Today during question period I rose to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources about what appears to be regulatory inconsistencies facing the advancement of Pacific Booker’s Morrison Mine project. As you will see from the exchange below, I was not particularly impressed with the Minister’s response to my questions.

I intend to explore this issue further in the coming weeks.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the Question Period Exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: I’m sure every member of this House will agree that a stable regulatory environment is key to maintaining B.C.’s reputation as a welcoming place to do business. This means that the approval of natural resource projects must be based on scientific evidence and not politics. Yet in 2012, upon recommendation from the executive director of the environmental assessment office, the B.C. Liberals rejected the Morrison mine project proposed by Pacific Booker Minerals, despite it having received a positive environmental assessment. In justifying their decision, they cited environmental concerns about the effects of the mine on water quality in Morrison Lake and local salmon populations, despite already having a positive environmental assessment.

Despite their rejection of the Pacific Booker project, in 2013 the B.C. Liberals went to Ottawa to lobby the federal government to approve the Prosperity mine, a project that had received two negative assessments by federal review panels. There’s some suspicion that the decision around the Morrison mine had less to do with environmental concerns and more to do with political calculation.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Has this government been able to determine why this company was treated so differently from others at the time? And how will it prevent situations like this from happening in the future?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I’d like to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question. I’m sure the member will appreciate that I’m not in a position to advise what led the former government to make its decision about the proposed Morrison mine. What I can say, though, is that their approach was shortsighted and certainly didn’t bring certainty to the sector.

Our government has taken a different approach. My predecessor, as minister, initiated the Mining Jobs Task Force, which worked hard with First Nations, industry and communities to find ways to strengthen this fundamental, foundational industry.

There were 25 recommendations emanating from the task force. They’ve all been accepted by government, and almost all of them have now been implemented. We have made two mining tax credits permanent, bringing immediate benefits to the B.C. mineral exploration sector by adding more certainty. We’ve invested $1 million for the mining innovation roadmap, $1 million for the Regional Mining Alliance.

As further evidence of the strengthening of the sector, the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan just signed a $300 million investment deal to provide an investment in the New Afton mine, just outside the civic boundaries of Kamloops.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I must admit that was a lot of information about a lot of mines that weren’t the mine I’m actually talking about. Maybe I can try again.

A key element of the previous government’s unrealistic strategy for natural resource development revolved around, as we all know, LNG. We know that certain natural gas projects were located in areas close to the Morrison mine. Comments from groups engaged in the Pacific Booker project have indicated that the province was facing significant pressure to avoid reopening discussions around the Morrison mine in order to obtain the support necessary for the Prince Rupert gas transmission line.

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

After a legal battle in which the Supreme Court found that this conduct violated standards of procedural fairness and that the environmental assessment office recommendation be presented to cabinet for reconsideration, the government once again rejected the project in order to undergo further assessment. However, in its order, the government appeared to issue unclear directions that substantially delay the process. As of 2019, in September….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: As of Sep 2019, Pacific Booker had yet to be fully provided with this opportunity. My question, again, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. When is this firm going to have the chance to have their project undergo further assessment, as put forward by the Supreme Court?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: The short answer is that the company is currently working through the required regulatory processes for further assessment. The further assessment for the proposed project includes the requirement for a supplemental application information requirement. There are a number of requirements. The EAO continues to work with the company on this, and I’m advised that the latest submission was received by the EAO in December 2019.

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

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

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

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

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

Affordability

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

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

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

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

Education and Youth

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

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

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

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

Capital Projects and Innovation

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

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

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

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

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

Rural Development

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

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

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

Concluding Remarks

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

Today in the Legislature I rose to provide my response to the BC NDP government’s Speech from the Throne. The throne speech focused largely on identifying the advances that have already been made and pathways forward to build on those advances for the betterment of British Columbia. I spoke in strong support of the throne speech as outlined in the text and video of my response (reproduced below).

Text of My Response

A. Weaver: Thank you to the members of government here who give a little applause as I rise as an independent member to speak in strong support of the throne speech we heard yesterday.

Before I start, I wish to acknowledge and thank government for raising and acknowledging the passing of a number of friends and constituents: Al Martin, a neighbour, a conservationist, a friend, a great British Columbian; Nils Jensen, former Oak Bay mayor, a friend, a great British Columbian; Eli Pasquale, who went to UVic at the same time as me and was in the rival basketball team, as I was in the rival rugby team, who passed away at the young age of 59 — his number 13 has been retired at the University of Victoria — and of course, Paul Fraser, who we all know in this Legislature, who I became very close to over the years. He will be a great loss to all of us and British Columbia in general.

I’d like to start by addressing some of the issues in the throne speech. Now, with respect to the throne speech, it’s quite clear that the throne speech focussed largely on identifying the advances that have already been made and pathways forward to build on those advances for the betterment of British Columbia. Government has, in its throne speech, mentioned that it has already got big money out of politics and strengthened lobbying rules.

As the former leader of the B.C. Green Party, I feel very strongly that these are quite good policies and take great pride in the role that we played in working with government in ensuring that transparency and getting big money out of politics was done early in the term.

I would like to address, before I move on, an issue raised by the member for Kelowna West with respect to closing trade offices. Now, again I’m going to commend government for doing precisely that and doing what virtually every other province in Canada does, which is recognize that you are not a province in isolation of a country and your trade offices should be embedded in national offices to ensure that you capitalize on national opportunity, for which British Columbia has strategic advantage.

The fact that the previous government went rogue alone is quite remarkable. There are still many questions left as to what value was ever achieved from those multi-million-dollar leases for trade offices that were only used for British Columbia. So I commend government for their moves in this regard, and I think many fiscally responsible people will also look at that as a great achievement. It will not affect trade, and if anything, it will expedite the passage of information between provinces and the nation of Canada and enhance trade with our beautiful province.

To health care. I’m very proud of what government has done and the small role we’ve played in some of this — in the issues of MSP, for example. This is one that I personally take great pride in, for it was about five or six years ago that I stood in this Legislature and announced that the B.C. Greens would eliminate MSP as part of our campaign promise.

We feel we deserve a bit of credit for getting both parties — both the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP — to recognize that public support for the elimination of MSP was so strong that really you couldn’t go forward into an election without making that a form of a campaign promise. To see it come to fruition is very, very satisfying, and I thank government for making that happen.

Government has taken the approach, a wise approach in my view, to recognition that, at times now, when capital is cheap, that is the time you use capital to invest in the province. We’re seeing funding of new hospitals and primary care centres. We’re seeing funding of new schools. And I’ll come back to that in a second. This is the time to do it, when the capital is cheap. I think that government deserves a good deal of credit for its ventures down this avenue.

I’m still hoping and still working with government to ensure that they recognize that each and every school and hospital that is built should be viewed through the eyes of innovation, as an opportunity for innovation, to showcase British Columbia technologies, British Columbia–engineered products — we’ve heard that in the throne speech today — as well as British Columbia energy efficiency and British Columbia renewable power.

We’ve got new diagnostic machines and funding for more health care professionals. I can tell you that one of the most important pieces of change that government has done in the last two years in the health care file is opening access to MRIs 24-7.

I personally have benefitted from that, and my wife has benefitted from that as well — many times, in fact. The months and months that people had to wait for diagnostic tools like MRIs was unacceptable, and the steps taken by Minister Dix in this regard truly deserve a lot of credit. We see money going into mental health services. We see money going into funding more professionals, seniors getting direct care.

On the issue of affordability, despite the rhetoric I just heard from the member for Kelowna West, government has done a remarkable job in delivering on the affordable file. We’ve seen a slow tempering of the market, a decrease at the higher end of the market in Vancouver – not a collapse, a tempered decrease, exactly the type of tempered decrease the market can absorb. Much of that artificial speculation that occurred has been tempered. Housing is becoming more affordable, and I look forward to working with government, along the lines as we did with the speculation and vacancy tax, as we move forward to deal with other rental and tenancy issues.

In particular, the speculation tax, which many in this room, including me when it was first introduced, felt was not thought through completely. The final implementation of that, I would argue — and I believe the Minister of Finance would, too, after many hundreds of hours of negotiations back and forth – is working. It’s working so well that there are jurisdictions like Tofino, like West Vancouver, that are asking to be included in such speculation tax to deal with this.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I am hoping….

Yes, to the member who said “Really?” Yes, really. It’s actually….

There are other issues that I would like to, hopefully, see addressed as we move forward in this session with respect to rental, tenancy act issues. You know, one of the things I would like to explore is the notion — and I will be doing this on my blog shortly to get a sense of public opinion — that there is unfairness in the present system right now.

Let us suppose I live in Ontario, and I have a vacation condo in Victoria, and that vacation condo happens to be in a strata that has a “no rental” clause. Well, guess what? I don’t pay the vacancy tax because there’s a no rental clause in my strata. However, if I was the same person’s neighbour in Ontario and I had a vacation condo in a strata that allowed rentals, I would be subject to the speculation tax unless I rented it.

In my view, what we need to do in this province in a timely fashion is follow the lead of Ontario. In Ontario, they’ve eliminated the ability of strata councils to actually have no rental clauses attached to them. But in doing so, they allowed stratas to enable the banning of limited rentals – i.e., Airbnb or vacation rentals – and at the same time, grant to strata council the powers of eviction – the idea being that if there is an absent landlord, who is actually not looking after the property, council has the powers of eviction.

This, in and of itself, will create a vast amount of units. We don’t need to build more empty units. We can go to Metrotown in Burnaby. There are skyscrapers of empty units, with no rental clauses. What we need is we need units to be used. This, in my view, would be the single most important policy that I hope government will deliver upon in this coming session.

I’m also excited by the words that we saw in the throne speech about ICBC and the reforms that are forthcoming. Now, I recall in September of 2017, very shortly after Minister Eby took the role of Attorney General, he stood and he spoke out and said: “I’m not considering no-fault insurance.” At the time, I issued a press release, and I said: “Why would he do this?” Why would you take off the table ideas before you’ve actually looked at the books? Why would you not look at the model from Manitoba, having some of the lowest rates in the country, where they have a no-fault system?

We have the analogy in Saskatchewan, which is slightly different – and I know members from opposition will at some point raise it – in Saskatchewan it used to be no fault, and why over 90 percent of people in Saskatchewan are still no fault, the reason why is because it was no fault for a long time, and then they were allowed to potentially soon opt out of that, at a later date, and only a very few people did.

I think this approach to no fault is certainly going to be one that will get to the bottom of the books of ICBC. I mean, it’s a file that really has been neglected for some time by members of the opposition. I think they have to be very careful when they speak and try to pass blame on the present government in light of what they left behind. I think, in the words of the Attorney General, “a dumpster fire,” it was described as.

Education. You know, we come back to the economy. Again, I know the B.C. NDP like to be branded by the B.C. Liberals as bad for the economy. But we’ve had already balanced budget after balanced budget, and I’m convinced the next budget will be balanced with the triple-a credit rating being maintained and the strongest economy in the country. People want to live here. They want to come to British Columbia. Why? Because we are the most beautiful place in the world to live. We have a strong stable democracy, and we can offer everything.

Schools. Our school system in British Columbia is one of the top in the world. It ranks in the top five year after year in the international PISA assessments, ahead of the much-touted Finland, ahead of the much-touted Quebec. We are the very best. We have some of the best schools and best teachers in the province, and government now has invested substantively in more services for schools as a direct consequence of having to implement the rulings of the Supreme Court.

That, frankly, wasted a decade and, frankly — I’ve said this publicly — has led to a decade of children, a whole generation of children, not getting the services they needed at the times they needed in their early developmental years. From 2001 to 2017, for those 17 years, a generation of school children had their child psychologists cut, their speech pathologists cut, the in-class help cut, class size increases.

What would you expect as a result of that? Well, what you would expect is that as those children age out into adulthood, you’d start to see troubles in society. And lo and behold, guess what, delayed, down road, we’re dealing with an opioid crisis. We’re dealing with a homeless problem and an out of control….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It is not a far reach.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It’s interesting. One of the members opposite, who is a teacher, doesn’t clearly understand the research in education.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, clearly you don’t, because it is very clear that the interventions in early years of child education are absolutely critical to put the children, particularly in their K-to-3 years, on the right paths for success. If you don’t catch it early, you have to pay down the road. That falls squarely on the B.C. Liberal government.

To the First Nations, I was very proud to be part of this collective group. There is no one individual. Collectively, the passing of UNDRIP legislation last year. I’m looking forward to seeing how that moves forward.

We see in the throne speech words about safety and policing. We see about increased diversity and inclusion and how a human rights commission has now been improved. There’s talk in the throne speech about what’s being done in the arts and culture and museums. Transport and rural development were there.

One of the key things that has been done — again, I’m very pleased with this; this is something we’ve been advocating for, for a long time — is the beginning of taking high-speed broadband into rural communities. You want to stimulate the economy of rural communities? It’s not going to happen until you bring broadband in.

The only way we’re going to compete in the resource world is not to just dig dirt out of the ground and think, somehow, we’re going to beat, say, Indonesia, which doesn’t internalize the social and environmental externalities we value here. The way we do that is we’re smarter, more efficient and cleaner. We do that by bringing the technology sector together with the resource sector. We do that by focusing on the value-added. We do that focusing on efficiency, cleaner and selling those technologies elsewhere, like MineSense, Axine or others. I was so very pleased, so very pleased to see that recognized in this throne speech as a direction this government is going.

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

You know, a member opposite lauded the $2.7 billion surplus that the last Liberal government left, and seemed to think that that was a good thing. It’s remarkable that this was actually raised — that this $2.7 billion number was touted as a good thing to have as a surplus — when we have the highest child poverty rates in the country, when we have over a decade with disability and welfare rates not being increased, where we have homelessness getting out of control and we have a $2.7 billion surplus. It’s outrageous fiscal mismanagement at its very, very worst.

The Liberals, who claim to be these managers of fiscal prowess, actually demonstrated fiscal incompetence in their budgeting in that last year. We see that not only in the $2.7 billion surplus, but we see that in the money-laundering issue going on, we see that in the out-of-control speculation in the real estate market, and we see that with what has happened to some of our most vulnerable, as they’ve been on the streets.

So I say that B.C. Liberals, as I said a while back, needed to be put in a time-out for some time. I’m still convinced that that time-out is not over yet. There needs to be a longer time-out until such time as the opposition starts to recognize that you have to govern for the people of this province, not for those who are your funders, not for the elite, not for the 1 percent. If you start governing for the 1 percent, you end up seeing what we see all around us today.

We see very disturbing trends emerging. We see society splitting into two ways. We see the kind of Trump, and we see the anti-Trump. We see these two kinds of polarizing views of society, the Trump far right and the anti-Trump, almost anarchist. This is a very, very dangerous situation that the world is moving towards. It does not help when we polarize this place and continue to suggest that one side is far better than the other. We must, for the betterment of all our society, start to recognize that we are in turbulent times.

When unruly mobs like this feel like they’re not being heard, it doesn’t lead well. We have ample, ample examples in human history about how it ends up. I don’t need to do history lessons here. The way it ends up is when income inequality gets out of control — when, for those who have, compared to those who don’t have, that gap grows more and more — that sows the seeds for discontent. Each and every time in human history where that has happened, revolution has occurred.

We don’t want that to happen in Canada. We’re a nation of peaceful people. We’re a nation built on immigrants. We’re a nation of openness and of multiculturalism, of awareness, of progressive policies.

We must govern for everybody and recognize that there are some in our society who have a bit too much — maybe some of them have earned it hard; some of them have just inherited it — and there are some who have just lost the lottery of life. It’s not like they knew they were going to be born into poverty. They just lost the lottery of life. Others might have been born into and won the lottery of life. That doesn’t mean you’re a better or a worse person.

As legislators, in my view, it behooves us to recognize that we have a duty to ensure that society is stable, that we actually help those who need the help, and that we say, to those who have some more: “You know what? Our society, collectively, is better if you give us a little bit more to help those who don’t, because we know what happens in human history if the elite go off over here and everyone else is down here.”

You might want to ask: “What happened in Russia?” Or you could talk about the French Revolution. You could talk about myriad examples like this around the world. This is not what I want to see British Columbia and Canada become.

Coming down to the direct quote from the speech. I want to read this, because to me…. I was blown away, to be blunt. I was very pleased to see this. Directly from the speech, it says this:

A strong economy cannot be built on a foundation of rampant real estate speculation. It cannot be won in a race to the bottom, with minimum standards and fewer workplace protections. And it cannot be gained through windfall profits earned on the backs of low-wage workers.

Instead, a strong economy comes from good-paying jobs that raise family incomes and everyone’s standard of living. It is built with quality public services as a cornerstone, services that help B.C. grow, attract and keep its skilled workforce.

“A strong economy is rooted in competitiveness, a necessary ingredient for success in today’s global marketplace. And it is in harmony with government’s commitments to fight climate change and achieve meaningful reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

“These are the values that guide this government’s actions to build a sustainable economy that puts people first. The challenges we face, from worsening weather to global economic headwinds, make this work more urgent than ever.”

I’ll stop there and pause there and say that those words are remarkable. It is essentially saying, in the throne speech, that government gets what the challenges are. Then it moves on to say how it plans to deal with those challenges.

“As this government charts a new course to a low-carbon economy, powered by CleanBC, British Columbians can rest assured that not only will we weather these storms; we will create the conditions for people and industry to thrive.”

“CleanBC is a critical part of this government’s strategy to grow a sustainable economy with good jobs and opportunities for people. It’s been one year since CleanBC was launched, and British Columbians are starting to see that the way to a cleaner, better future is by innovating and working together.”

The change that has happened in one year is remarkable, whether it be as simple as just saying: “Look at how many electric vehicles there are….” Now, you might say: “Oh, electrics vehicles. Whatever.” That’s stimulating the economy. We have B.C. builders of electric vehicles.

We now have Harbour Air seeing the opportunity and seeing British Columbia with the signal that this government has sent, the signal that it sent to the world, that we want to be leaders in clean tech. Harbour Air, the first electric airplane in B.C. This is what you get.

We have Corvus building batteries now for Norwegian ships. We have Portable Electric building diesel generator replacements. Innovation in British Columbia is growing, and the single-biggest seed for that innovation is signals that governments can send saying: “We’re here to support you and nurture you.”

The creation of the innovation commissioner — one of my very dear platforms — has been very, very successful as well. If you track the additional moneys British Columbia is now levering out of Ottawa, we historically have been dreadful — and it falls squarely on the B.C. Liberals — at leveraging the pools of money that exist in Ottawa if you have matching funds here in British Columbia.

One of the first things, in discussions with the innovation commissioner, we talked about was ways to actually lever that. It’s happening now. That bodes well for innovation, and that bodes well for the B.C. economy.

You know, it further says here…. Well, it said in the speech…. It talked about the innovation commissioner as well. Also, it talks about that the government is going to have plastics action plan and climate adaptation plan. It’s pretty clear that the government is taking this issue seriously and that it will work with business to promote B.C. businesses as competitive suppliers of low-carbon products. There’s a lot in those small words.

We know that there are consumers out there who want to buy products that are low carbon. We know there are businesses who want to be viewed as benefit companies, which the legislation that was passed by government…. Well, I guess it was my legislation that we all passed. These small signals actually have much greater influence and emphasis on what actually happens in our economy. We’re seeing that now.

We see that government has a potential here to actually stimulate. It’s mentioned in the throne speech that it plans to do that by saying: “Okay. We as government can’t tell you what to do unless we’re willing to model the leadership we expect in others.” Government is going to start using, where possible, B.C.-based engineered wood products in its construction.

Government could continue to advance this by focusing its procurement process on B.C. innovation in a diversity of areas, and I’m convinced that that will happen as we move ahead.

You know, I don’t want to dwell on LNG, because, to be perfectly blunt, I will believe it when I see it.

I know we’re having fights over the Coastal GasLink pipeline. I know people are touting LNG Canada and the, let’s say, $40 billion investment — which it really isn’t because most of that’s being built in Asia and brought up on tide line and then getting steel tariff exemptions, etc.

However, the market for LNG is in the dumps. It doesn’t make fiscal sense right now, and I still will argue that you might get something at some point, but I wouldn’t be counting your pennies on getting any money from LNG. The deep-well credits, $3.2 billion accrued to be used against future royalties…. I mean, there are no royalties coming from natural gas in our province.

The construction of Site C, of course, means that we the ratepayers, not the ratepayers in Kelowna, mind you, because they’re with Fortis…. We the ratepayers in other parts of B.C. are going to end up paying 15 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity that we sell to LNG Canada for 5 cents and change a kilowatt hour. We know that there is going to be no LNG income tax act, so we know they’re going to get exemptions from carbon tax increases.

This scale of subsidy, in my view, is unacceptable. But even given that, I’ll stand here and say I don’t believe LNG will ever be delivered out of Kitimat, because the market simply will not be there. For these multi-billion-dollar companies, they kick the can — $1 billion here, $10 billion there. That’s the cost of doing business. Let’s see what actually happens down the road.

You know, I’ve been to a number of natural resource forums over the years. I’ve been a strong proponent of mining in this province, but again, mining in this province, as articulated and realized in the throne speech…. We will never compete by just going in with a pickaxe and digging dirt out of the ground. We’ve got to be smarter. We get companies like MineSense doing that. We find ways and means of extracting ore in clean ways that use less energy, that use less water, that actually make us more able to reclaim the land. That could be done so more efficiently.

You can grow an economy by making it bigger, by building more stuff, or you can grow an economy by building the same amount of stuff more efficiently. That is where our success will lie, through efficiencies and cleanliness and exporting the knowledge we have developed here.

I come to B.C. Hydro, which was mentioned, albeit passingly, in the throne speech. There’s still a lot of work that needs to be done in B.C. Hydro. Over the course of this session, I hope to use my question period times to focus on specific examples, in this regard, of the opportunities that are potentially lost, as B.C. Hydro seems to be a little bit of a behemoth that needs to be reined in, in some sense, to ensure that we actually allow competition, allow innovation in the energy sector, and we allow the partnership of small projects, existing projects with users of energy as well.

Forestry — another sector that was mentioned. I’m very pleased to see that the government recently got the settlement on Vancouver Island. That’s good news. Honestly, I think it’s very rich, again…. I mean, I don’t want to dis on the B.C. Liberals. I’m reacting to the comments I heard from the member for Kelowna West, who basically hurled abuse about the forest industry on the B.C. NDP. For heaven’s sake, we lost 30,000-something jobs. We’ve known mills were closing under their watch as well.

This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that affects all of us. We need to put our collective minds together to think about how best to rejuvenate British Columbia’s forest industry. Is it really the tenure system? Does that really apply in the 21st century? I would suggest not. I would suggest that the tenure-licensing system has been the cause of the death of a lot of our forest industry. What we need to do is move to more of a temporary lease or more of a community-based approach to forest logging.

With that said, taken together, I’m absolutely thrilled to support this throne speech. I feel very pleased that some small part of that has been accomplished through the good work that was done through the collaboration that I have had and I know my former colleagues have had with a number of ministries. In my case, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance, who I held the files for, the Ministry of Attorney General, the Premier of course, the Housing Minister, Health ministers, Energy and Mines, who I’m really excited about looking forward to working with on the innovation file.

We’ve already started communication in that regard. I think this is a great appointment. The former Minister of Energy and Mines is moving to be the minister of innovation. I think that’s exactly what that ministry needs. We’re already met and ready to go.

I thank you for your attention. I look forward to a positive vote on the throne speech.

Video of Response

Yesterday in the legislature we debated Bill 38: Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act at second reading. Working with government to develop this bill required a lot of work, including many hours of discussions with the Minister of Environment and his staff about the importance of transparency, regular reporting and setting sectoral targets and interim targets. Climate policy rhetoric is nothing without transparent, accurate, timely and publicly accessible data, and political promises are worthless without legislative accountability. Bill 38 is important in this regard as it incorporates a rigorous accountability framework into the climate policies my office and I have jointly developed with government.

Without a doubt, a highlight of my time in the Legislature has been the pleasure of working with the Minister of Environment in developing both this climate accountability legislation as well as CleanBC before that.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my second reading speech.

Video of Speech

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: It’s a great honour for me to be able to stand here to speak in support, at second reading, of Bill 38, the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act.

Let me start by saying…. I thank the Minister of Environment for bringing this in. This was a lot of work, I know, bringing it in. There were many, many hours of discussions about the importance of various targets, the sectoral targets and interim targets. One of the highlights of my time in this Legislature has been the pleasure of working with the Minister of Environment in developing both this climate accountability legislation as well as CleanBC before that. I mean that in all sincerity. I raise my hands and thank the minister for his work in this effort.

You know, incorporating a rigorous accountability framework into the climate policies we have jointly developed with government was not only a key priority for me. It was a clear condition of our continued collaboration with this government. I’m very pleased that it has continued to this day and will continue in the foreseeable future.

As a climate scientist, I know that transparent, accurate, timely and publicly accessible data is absolutely crucial to achieving our climate commitments and, actually, to ensuring that the public trusts that government will deliver into it, for words like “trust us” are simply not good public policy.

Now, throughout my scientific career, I’ve advised and criticized numerous governments on their climate policies. The member from Langley just discussed some of the earlier issues with respect to his government under the leadership of Gordon Campbell, where indeed very fine climate policy, quite internationally leading at the time, was brought into the province of British Columbia.

Unfortunately, many other jurisdictions, as well as in B.C., bring these policies forth and then fail to live up to the commitments that they brought them forward to actually address. That is true not only of the previous government, where in 2010 the commitment to this issue essentially fell by the wayside as the leaders changed. Ultimately, that’s what prompted me to run for politics.

What prompted me to run for politics was being part of the previous administration’s Climate Action Team, meeting with the Premier at the time, numerous times, on an ongoing basis, meeting with the cabinet to have presentations on climate science, really fruitful discussions with stakeholders. To me, that was a government that understood the direction that this needed to go and recognized, as all governments should, that every single environmental challenge really is nothing more than an opportunity for innovation and prosperity in addressing that challenge.

I ran, as you know, in 2013 because I felt that we’d lost our way in B.C. I’m very pleased to say that I think now we’re seeing the way actually moving forward in a direction that will address this problem, perhaps not to the extent that I’d like, perhaps not to the extent that some others would like, but certainly as a leader in North America in terms of pathways to emissions reductions.

Let me consider a couple of major reports that have been published this last year to put some context of why we need to deal with this and why the accountability act is so important to ensure that transparency, moving forward, is there for not only government but also for the people of British Columbia.

As you will note, in 2018, the IPCC released a special report, in which the world’s leading climate scientists warned that we don’t have a lot of time if we want to keep warming to below 2 degrees. To be perfectly blunt, we know that the world has already warmed by over a degree. We know that we have a committed warming of about 0.6 degrees to existing levels of greenhouse gases.

Now, my friend opposite from Langley mentioned the importance of reducing coal emissions from China, and I concur. Coal is a significant source of greenhouse gases. But what is not often said is that coal is also a significant source of particulate matter and black carbon. Now, particulate matter, these so-called aerosols in the atmosphere, actually cool the planet.

One of the ironies of actually replacing coal with natural gas is that particulate matter decreases. When the particulate matter decreases, its effect on not only cloud formation but also on the direct scattering of radiation back to the sun is that we get an amplification of the warming. So in fact, it’s not quite as simple as saying: “Replace coal by natural gas. We get less warming.” Because, in fact, replace coal with natural gas, and there’s a warming jump as the particulate matter associated with the coal is scrubbed out of the atmosphere.

As I said, we’ve already warmed by one degree. We have 0.6 degrees committed warming to existing levels of greenhouse gases, and not a single climate model in the world has actually accounted for the permafrost carbon feedback, which we know will add another 0.2 to 0.3 degrees. So even this notion that somehow we’re going to keep warming to below 1½ degrees is really not on.

You can see that in the IPCC reports. The IPCC report, this special edition one, quite clearly indicates that negative emissions are required in order for us to meet the 1½ degree target. That doesn’t mean we can’t meet the 2 degree target — but negative emissions.

Some might take this as something to be distraught about. But rather, again, we should be viewing this as an incredible economic opportunity. Negative emissions means economic opportunity, means taking carbon out of the atmosphere and means companies like Carbon Engineering in Squamish are potentially game-changers in our broader society. That’s the kind of technology and knowledge — initially started by a friend of mine, David Keith, who’s now at Harvard — that can actually game-change the world. And it’s here in B.C. I’ll come back to that in a bit.

A few months after that IPCC report Canada’s Changing Climate Report was published by the federal government. It noted what the scientific community has known for a very long time — that northern Canada is warming at twice the global rate, and that’s no surprise to anybody who has been in this field.

It also talked about B.C. as being particularly vulnerable to drought. We’ve seen that in recent years. Glacier loss — well, I can tell you, from the work done by a fellow friend of mine named Shawn Marshall at the University of Calgary, that all southern glaciers in British Columbia will be gone this century. That’s really something we can’t stop. There are very profound effects with that that will occur as a direct consequence of that.

There are also issues with respect to sea level rise. It’s quite complex because of the way that sea level rise is not a global rise. There are regional differences. I suspect there’ll be issues moving forward in the delta, in terms of salination of existing farmland.

Now, shortly after that report, the UN Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services put out a report and stated, in stark terms, that we’re in the midst of an extinction crisis, with a million species likely disappearing within the next few decades. Again, if you’ve been working in this field since the 1980s like I have, there’s nothing new in that report. The report is essentially pointing out that the sixth-greatest extinction event in Earth’s history is occurring as we speak, in the Anthropocene — a profound consequence of global warming.

The consequences are not only on land but in the oceans, in particular, as a direct response to ocean acidification. The single biggest sink for the carbon in the atmosphere is the ocean. When the ocean takes up that carbon, it becomes less…. Well, it acidifies. What that does is it makes it very difficult for calcium carbonated shell–bearing species to make their shells. In some cases, they dissolve, which is one of the reasons that most of the world’s reefs will go extinct in the next couple of decades. There’s very little we can do about that.

Again, when we look in historic times, the last time we had the kind of acidity levels change like this as a direct consequence of volcanism — that’s volcanos for many tens and hundreds of millions of years — we saw 80 percent to 90 percent of marine species going extinct. Because what happens is when you kill the corals, and they’re going in a century, you kill the life around the corals and the biodiversity food chain starts to collapse. This is yet another consequence that was warned by the UN Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Again, a very significant challenge. Also could be viewed as a very significant opportunity for innovation for those jurisdictions that recognize this for what it is: a challenge that is also an economic opportunity.

Then we get, of course, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. Professor Alston said that the world is on course for climate apartheid — quite strong words. What Professor Alston is saying is that the rich will be able to buy their way out of the worst effects of global warming, and the poor will suffer the most. “Even under the best-case scenario,” he wrote, “hundreds of millions will face food insecurity, forced migration, disease and death.”

Again, another stark warning, and again, for those in the field, it’s no surprise that this came out, because there’s nothing new in that as well. If you simply plot GDP as a function of latitude, ignoring a few outliers like Singapore, you find that those jurisdictions that are economically prosperous tend to be further away from the equator.

Then if you ask the question, “Where will climate change, global warming, manifest itself the worst?” of course it will be in the sub-Saharan areas, the subtropical areas, which will get drier. It will be with the desertification of southern Europe — very profound problems there — the potential changes to the Indian monsoon and sub-Saharan Africa, places like that. So there are some very serious consequences.

But these jurisdictions, you can imagine, have not been part of the problem, because the climate system does not actually care about emissions in any given year. It cares about the cumulative emissions. It’s a stock-and-flow problem, in the language of economics. We know how much more we can build, put into the atmosphere, to keep warming in a probabilistic sense before some level. We know how much is coming in, and we know how much we can take out.

So the question then comes: do we, as a collective society, believe that we should be dealing with this problem, yes or no? I’m pleased that this government is suggesting the answer to that should be yes and is hoping to do its part in that regard.

Moving through the reports. This past summer, we had the province quietly releasing a strategic climate risk assessment for British Columbia, a really interesting report. I would quibble with one of the potential conclusions of it, the low risk to Lyme disease, when, in fact, we’ve known within the scientific community for quite some time that vector-borne diseases are moving northwards simply because the carriers of such diseases, whether it be mosquitoes or ticks, are moving northwards as well, as a direct consequence of warming and warmer winters.

We then can move to last week — the Climate Transparency analysis of the G20 nations. They found that Canada is in the top three countries furthest off track from meeting their emissions-reduction targets. The Canadian target really hasn’t changed since Mr. Harper was our Prime Minister.

It’s ironic that we went through this last federal election, with parties climbing over themselves trying to argue they have the most progressive policies towards greenhouse gas reduction when, in fact, the targets that we’re aiming for were put in place by the Conservative government, have been unchanged and very little has actually been done to reduce emissions nationally in Canada, although some good work has been done in terms of movement towards phasing out coal-fired electricity plants.

The replacing of coal-fired with natural gas, particularly when that natural gas comes from horizontal drilling and fracking, highly subsidized…. It’s not clear to me that, in fact, you’re actually getting ahead in the greenhouse gas game because of the fugitive emissions associated with horizontal drilling.

Our per-capita emissions are 18.9 tonnes. The average per-capita emission in the G20 is 7½ tonnes.

You know, we talk a really good game in Canada, and in B.C., we are very environmentally conscious. But the data often tell a different story from the game we talk, particularly at the national level. Although the country is looking to the leadership of Quebec and British Columbia, Quebec has actually continued to be the leader in per-capita emissions in this country.

British Columbia was on track to recognizing the economic opportunity associated with decarbonization until about 2010. Then we started this quest for the impossible. Even to this day, there are still people believing that our economic prosperity lies somehow in staying stuck and chained to the economy of the last century through natural gas extraction, as the rest of the world has a glut in said product.

In 2016, in the most recent global data available from the International Energy Agency, the United Kingdom’s per-capita emissions were 5.65 tonnes per capita of CO2 equivalent. New Zealand was 6.45 tonnes CO2 equivalent. Norway, 6.78.

Now, Norway is actually a very northern nation and a strong oil and gas producer. They followed the lead of people like Peter Lougheed in Alberta, recognizing that the prosperity that they gained from the extraction of this resource, which they knew was a sunset resource, should be put aside for tomorrow so that their society could benefit from the ways of the former governments and people who didn’t have alternatives before them. They are a very prosperous nation now, poised very well to take advantage of the opportunities moving forward with greenhouse gas emission reduction.

Denmark is 5.84. Sweden, 3.83 — Sweden, another northern nation. This puts the average British Columbia carbon footprint at 2.32, 1.9, 2.2 and 3.4 times larger than that of the average person living in the U.K., Norway, New Zealand, Denmark and Sweden respectively. If we go to a country in Africa — say, Chad, for example — the multiples are hundreds, not two to three, which brings me back to my opening sentiment.

Climate policy rhetoric is nothing without transparent, accurate, timely and publicly accessible data, and political promises are worthless without legislative accountability. It is for exactly that reason that this bill, in my view, is so important.

It gives the public the transparency, as I’ll outline in a second, the information on which they can hold government to account. Frankly, it can give opposition parties the transparency and information that can hold government to account. It signals out the direction that government wishes to take to see sectoral reductions, recognizing that such reductions will not be legislated but are guiding principles. This sort of transparency is important for holding government to account and, frankly, for government to actually think this through in a greater sense to ensure that they’re following the path to which they’ve committed.

It’s my sincere hope that the transparency and accountability mechanisms in the bill, if passed, will last well beyond the current government and set an evidence-based foundation from which future climate policy can be built with whatever government happens to be in place at that time.

We have an awfully long way to go, but the amendments included in this bill add some real credibility to the CleanBC plan. Again, I come back to these last two years. I go back to 2018, when I’m sitting on holiday and I read the newspaper and I hear that the Premier is off to Asia to stump for LNG. I would describe those times as the challenging times for the relationship between the B.C. Green caucus and the present government.

But what has happened in the two years since then is really quite remarkable. I’ve seen a government actually recognize that challenge is an opportunity. We’ve seen CleanBC come through. I recognize that there’s an LNG plant embedded with that, and I’m very cynical about the ability to deliver our targets with that. That’s for me to take with me when I move on, as I’m not running again.

However, government has actually had to balance the competing interests and has done a good job in B.C. It’s been an honour working with the Premier and the Minister of Environment in helping develop that plan — and particularly the civil service as well and the staff in my office.

But that wasn’t enough. I mean, that happened after legislating some targets. What’s really important is this bill here, because CleanBC gives some guidance as to what government is going to do. But it is the reporting measures and the transparency and the accountability component of that which will allow others to judge whether government is or is not successful. Again, it was a great pleasure working with government on this bill.

I will say that one of the highlights — in fact, the highlight of my time in this office…. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend. It was quite ironic, actually. It was receiving, as a co-recipient, a clean capitalism award. I love the fact that the Minister of Environment also was a co-recipient of a clean capitalism award, for a government not often known for capitalism, from the Delta group in Clean16, an award we received on October 7 of this year.

That showed that others recognize that when people work together on issues that transcend traditional partisan boundaries, you can get a lot done. And actually, the whole is certainly much greater than the sum of the parts.

If we had been government, I don’t think we would have done what was being done. And I don’t think the NDP, frankly, would have done what they’ve done if we weren’t in this situation, being forced to work together. That has led, actually, to what I believe is some good public policy in this regard.

Again, I come back to how pleased I have been to work with the minister. I think I’ve said that enough now; I think that’s on record.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: And with the member for Vancouver–West End. It’s always a pleasure working with the member for Vancouver–West End as well.

We’ve got a long way to go, of course, but the amendments included in this bill actually do, as I say, add real credibility to the CleanBC plan. The main components of Bill 38, which we’re debating at second reading here, is as follows. There’s a requirement for government to set an interim emissions target on the path to a legislated 2030 target, which is 40 percent greenhouse gas reductions below 2007 levels.

Now, why this is important is that this parallels exactly what happened back with the previous Liberal government under Gordon Campbell, when the Climate Action Team was put together. They were tasked with coming up with said interim targets, which were legislated. We’re not requiring the government to legislate but, rather, to come up with targets.

The reason why these are important is because you can actually assess the trajectory to where you want to go in a time frame that’s relevant to electoral cycles. Obviously, a ten-year target is several electoral cycles from now. When you start to have interim and sectoral targets, you’re starting to be held more accountable. In fact, under the leadership of Gordon Campbell at the time, the 2012 target was actually met, and we were on track to meet the 2016 target — until this folly of pursuing the impossible and the complete abandonment of climate policy occurred, just after 2010.

The bill also includes a requirement for governments to set separate 2030 sectoral targets following engagement with stakeholders, Indigenous peoples and communities throughout the province. Now, this, again, is also important. This isn’t about legislating a sectoral target. It’s about providing the transparency to ensure that the public and the sectors have a sense of what government is thinking. This is a signal to broader society that this is the direction and we’re going ahead.

Now, I recognize there’ll be some industries out there absolutely beside themselves, thinking that somehow they’re going to be targeted. This is not about legislation. This is about guidance and about sending a signal to which government will be held to account. As well, industry will be able to see the direction and the signal that government is sending.

It’s going to ensure that the responsibility to reduce carbon pollution is effectively distributed across B.C.’s economy and between ministries. The Minister of Environment alone, of course, cannot tackle the entire challenge, as much as some of us would like him to have this multiministerial portfolio embedded in others as well.

There’s also a requirement for government to table an annual report on actions taken to reduce carbon emissions, along with their cost and how they will achieve government’s legislated emission reduction targets. This annual report — or these reports every year — will outline the latest emissions data and projections, as well as actions planned for future years and the effect they are expected to have.

Imagine that it’s sort of like the budget process, whereby we put out a three-year fiscal review in the budget. Here government will put out a multi-year kind of assessment as to where emissions will go on an annual basis. The report will also include a determination of climate risks our province is facing. That’s not going to have to be changed every year. I mean, the first one is going be written, and then they’ll be increased incrementally as time goes on. It’ll include a discussion of risk reduction policies that are to be taken, and any mitigation or adaptation plans.

To be perfectly blunt, I think we need all hands on deck on the adaptation side. I’ve been watching this file since the 1980s, and I’ve watched, year after year, emissions target after emissions target being ignored. I’m hoping British Columbia will continue down that path, but we cannot ignore the fact that adaptation is going to be critical.

Embedded in the report is also a requirement for government to establish an independent advisory committee that will be modelled on the Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council now that the council has fulfilled its mandate. Again, this is an important external agency that’s not just a validation group but rather is a group that would be engaged with a variety of stakeholders to ensure that stakeholders are engaged in government’s thinking as they move forward in terms of reporting and accountability, and that any issues, which often are not the sole purview of one minister but actually are brought to the government by stakeholders, can have a conduit to get there in a timely fashion.

The committee will hopefully be made up of members from diverse areas of expertise and regions from across the province. They’ll be providing the minister advice on things like policies that can lead to further reductions. Some of that…. I mean, I recognize that many people who sit on these committees are not actually policy experts — they have good ideas — and that we must rely upon the civil service to develop the said policies. However, a lot of good ideas can be brought forward from these stakeholders from which the government can actually develop the necessary policies.

This group will also examine progress towards targets and raise opportunities for sustainable economic development, opportunities for climate change mitigation and adaptation among other matters that are related to this act. Lastly, this bill gives government the ability to set more detailed targets and other environmental standards for publicly owned buildings and vehicular fleets to help reduce emissions, improve environmental performance, save money and support innovations.

Again, coming back to what the member from Langley pointed out, many of these amendments build on policies that were actually first introduced under Premier Campbell’s Liberal government. That’s not to say that, you know, one government is better than the other. What I’m trying to point out here is that it’s very positive when we can recognize that issues like this transcend political boundaries. We have good work done by the Liberals in 2007-08-09. We have good work being done by the B.C. NDP in 2018, 2019 and, soon to be, 2020. That is a testament to the desire within British Columbia for climate policy to be central to our decision-making. I’ll come to that later.

As I mentioned, I was a member of Gordon Campbell’s advisory council in 2007-2008 when he first introduced the first comprehensive price on carbon to set greenhouse gas reduction targets as well and also developing interim targets — the first proper, revenue-neutral, celebrated carbon tax. I remember the cynicism at the time. I was quite upset when many people that I knew who were with the now government were riding this Axe the Tax kind of rhetoric. It was particularly upsetting.

But frankly, I knew it was going to flop. That campaign started in the summer, right in the peak driving season, and everyone knows gas prices are going to drop in the fall. So the campaign was initiated just as the gas prices went up, and when the fall came, the campaign fell through the floor because the gas prices had gone down. Frankly, I think the now government learnt from that and have been quite progressive in terms of pushing for this ever since.

There’s no doubt that what Campbell did in 2007 and ’08 was groundbreaking. But now, honestly, it’s due for an upgrade. That is what the present government is doing — taking that to a whole new level. One of the first signs of that in our confidence and supply agreement was the actual continuation of the carbon tax from $30 to $50 — to show Canadian leadership, to meet the $50 target that Trudeau is going to bring forward — a year before the rest of Canada, but at the same time recognizing the importance of giving price certainty to the business sector. That is done through incremental $5-a-year changes. The government deserves a lot of credit for following through with that.

Frankly, I have not heard complaints from the general public, because the general public actually believes in that. What they do have some reluctance in believing in is corporate subsidies that allow other certain polluters to not pay the carbon tax whereas individual citizens must continue to pay it. I’ll come back to that too.

I’m the designated speaker, and I’m getting really into this speech, so a little bit more.

British Columbia has already legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets, as well as a requirement to collect data for tracking emissions, but they’ll try to say we can do better. Our targets are set ten years apart, and data is published on a two-year delay. Combine that with a four-year government mandate and you create a situation where political parties, as we all know, blame each other, and spend the first two years blaming their predecessors for bad results and the next two years saying that they’re just getting started while making promises that they can only fulfil if you vote them back in. Then before you know it, a ten-year target is within sight and, by that time, it’s too late to substantially change the emissions trajectory and we don’t meet it.

Bill 38 is important in that regard as it aims to cut through those excuses and get right to the heart of the matter, shortening the time scale and increasing transparency on an annual basis. For example, with the interim targets, again, we’ll be able to, through them, evaluate progress before 2030. They’ll show whether or not we’re on track. If we are, great. That adds credibility to the government plans so that they can continue their course. If not, they’re going to have to explain to the general public why they’re not on track and what they’re going to do to get on track, or what has changed since they initially said they would be on track.

By reporting emissions annually, the public will get a better sense where emissions originate, what policies are being worked on, what are not being worked on — equally as important — how they all align amongst themselves and how they align in terms of the next fiscal forecast.

The existing Climate Change Accountability Act also already has a provision that allowed the minister to establish sectoral targets. But it’s written as an option. That’s in section 1.4, I think it is. It says, “The minister may, by order, establish greenhouse gas emissions targets for individual sectors,” instead of a requirement. That hasn’t been used to date, and so this act is actually requiring it and is actually important in terms of ensuring that.

That’s particularly relevant as we know that a commitment to set sectoral targets was included in the minister’s mandate letter and in the 2017 B.C. NDP election platform. So it should be no surprise that it’s included in Bill 38, although, admittedly, there was some to-and-fro trying to ensure that this actually happened over the last few months.

The idea of sectoral targets is not new. It’s being used in places like New Zealand, Australia, Germany and the U.K., for example, to help to guide government, guide policy-makers and give transparency so that people know the direction government is heading in. In New Zealand and Australia — Victoria, the state of Victoria — they have some very good proxy policies that compare well and directly with the policies here, particularly to what’s being done in this bill but also in terms of the size of the population of the jurisdictions there.

I understand that government has extensive consultation plans to ensure the targets are set at a correct level, these sectoral and these interim targets, and that these balance the realities of our current emissions rates and the reduction rates necessary to meet our legislative targets. But ultimately this bill is about good governance in the face of what can only be described as the single greatest challenge this planet has ever seen. I spin that and say that it’s also the greatest opportunity for innovation humans have ever seen and, frankly, our province has ever faced.

We’re so fortunate to live in a province like British Columbia, which is, quite literally, the most beautiful place in the world to live. Now, I’ve lived in a number of….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I agree.

I’ve lived in many countries in the world, whether it be in Germany, England, Scotland, Australia or the United States, even other parts of Canada. I’ve travelled extensively around the world, from Asia through all of the world. I can say unequivocally, in my view, this is the best place to live. This is a beautiful jurisdiction.

That is one of our strategic advantages. We literally can attract and retain the best and brightest in the world to British Columbia because of the quality of life and the stable democracy that we can offer. This is a strategic choice that I’m hoping this government will continue to build on as we start to deal with the climate issue and through the transparency associated with this bill.

We also have a highly skilled and educated workforce. As we all know from the international PISA assessment exams, British Columbia ranks at the very top, above the much-touted Finland, in reading, writing and mathematics. Remarkable that we have some of this quality education here.

We also have outstanding post-secondary institutions, so we know that companies not only can attract and retain the best and brightest, but they have access to a highly skilled and educated workforce. We also have boundless renewable energy, fibre and water — like no other jurisdiction in the world. What an incredible opportunity for innovation using these strategic strengths, and I pivot back to exactly that.

When I just met today with the Canadian manufacturing association…. For so long, I’ve been trying to get both this and the previous government to recognize the opportunities for manufacturing in this province. Imagine this. We’re fixated on delivering corporate welfare to LNG Canada, where we actually give them steel tariff exemptions — try the manufacturers getting steel tariff exemptions — exemptions from carbon tax, below-market electricity. I could go on and on and on.

What we’re not doing is sending the signal that, look, there is clean manufacturing that happens in the world. We should be doing it in B.C. And we should be doing it in rural B.C., because we have a railway line that connects Prince Rupert’s deep port, closest port to Asia on the coast, and Chicago — the same line goes between the two — in the eastern U.S., which is the gateway to eastern America. What a strategic opportunity for manufacturing and clean manufacturing, because we have access to renewable energy like no one else does.

But that requires a vision. That requires a signal to be sent to industry that we’re not just hewers of wood and drawers of water, that we actually believe in value-added and innovation. We actually believe in recognizing that environmental challenges are really nothing more than economic opportunities.

We have the wherewithal, the skill, the innovation, the creativity, the people and the smarts to deal with these challenges here in B.C. if, and only if, government sends the right signals. It doesn’t send the right signals when it continues to provide subsidies for sunset industries that benefit a few multinational shareholders and maybe, in the short term, give a small economic stimulus to a region that will then suffer shortly thereafter because of the traditional economic booms and busts of commodity cycles.

You know, transitioning to a carbon-free world, a carbon-neutral world, doesn’t mean we have to go back to the Dark Ages. It means transforming and transitioning to a cleaner, sustainable society where economic, social and environmental concerns are central to all of our decision-making.

There should be a time when we don’t actually need a Ministry of Environment, where we actually think about the Ministry of Finance as thinking about general progress indicators that span beyond the single silo that is GDP and move beyond to recognize that we judge success as a society not so much by the GDP-per-debt ratio but more so by general progress indicators that talk about things like the quality of the education, the quality of the environment, whether people can live and work in the same community, the child welfare rates. This is what successful societies will be defined on. But that requires, again, a change in the thinking of many of our decision-makers today.

What I’m describing here is not impossible. It’s grounded in current economic trends, scientific evidence and, frankly, best practice in jurisdictions. We have so much to gain. It’s not just possible that the transition to a clean economy could create jobs; it’s, frankly, inevitable — jobs that are inspired, important, sustainable and valuable.

You just have to go to a place like Portable Electric in Vancouver and see the smiles on the faces of the people who work there, the young millennials who come to work every day and feel like they’re making the world a better place, building replacements for diesel generators based on lithium-ion storage technology that’s B.C.-based. Sadly, if we don’t actually start to nurture these B.C.-based companies, they’ll fall into the valley of death and not get out of it. So let’s start to think about the opportunities we have here.

It’s an incredible company that is a B.C. success story that we must nurture instead of having it, as so many of our companies do, get bought up and moved to other jurisdictions. B.C.-based innovation. B.C.-based families got together. B.C. engineers, B.C. people, working there. High-paid jobs. Excited to go to work. They even have a Hawaiian shirt day that I was able to participate in. It’s a great place to work, I’m sure.

This is what Bill 38 is about, frankly. It’s to assist a process that allows us to focus on transitioning our economy, which works for all of us, in a manner that is transparent. And governments will be held accountable, as through the measures outlined in Bill 38. These are policies that must be based on principles and evidence, not political calculation and opportunism. As government leaders, we must collectively do everything we can to develop policies that promote rather than hinder innovation in our economy.

Governments often talk a lot about competitiveness, saying: “If we ask too much of companies, they’ll leave.” But I’ve never understood why we want to be competing with other jurisdictions who are willing to sacrifice their clean air, their land and their water or willing to commit human rights abuses all in order to see if you can extract their resource cheaper and faster. Our resource sector, as we’re setting the sectoral targets embedded within Bill 38, should view this not as something to shy away from but as an incredible opportunity yet again.

Tech, one of our staple industries in B.C., can start to think about ways that it can do what it’s doing in more efficient and cleaner ways, knowing that if they can dig dirt out of the ground in a more efficient and cleaner way, they’re saving money and they’re developing technology that others will want to use as well. This is what innovation…. This is where signals like this send to innovation. It’s not about telling mining companies: “Begone.” It’s about saying to companies: “Innovate, and we’re there to support you in that, and we’re there to ensure that you’re successful in doing so.”

Again, I come back to tech. When you go into the communities whose livelihoods depend on the mining there, they are the strongest advocates for these companies because they understand that they have to live there. We have good corporate citizens, like tech, for example, in the Elk Valley. The people of the Elk Valley will have some complaints about this and that, but by and large, they like the fact that their company is concerned about the environment in which they live, and they’re some of their strongest advocates.

With that said, I’m confronted and deeply challenged by the knowledge that, as we stand here debating what I believe is a truly valuable piece of legislation, work is beginning on LNG Canada, the single biggest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in provincial history.

The irony is not lost on me, and frankly, I don’t think it’s going to be lost on others. The disconnection between politicians’ words and actions on climate is something I hope will be addressed by this bill so that people can point to this later and say: “You said this, and look at this. You did not follow through. You claimed you could get us a 40 percent reduction by 2030, and you claimed you could also add the single biggest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C.’s history. Look what you’ve done.” History will judge those leaders accordingly.

I’m tired, frankly, of hearing touching speeches from members in this room and elsewhere when communities are threatened by forest fires or when species are threatened to extinction, only to see every single member in this House, whether they be on government’s side or the opposition side, stand to advance the corporate subsidy that embodies the past for the future as well — the corporate welfare associated with things like LNG Canada.

Now, I spoke to a clean energy conference last week, and I asked them: “How many of you wind energy companies have ever had a steel tariff exemption on your windmills?” Zero. Yet we think what we need to do here is to give a major…. These are small companies. They’re not the big Shell Internationals. But we think it’s okay to give billions of dollars of subsidies to multinationals whose interests are not ours. Those interests are clearly the shareholders of the multinationals, and many of those shares reside in other jurisdictions.

I just give my head a shake. I know history will judge, very harshly, legislators in this place for the decisions that they didn’t make — not so much for the decisions that they did make but for the decisions that they didn’t make. That will be one that I think will come back to haunt people in the years ahead.

As I was writing this speech with my staff, I received a copy of a Globe and Mail article, and this is what the heading said: “Alberta, B.C. to Advocate for Canadian Natural Gas in Asia,” The subheading was this: “Two provinces which are in ‘absolute alignment’ over the matter will send officials to Tokyo to make the case for accessing the Asian market.” Really?

We have a government that has committed to 40 percent greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 bringing in important legislation to ensure accountability, and we have Canadian, British Columbian people going out there, touting enhanced expansion of LNG. There needs to be some internal soul-searching, because I’m not sure that the left hand of this government actually knows what the right hand is doing or whether the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. Clearly, you can’t have it both ways.

It was also published in…. That same day, actually, there was an article in Reuters about Sweden. Think about this. This is the signal we’re sending. The article in Reuters said this. “Sweden’s central bank sells off bonds from Canadian province over climate concerns,” further stating: “Sweden’s central bank said on Wednesday it had sold off bonds from the oil-rich Canadian province of Alberta and parts of Australia because it felt that greenhouse gas emissions in both countries were too high.” This is the actual economic dilemma that we are facing as we continue to think that somehow we’re going to build an economy on the resources that others are weaning themselves off.

Riksbank deputy governor Martin Flodén said the bank would no longer invest in assets from issuers with a larger carbon footprint, even if the yields were high. You’re seeing the divest movements across North America. You’re seeing other jurisdictions move in this regard.

The article continues. It said this. “Australia and Canada are countries that are not known for good climate work.” Imagine that. We are known internationally as brokers of peace — or historically, we were — and now we’re known not as jurisdictions with good climate policy. The article says this. “‘Greenhouse gas emissions per capita are among the highest in the world,’ he said in the speech to Örebro University in Sweden.”

I think, frankly, as a society, and particularly as government, we need to grow up a little bit and recognize that what was once good for us is not good for us anymore. I’m sad to say that for fossil fuels, we’re at that point. The writing has been on the wall. Again, I’ve been in this field since the 1980s. It’s not like I’ve seen anything that we haven’t been saying for — what? — almost 35 years. Politicians have a moral responsibility to think further into the future and govern not just for their term but also for their children and grandchildren, for those who are not here to be part of the decision-making process today.

We make decisions that they have to live the consequences of, yet we don’t have to live those consequences. For me, what matters is how history judges us. I will say, sadly, in Canada, in this building, that history will look very sorely on a number of people who have not made this a priority and continue to push the fossil fuel agenda.

Bill 38, the Climate Change Accountability Amendment Act before us today, does demonstrate that minority governments, despite glaring differences, can move beyond political rhetoric and collaborate on ambitious climate legislation. I truly believe that the minister has the very best intentions with this legislation and that government has come to recognize now that in fact, economic prosperity is not going to be found in the continuing corporate welfare that is the natural gas sector in our province.

But we can’t leave those jurisdictions high and dry. That is why I’ve continued to try to articulate the importance of issues like forestry, value-added, mining, innovation in those sectors and the manufacturing sectors and our use of and access to clean energy like no other jurisdiction. But the barriers for innovation in there lie squarely within B.C. Hydro and the fact that the standing offer program has been shut down and that jurisdictions and Indigenous communities from north to south and east to west have projects stalled where they wanted to get themselves off diesel, where they wanted to bring prosperity into their communities.

That will be my next challenge over the coming months — to try to ensure that we get on track with B.C. Hydro, to ensure that we actually start to allow for the innovation in that sector, because the days of big dams are gone. Big dams are good for storage, sure, but so are old rock quarries that you can fill with water and have pumped hydro. There are lots of brownfield sites in this province that could be used for water storage, as well, some of which are right near the ocean.

Our federal leaders have been similarly called upon, just recently now, to unite in a minority government to address the issue of climate change, as we have done here in this province with CleanBC. Hopefully, it too will try to stimulate innovation in industry to compensate for jobs being shed in the sunset oil and gas sector: direct clean tech advancements in transportation, housing, to conserve energy in our daily lives and harnessing the advancements in clean tech to cut emissions and reduce pollution.

You know, I reluctantly began this journey from a climate scientist to a politician. In 2012 I first announced. But when I did, I told myself that I would speak truth to power on this file. I would call the government out if they weren’t following through with that. That’s something that I think I’ve done over the last six years.

You don’t need me to do that anymore. There are millions of students in the streets now calling out governments around the world, led by Greta Thunberg. In my view, the single most rewarding thing that I’ve had, as a climate scientist, was to be able to stand in the back on that legislative lawn a few weeks back — with my cane, because I had double vision, and I was dizzy as anything — watching what must have been 20,000 students and others on the lawn calling upon government for climate action.

The children have spoken. The people have spoken. The voters have spoken. Chantal Hébert summarizes it best. She said this on election night federally: “This should be the last election that any party in this country believes it can win without having a serious plan for climate change.”

Now, I would say that that’s true in the province of British Columbia as well. I look forward, as we watch as the next provincial election comes, and I’m on the sidelines — being a member of no party, because I’ll go back into a non-partisan role — to watching the B.C. Liberals, the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens fight each other as to who has got the best climate plans. Rest assured, I’ll provide a very frank, non-partisan assessment of all three.

I hope that each one strives to be better than the other, and the arguments then end up being: who has got the best plan? “Ours is better than yours because,” not “axe the tax.” Not “yours is terrible,” but “ours is better.” Given the tripartisan creation of this amended bill over many, many years with respect to the legacy that was shown by the B.C. Liberals in 2007 and 2008, I trust that it will be passing with all-party support.

Again, I conclude by thanking the minister and the Premier for taking this issue seriously and putting together the transparency, the accountability and the substance in this bill to ensure that not only this, but future governments are held accountable for their promises and words on this very important file.

Today in the Legislature I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources what her ministry is doing to encourage the use of our outstanding geothermal resources. Readers of this site will know that since as early as 2014, I have been trying to get both the BC Liberal Government and the present BC NDP government to recognize the incredible opportunity that geothermal energy innovation and production offers British Columbia.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology what his ministry was doing to encourage a strategic approach to transitioning away from the reliance on fossil fuels development in northern B.C. He talked about the importance of innovation. I agree. But there are barriers to innovation in B.C., and those barriers lie in B.C. Hydro.

Take the Borealis geothermal project in Valemount, for example. The member for Prince George–Valemount and I have been trying to get government to recognize the enormous potential for this project to showcase innovation in B.C.’s clean energy sector. British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in the Pacific Rim that isn’t using its geothermal resources. It strikes me as a no-brainer. Community support is strong. Valemount is at the end of an existing B.C. Hydro line, and with Glacier Destinations moving forward, enhanced local power production on an already stretched and often intermittent line will be required.

My question is this to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Could she please explain what her ministry is doing to encourage the use of our outstanding geothermal resources?

Answer

Hon. M. Mungall: The opportunity for geothermal needs to be proven in B.C., and there are some companies that are doing just that. They’re working to prove up the geothermal resources that have been identified. Borealis is one of them. As the member will know — and the member for Prince George–Valemount — they received a permit just over a year ago to start doing that work. They actually have a new permit before the ministry. I look forward to seeing the recommendation from the ministry in terms of how to proceed with that permit so that they can do the work that they’ve been doing to prove up this opportunity with geothermal.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: The reality is that on the ground nothing is being done, not because of lack of industry or community support but rather because of cumbersome regulatory barriers and the absence of a champion within this government. Geothermal drilling is being regulated by the Oil and Gas Commission via rules that don’t reflect the practice within the international geothermal sector.

There is no ability for geothermal projects to lever existing federal funds without a strong provincial commitment. Our geothermal resources have the potential to diversify and decarbonize B.C.’s energy systems, provide energy with minimal environmental impact footprint — probably the smallest environmental footprint of any type of resource like that — create jobs and prosperity in northeastern B.C. and provide a showcase for innovation in our clean energy sector.

My question again is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. When will her ministry start streamlining the regulatory process and start encouraging, as opposed to discouraging, British Columbia’s outstanding geothermal sector?

Answer

Hon. M. Mungall: My ministry has done nothing to discourage the opportunities with geothermal — in fact, quite the opposite.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m not too sure why the Liberals are all worked up about this particular issue, hon. Speaker. It’s not like they ever discovered geothermal when they were in office. The reality is that there’s quite a bit of science here that needs to be done, and it’s about a process in terms of actually making sure the resource is sufficient enough, hot enough, to actually generate electricity from it. That needs to be done. And that’s exactly what Borealis and other companies who are interested in doing this work in British Columbia are given the opportunity to do. I’m very glad that they’re here and making those investments, and I look forward to working with them going forward.