling a sustainable way of life.

That too is my vision for British Columbia, and the subject on which I would like to speak to you today.
Over the next 20 minutes I’d like to take you on a journey from the past to the future.

From where we were when Gordon Campbell was BC’s Premier,

to where we went when Christy Clark was BC’s Premier,

to where we are in this minority government guided by our Confidence and Supply Agreement,

to where we can go, when we focus on our potential in the Clean Energy sector.

Where we were, with Campbell

Last month I rose in the legislature to speak to Bill 34, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment Act. The Act made a number of amendments to the original Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which first became law on November 29, 2007.
Speaking to that bill brought me back to a very important time in my life. 2007 was the year in which the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — released its Fourth Assessment Report.

It was the fourth consecutive report for which I served as a Leader Author in Working Group I’s volume on future projections of climate change.

It was also the year the B.C. government, under the leadership of Premier Gordon Campbell, decided that acting on climate change was an opportunity that B.C. could not afford to miss out on.

Mr. Campbell recognized that the first piece of legislation needed prior to taking steps to mitigate greenhouse gases was to set a clear target for where we were heading. In doing so, he sent a signal to the market that B.C. was going to be a leader in the new economy.

He set the stage for the emergence of a clean tech sector, a renewable energy sector and created a climate that saw companies starting to invest in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

I had the honour of participating as a member of BC’s first Climate Action Team. We were tasked with coming up with interim targets for 2012 and 2016.

We recommended that government should seek to reduce emissions by 6 percent, relative to 2007, by 2012. And for 2016, we recommended an 18 percent reduction.

I sat in the legislative gallery as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act was introduced in 2007 and listened to Minister Penner speak to its purpose. I felt proud to be a British Columbian that day and told my climate science colleagues around the world to look at the example our jurisdiction was setting for the world.

In 2008, Mr. Campbell’s government developed and entrenched in law the Climate Action Plan. The Plan was, at the time, the most progressive plan to address greenhouse gas emissions in North America, largely due to its revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Government was on track. In fact, we made the 2012 target, thanks, in part, to the policy measures put in place.

Nevertheless, at the time we knew, and government knew, through their wedge analyses, that proposed policies alone were not going to take us to the 33% reductions by 2020 — let alone an 80% reduction by 2050.

More needed to be done.

But we were well positioned to meet the challenge because BC had emerged as a leader internationally in both dealing with the challenge and recognizing the economic opportunity associated with greenhouse gas mitigation.

Where we went, with Clark

But all of our successes started to be overturned when British Columbia’s provincial leadership changed.

In every year since the 2011 change of leadership, emissions have gone up.

Why? Because of the signal government sent to the market that our emissions reductions targets no longer mattered — that economic prosperity would be found in industries from the last century, and that they would help take us back there.

The BC Liberals under Christy Clark stifled clean innovation and introduced policies that further entrenched “dig-it and ship-it” oil and gas development.

And when the market no longer supported these activities, they doubled done by creating more and more subsidies in a desperate attempt to squeeze water from a stone.

The first crack in our wall of climate policies started in July of 2012 when then Premier Christy Clark excluded LNG from the Clean Energy Act. From there, the dismantling of policies became far more aggressive.

I became so frustrated with the direction Ms. Clark’s government was taking B.C., that I ran for office and was elected in 2013.

I felt it was my job to ensure that there was a voice, and a party, that was going to stand up to the government on this issue and try to get government to once again commit to the climate leadership.

Unfortunately, the generational sellout continued, culminating in 2014 with the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, where the Legislature repealed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act from 2008.

All of this was done with the promise that LNG would make British Columbians rich and give the B.C. government a significant new revenue stream. This just hasn’t materialized.

Indeed, despite government doing everything in their power to position B.C. with a booming oil and gas economy, we have seen massively decreasing revenues to B.C. from increasing gas extraction.

What the data shows is quite shocking – while gas production has gone from 25 billion cubic metres in 2001 to over 50 billion cubic meters in 2016/17, royalty and land lease revenues to the B.C. government have gone in the opposite direction, from a record $2.4 billion in 2008/09 down to only $139 million in 2015.

Not only are we not getting paid for this public resource, we are literally paying companies to take it from us.

In 2009, B.C. collected $1.3 billion in natural gas royalties.
Last year, we collected a mere $152 million. Measured as a share of the value of oil and gas production in B.C., royalties collected by government has fallen from 44 percent in 2008 to just 4 percent last year.

In 2009, B.C. earned $39.90 in royalties for every 1000 cubic metres of natural gas. In 2017 it was $2.95.

This is a dismal return on the resources that are being extracted from our province.

We are literally giving away more gas for less money while barrelling past our climate commitments. That’s race for the bottom economics at its worst.

While we became sidetracked with developing an LNG industry and expanding our oil and gas production, other jurisdictions began to emerge and surpass B.C. as climate action trailblazers.

In 2016 leaders around the world signed the Paris accord, which committed signatories to reduce emissions and keep global warming to below 2 degrees relative to pre-industrial levels.

This agreement laid out, in the starkest terms, the choice facing the global community.

We’ve already warmed by 1.1 degrees with another 0.6 degrees in the cards if we do no more than maintain atmospheric greenhouse gas levels at present values.

Add to this, another 0.2 degrees or so from the permafrost carbon feedback and we have a commitment to about 1.9° warming already in store.

The Paris accord essentially translates to this: effective immediately, we must turn the corner and stop investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure that will continue to be around for decades to come.

That’s because of socioeconomic inertia. We don’t build an LNG facility in Kitimat, for example, today to tear it down tomorrow. We build it to last 40 to 50 years. We build it to last past our 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The scientific community is clear, the international community is clear, much of the business community is clear: we need to make the right choice of investments today because they will affect tomorrow.

Which brings us to where we are now, with our confidence and supply agreement in the present minority government.

Where we are now, with CASA

CASA – the confidence and supply agreement – underpins B.C.’s minority government. It is an agreement to work in good faith, with no surprises, with the B.C. NDP.

CASA has provided the B.C. Green caucus with an opportunity to champion key aspects of our economic platform, and the ability to work closely with government on priority issues like climate policy.

From our perspective, these two files are largely one in the same.

For example, we included two key pieces from our 21st century economy platform in the CASA agreement to help us seize economic opportunities in the emerging economy.

The first piece is the Emerging Economy Task Force.

We proposed the Emerging Economy Task Force to enable government to adapt and respond to changes on the horizon.

We need to modernize government so that it is considerably more responsive to technological innovation.

The Emerging Economy Task Force is looking to the future, identifying emerging trends & advising government on how to maintain our competitiveness & achieve prosperity amidst these changes.

The second item from our platform integrated into CASA is the Innovation Commission (now Innovate B.C.) as well as the appointment of an Innovation Commissioner.

The innovation commissioner serves as an advocate and ambassador for the B.C. technology sector in Ottawa and abroad, to enable B.C. companies to more easily tap into existing federal programs and build key strategic relationships internationally.

I’m confident that both of these initiatives will bolster and grow key sectors of our economy.

Since government was sworn in last July, I have had regular meetings with the Environment, Minister George Heyman, to discuss BC’s climate plan.
Over the past few months, our senior staff has been meeting weekly to further these goals.

I know the Minister cares deeply about this issue and I’m impressed by the expertise of the public service supporting his ministry.

It has been a pleasure to be working with them and I’m optimistic about what we can accomplish collectively.

The B.C. Green Caucus and government both agree that a meaningful climate plan will require careful planning, innovative ideas, and a new economic vision for how B.C. will prosper in a changing and challenging world.

We agree the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples need to be front and centre as we chart a course forward.

Rights, title, lands, territories, culture, traditional knowledge and identities must be protected by, and included in, B.C.’s clean growth strategy.
We want to create a strategy that will treat reducing greenhouse gas emissions as an economic priority and a key driver of our plan to create sustainable jobs and log-term prosperity.

We know responding to the challenge of climate change is both an intergenerational opportunity and responsibility.

I am working directly with the BC NDP to ensure a climate plan is put together that doesn’t simply show a plausible pathway to meeting our targets – but drives a return to the vision of a clean 21st century economy.

We have one of the best public services in the world and for a long time they have had the policies ready to get us there.

What has been missing is political leadership. This minority government must – and will – show that leadership.

I’m hopeful, but still wary of our starting point and the strength of the status quo.

In preparation for this speech, I reread parts of The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery – one of the books said to have inspired Mr. Campbell’s climate action ambitions.

In it Flannery writes; “Climate change is difficult for people to evaluate dispassionately because it entails deep political and industrial implications, and because it arises from the core processes of our civilization’s success.”

I think that speaks to the crossroads many governments face today.

Despite the new opportunities we’re presented with in B.C., some fractions of the B.C. government are continuing to entertain the dream of exporting LNG and are continuing the natural gas giveaway started by the previous administration.

Acknowledging that we need to transform our energy systems, with a plan for our environment, our economy and our communities – and that a climate action strategy is also an exciting economic strategy – is a big step. But it is not enough.

And that is where you come in: Where we can go, working in partnership with the Clean Energy sector.

Where we can go, with Clean Energy

If we are to meet our legislated targets – we will be doing so with clean energy — likely following the lead of people in this room.

In that regard, B.C. is setup to succeed. From our access to cheap, renewable energy, to our educated workforce, to our innovative business community, to the quality of life we can offer here, together with British Columbia’s natural beauty, we have an opportunity to develop our Province into one of the most prosperous jurisdictions in the world.

Our challenges are too big, and the consequences too profound, to ignore this opportunity.

We stand to gain by building on the expertise that our neighbours have already developed in these areas. And yet, there is still so much room to grow in this sector, to improve upon current technologies and policy innovations.

We need to learn from what has worked for our neighbours, and craft them into a “made in B.C. approach” that respects the unique characteristics of our economy, our environment and our energy needs.

The approval Site C was a terribly disappointing decision for me because I believe small-scale, distributed energy projects are the way of the future for B.C. and that we should fundamentally change the mandate of B.C. Hydro.

B.C. Hydro should no longer be the builder of new power capacity.

Rather, it should be the broker of power deals, transmitter of electricity, and leveller of power load through improving British Columbia power storage capacity.

Let industry risk their capital, not taxpayer capital, and let the market respond to demands for cheap power.

We need to optimize support for clean energy development, including grid storage for community or privately generated power and work with neighbouring jurisdictions to expedite the phase out of fossil fuel powered electricity generation.

The future of economic prosperity in B.C. lies in harnessing our innate potential for innovation and bringing new, more efficient technologies to bear in the resource sector.

B.C. will never compete in digging dirt out of the ground with jurisdictions that don’t internalize the same social and environmental externalities that we value.

We will excel through being smarter, more efficient, cleaner and by working together to solve our problems.

This means that we not only export the dirt, but we also export the knowledge, technology and value added products associated with resource extraction.

To get a fair value for our resources that deliver maximum benefits to our communities, we need to get smarter and more strategic when it comes to embracing innovation.

Government should be doing more to support these initiatives and create fertile ground for a sustainable, resilient, and diverse economy.

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

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

By steadily increasing emissions pricing, we can send a signal to the market that incentivizes innovation and the transition to a low carbon economy.

The funding could be transferred to municipalities across the province so that they might have the resources to deal with their aging infrastructure and growing transportation barriers.

Yes, we should be investing in trade skills, as described, for example, under the B.C. jobs plan.

But we should also be investing further in education for 21st century industries like biotech, high tech and cleantech. It’s critical that we bring the typically urban-based tech and rural-based resource sectors together.

Similarly natural gas has an important role to play, but we should use it to use in our domestic market and explore options around using it to power local transport.

Global investment trends are being driven by the world’s shared Paris commitments, predicated on the fact that keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius is far more cost-effective than dealing with the effects of a temperature rise above that level.

This shift presents a significant opportunity for B.C.’s economy.

Our province is well poised to bolster its leadership in the cleantech sector – we have a strong competitive advantage in the building blocks required to foster a knowledge-based economy.

In Closing

I am truly excited about the prospects that lie ahead for this minority government. I am working every day to ensure that this government embraces the opportunity in front of it. British Columbia has so much to offer and we can and should be a leader in the new economy.

The years ahead will require all of us to come together to look for areas where we can be partners – to drive the innovation that will enable us to conquer what lies ahead. I don’t doubt many of solution we need will come from the people in this room.

Thank you all again for having me here today to speak with you. And for all your work to build a better future for our province.

Today in the BC Legislature I rose during estimate debates for the Office of the Premier to ask the premier how he plans to reconcile a new two to four train LNG facility in Kitimat with the province’s recently announced commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 2007 levels by 2030. This task will be particularly onerous in the event that new bottom-up methane fugitive emissions measuring techniques are introduced in the province.

Below I reproduce both the video and text of my exchange with the Premier. As I noted in an earlier post, I believe it isn’t possible to do so.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I have three questions for the Premier, concerning government policies on LNG development. Let me please start by saying I’m extremely encouraged by the work underway on developing a truly visionary climate plan, and I’m fully committed to delivering on the opportunity that this minority government has — to finally put a plan together that understands that addressing climate change and meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets is an economic imperative, yet also an economic opportunity.

This will require hard work, thoughtful and innovative solutions and the engagement of all British Columbians. What we must never again allow is for the stated commitments to reduce emissions to be used as a cover for actions that undermine that commitment. That is what we see playing out federally. I believe this government is sincere in its commitments to meeting its greenhouse gas reduction targets, but they have some work to do in showing how the action they have taken — advancing a major expansion of a fossil fuel industry like LNG — is in line with these commitments.

Please let me explore with you three questions. First, in May 2015, the B.C. Liberal government signed a development deal with Pacific NorthWest LNG, in an aggressive move to spur the Malaysian-led project to become the first major Canadian exporter of LNG.

In response, the Premier, who at the time was the Leader of the Official Opposition, was sharply critical and said the provincial government had put too much on the table for industry. I just want to provide a quote. He said this: “My biggest concern is that we are tying the hands of future governments because a desperate government made commitments that they overpromised on.” He said in Victoria: “And now they want to get a deal at any cost.”

The B.C. NDP argued that the agreements the B.C. Liberals were offering to LNG companies were too one-sided and did not provide sufficient certainty for the owners of the resource, the general public. The NDP at the time charged that this was “a sellout for B.C.,” and they said also: “The LNG tax legislation was written by industry and for industry.”

Hon. Chair, are we not similarly now offering LNG Canada a deal that has been written explicitly for them, while ignoring the costs that this project will incur on British Columbians, including the costs to other sectors of our economy that will be forced to pay to accommodate the massive increase in our greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his participation in the estimates today. I know there will be a series of questions on this issue. It’s one that is of critical importance to him and his colleagues, and also to all British Columbians.

When we formed a government, we were approached by industries — mining, forestry and any number of industries — to find out what the new government’s plan was on taxation and what regulatory regime would be in place for a range of issues.

We established a framework for the LNG industry. The member will know — we talked about this during the election campaign — that we wanted to ensure there was going to be a return to taxpayers for the resource that belonged to them. Ministry of Finance officials worked on the development of the framework to ensure that there would be a benefit to British Columbia’s treasury as a result of any LNG development in British Columbia, and that’s what the framework is designed to do.

We also made a commitment to the public, and reinforced that when I was in Asia talking to potential proponents, that Indigenous participation and meeting our climate action objectives were integral to any approval by the province of British Columbia.

I know the member’s participation in the development of our climate action plan going forward will be absolutely pivotal to our success. I look forward to his interventions.

I just want to say that as we look at the potential of a final investment decision in the north, we want to make sure…. Industry has said to us — leaders of industry — that they welcome this type of private sector investment. I’ve said to them, as I know the member has, that if there’s an increase in emissions as a result of this sector growing, then that means there’s going to need to be a concurrent reduction and more so in other industrial activity. The business community understands that.

We need to make sure that as we develop the plan, in concert with our colleagues here in the Legislature, that we know that industry understands that we need to reduce emissions over time. If we’re going to have a net increase from one project, that means concurrent decreases from other sectors.

A. Weaver: A key reason why I want to ask this question, the previous one and the next two, is that the financial regime that this government has brought forward is described by the Premier’s government as a better deal than what the B.C. Liberals were offering. When this was brought forward earlier this year, it was reported: “The tax breaks would water down LNG taxes enacted by then Premier Christy Clark after the 2013 election. Instead of the provincial treasury receiving an estimated $28 billion in revenue over 40 years if LNG were built, B.C. would take in only $22 billion.”

Put another way, we’re offering a project that would become the single largest source of new greenhouse gas emissions in Canada at a $6 billion discount from what the previous government was willing to offer, not the least of which is also including a reduction in electricity rates, PST and exemptions on carbon tax increase.

Why are we going out of our way to offer a better deal than even the B.C. Liberals were willing to consider to bring an LNG industry to British Columbia, in spite of the commitments we have made to a real climate plan?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his questions.

Firstly, I think we have to look back at the market for natural gas in North America and the precipitous drop-off in prices here for a commodity we have in abundance in the northeast.

When the former government put in place their LNG tax, they had an expectation of higher market prices, which would have led to potentially more revenues coming to the province. But as prices continued to be soft and demand continued to be flat, the prospect of an investment started to fall away. We saw proponent after proponent after proponent leaving the province because with the framework that was in place from the previous government, it wasn’t possible to realize a final investment decision.

Again, working with Finance officials, we took a look at what was possible with tax changes, a repealing of the B.C. Liberal LNG tax and bringing in a tax that would allow us to continue to get revenue to the Crown and also allow the project to proceed.

With respect to electricity, again, the B.C. Liberals created…. Again trying to squeeze more juice out of what was a declining prospect because of prices internationally, they created a new tariff for electricity. We agreed with the industry that if you’re a pulp mill or a mine or any other industrial activity, there’s a tariff that you pay, and that should be the same tariff for an LNG manufacturing plant.

What we have done when it comes to electricity prices is put in place an industrial tariff that exists for all industrial activity. I think that’s a fairness question. On the energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries, I know the member and I have had long discussions about this. He understands the issue very well. If we are going to have a successful climate action plan and a robust economy, we have to keep our energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries in a position of being able to be positive and also meet our climate objectives.

This is not going to be an easy challenge. The member knows that better than anyone else in this Legislature. It’s for that reason that I’m grateful that he’s on board to try and help square this circle. But the investment opportunity is significant. Upstream electrification will help reduce emissions from wellhead to water line. These were issues that we debated in this Legislature when the previous administration brought forward their ideas. I think we’re in a better position now to make the changes that we need.

We’re not focusing on one, two, three, four or ten LNG plants. It’s two trains and a community that is receptive and that has almost complete First Nations participation. I believe that if we work very hard on this, we’ll be able to see a final investment decision by what is a very diverse group of proponents from China, Japan, Korea and Royal Dutch Shell. I think the opportunity is a positive one, but the challenges are significant, and no one knows that better than the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

A. Weaver: Thank you for the answer. I certainly hope government is looking to support from the B.C. Liberals for repealing the LNG Income Tax Act because the B.C. Greens have been quite clear that we will not support the repealing of the LNG Income Tax Act, in light of the fact that the deal that was given by the B.C. Liberals was a rich deal at best, and this rich deal is being made richer. I look forward to the debates ahead as the B.C. Liberals stand in support of government repealing the LNG Income Tax Act that they brought in.

In 2016, the NDP concluded that plans for the $11.4 billion terminal at Lulu Island would generate an unacceptable increase in the province’s greenhouse gas emissions and filed a definitive position against the project with the federal environmental authorities. “The project,” the NDP noted in their March 2016 letter to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, “would increase the province’s entire carbon footprint for industry, transport and residential activity combined by 8.5 percent. The proposal failed to meet the condition of air, land and water protection with respect to both the threat to marine habitat and species as well as to climate, through unacceptable high and inadequately regulated gases, greenhouse gas emissions,” the letter stated. “Until and unless those deficiencies are addressed, we urge you to withhold final recommendation for the approval.” Those are the NDP words.

As was reported in Times Colonist at the time, the key reason the opposition was citing, greenhouse gas emissions, is an issue with all the big LNG plants that have been under consideration in B.C. for the past several years. If the B.C. NDP applies its Pacific NorthWest LNG reasoning to all other proposals, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where the party would support LNG in general. “Unacceptable high emissions cited by the letter are in fact lower than the emissions projected to arise from LNG Canada. According to Pembina’s analysis, LNG Canada would increase our emissions by 14 percent of 2015 levels.”

Furthermore, the same analysis projects that upstream emissions from LNG Canada will be comparable to those outlined as unacceptable in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency letter. LNG Canada is about five megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent a year. That’s for two trains — two then four. This would suggest the analysis that led the B.C. NDP to reject Pacific NorthWest LNG on climate grounds would equally, and more so, apply to LNG Canada. Again, I don’t have any philosophical objection to the LNG industry. LNG may be an important local transition fuel to meet our plans for commercial vehicles and other forms.

But what we can’t allow, and what I believe you were arguing yourself, hon. Premier, in the letter you filed with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, was that the LNG industry cannot come at the expense of our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

How does the Premier reconcile his strong opposition to Petronas with his support for LNG Canada? I don’t see how you can have it both ways.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. Our analysis shows that the emission intensity of LNG Canada is significantly lower than the Petronas proposal or Pacific NorthWest LNG — 0.23 versus 0.15 in terms of with emission intensity. Also, LNG Canada proposes their upstream assets are largely in the Montney basin — the southern portion of the Montney basin — which will provide more opportunities for electrification to ensure that emissions at the wellhead are reduced so that the package from wellhead to waterline is significantly greater than the Petronas or the Pacific NorthWest LNG proposal.

I believe that new technologies that are proposed by LNG Canada also assist in reducing their profile, versus Pacific NorthWest LNG. The member will remember that the critical issue when it came to the Pacific NorthWest LNG issue was siting of the plant on Lelu Island, which was contested by the Lax Kw’alaams hereditary leadership as well as many very concerned about one of the most robust salmon rivers in North America at the mouth of the Skeena River. The putting at risk our wild salmon was a significant challenge that I believe Pacific NorthWest LNG wasn’t able to overcome.

When it comes to LNG Canada, they have the full support of the Haisla Nation. They have support virtually from Treaty 8 right through to Kitimat. The city of Kitimat is almost uniformly supportive. I believe that the fiscal framework we’ve put in place will allow a significant return to the people of British Columbia.

The challenge, as the member knows full well, is meeting our climate objectives. We’re going to need a lot of work by a lot of people to do that. Individuals are going to have to reduce their footprint. Industry is going to have to reduce their footprint to make space for this new emerging industry. But it will create significant employment growth, wealth for British Columbians and, I believe, will allow other jurisdictions to reduce their climate emissions by having a transition fuel in place.

I thank the member for his questions.