Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 222

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

A. Weaver

On the amendment

A. Weaver

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

M. Bernier

On the main motion

Hon. M. Mungall

E. Ross

A. Olsen

On the amendment

A. Olsen

A. Weaver

S. Furstenau

M. Bernier

On the main motion

D. Davies

Hon. G. Chow

Hon. B. Ralston

S. Furstenau

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Citizens’ Services

(continued)

Hon. J. Sims

B. Stewart

S. Thomson

T. Redies

S. Bond

D. Barnett

TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2019

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 10. In

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of

Citizens’ Services. If they finish, it will be followed by the estimates for

FLNRO, the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — INCOME TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to take my place in the second reading

debates of Bill 10, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019. This is a bill that

takes the LNG regime that the B.C. NDP have put forward and agreed to

with LNG Canada, and in doing so, does a couple of things in this

bill.

The first thing it does is it repeals the LNG Income Tax Act

brought forward by the B.C. Liberal government in the last session. The

second thing it does is repeal — these are towards the end of the bill,

section 4 — the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. That’s

an act that enabled the Petronas project development

agreement.

The third thing it does is it says: “Okay, well, buried within the

Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, which had a number of components,

was a tax credit that we want to retain.” So what the B.C. NDP are doing

here is taking the LNG tax regime of the B.C. Liberals, repealing the

income — a component of that — that would allow us to generate revenue

but keeping in place the giveaway, the tax credit, that would enable,

again, this what I call sellout to continue at staggering

levels.

For many years, I’ve been speaking out against the fiscal folly of

the B.C. Liberals at the time, trying to chase the pot of gold at the

end of the rainbow. That’s the LNG pot of gold at the end of the

rainbow. Early on in the mandate of the previous government, the B.C.

NDP were a little cagey about what their views were with respect to

liquefied natural gas.

There were a number of backbench MLAs who purported to be quite

concerned about the issue of climate change, quite concerned about some

of the unregulated activity that was ongoing with respect to the

widespread adoption of horizontal fracking technology in the northeast

of our province and the kind of unregulated free-for-all — Wild West,

almost — that was going on in northern B.C.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We’re starting to see some of the consequences of that now. We’re

talking about what we’re going to do to preserve our caribou stocks, as

the natural habitat on which they’ve relied has degraded to such a level

that we’re now worried about extirpation of various herds. Again, the

B.C. NDP, historically, have been quite concerned about that.

[1:35 p.m.]

Onwards we move to today. All along, consistent since 2013, and in

fact in 2012, the PowerPoint presentations I was giving at the time —

that’s seven years ago — are unchanged today. The essence of that is

unchanged today.

Here’s the narrative that was being done in 2012 in the lead-up to

the 2013 election. The B.C. Liberals, at the time, knew they had no hope

of winning an election. In fact, the front page of the Vancouver

Province had a picture of the now Minister of Health and

said: “This man could kick a dog, and he would still be

Premier.”

Well, when faced with such insurmountable challenges to victory,

the B.C. Liberals had to come up with a new shtick, a new plan,

something to offer British Columbians hope with. That was hope and

prosperity from LNG: a $100 billion prosperity fund, 100,000 jobs, $1

trillion increase to our GDP, thriving schools, thriving hospitals,

debt-free B.C. and on and on and on. So went the rhetoric of the B.C.

Liberal government.

I sat opposite for four years as I watched the members now in

government hurl abuse at the B.C. Liberals, hurl abuse. Not just a

little bit of criticism here, a little bit of criticism there, but

substantive vitriol was being hurled across the aisle to the members of

the government at the time, claiming that there was a generational

sellout, claiming that they were not looking out for the best interests

of British Columbia, claiming that they were signing sweet deals with

their corporate friends.

I have a litany of quotes that I will be reading in during the

course of the debates here. Actually, I had to ask my staff to pare them

down because I’ve got 20 pages of quotes that I look forward to bringing

in of various NDP MLAs now, the words that they said, directed to the

B.C. Liberals about the LNG Income Tax Act.

Dialing back to the history of the LNG Income Tax Act, in the

first reading of that act, the B.C. NDP did support the original

introduction of the LNG Income Tax Act.

Now, the rationale for that act was as follows. The B.C. Liberals

recognized that it was an incredibly competitive international

marketplace for natural gas. They realized that our royalty regime,

while quite rich, needed to be sweetened, so they did in

This is what they did. They took what is known as the deep-well

royalty credit, a credit which was designed a decade earlier to

incentivize risky business, to incentivize the deep drilling, the deep

vertical hydraulic fracking to access deep reservoirs of natural gas,

and they extended that credit to shallow drills if you have a certain

length — essentially, all natural gas drilling. All of it is,

essentially, now getting the credit. And that’s fine. That was a

strategy that they took, that we want to ensure that, up front, business

has access to a resource that’s incredibly competitive in terms of

royalty regime — frankly, I would argue, almost a giveaway.

Nevertheless, they felt that what they would do instead is try to

get the companies here and then earn some revenue down the road when

those same companies started producing or shipping LNG. That was the

rationale behind the LNG Income Tax Act. Give away…. Well, not give

away, but take little up front, let the companies get going and then

have an income tax starting to generate revenue for the province.

Whether you agree with it or not — clearly, I didn’t at the time — that

was the logic behind the B.C. Liberals’ approach.

Now, the B.C. NDP voted in favour of that when it was first

brought in. I stood alone — the only MLA, I have that framed on my wall

— and voted against the second reading. At the time, the reason why I

did that was I argued it was a generational sellout. I pointed out the

indemnity loophole that was in and a number of other loopholes that were

in.

In the spring, the B.C. Liberals brought in an amendment to the

original LNG Income Tax Act. That amended, corrected, some of those

loopholes, tightened some of the legislation, made the regime a little

sharper. At that time, when the B.C. NDP clearly realized that they were

on the wrong side of a public opinion, it was at this time that the

vitriol started to ramp up.

[1:40 p.m.]

Ironically, when the LNG Income Tax Act was put to a vote, I voted

in favour of it. All the NDP voted against it. Now, think about the

logic of this. Think about the logic of this. The original bill was

brought forward. It had so many loopholes, you could have driven a bus

through it. The B.C. NDP support it. I stand against it.

The amendment act comes in. The bill is now a matter of law. The

bill is a matter of law, and the amendment act was designed to make a

bad piece of legislation better. The principled thing to do, if you’re

actually trying to improve public policy, was to recognize that, in

fact, the amendments, while I don’t agree with the original legislation,

made that legislation tighter, closed some loopholes. So I stood in

support of that amendment.

The NDP, in a frankly principlist approach, trying to just

essentially cater to popular opinion, voted against the amendment act,

in essence saying to this that a bad bill that we supported should stay

bad on the books rather than trying to make it slightly better. It

didn’t make any sense to me at the time, but then again, much of the

discourse and much of the debate about LNG in British Columbia has not

made sense to me going forward.

Now we want to take this one step further and actually repeal the

whole shebang. I’ll come back to the whole framework that’s being set up

in a few minutes. But I’d like to start, because it’s at the beginning

of my speech, with what I believe is an incredibly important letter that

I received from a civil servant in the province of British Columbia, a

civil servant who worked in this government’s oil and gas provincial

registry, who has resigned. He has resigned because of what’s going on

in B.C. with respect to the LNG royalty regime.

Let me read this letter. This letter was mailed to the Premier,

accessible by FOI, and it says the following.

“I am resigning today as a public servant and would like to draw

attention to certain issues in our province’s gas royalties program and

administration. With four years experience as a royalty analyst for the

province, five years of field experience in upstream oil and gas

operations and undergraduate economics training, I offer my somewhat

informed perspective below with the hope of catalyzing increased

transparency and perhaps improvement to B.C. gas royalty

policy.”

Bold heading: “Conflict of interest in policy control.”

“The Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources, EMPR, jointly govern and administer natural gas

royalty policy. However, policy is largely controlled by EMPR, with

Finance tasked with administering the corresponding royalty calculations

based on monthly production data.

“Gas production and technology has changed rapidly, along with the

economics of this industry, over the past 15 years, during which time

our gas royalty policy has remained largely unchanged, with the said

extension of the deep-well credit to shallow wells being added.

“In my opinion, much of our royalty policy is not functioning as

originally intended, leading to unwarranted ballooning of industry

subsidy amounts. This expensive subsidy growth is hidden by complexity

and less-than-transparent public-facing information. EMPR has become

responsible to promote the B.C. natural gas and LNG industry

internationally, as well as creating a policy that encourages gas sector

growth and profitability.”

Stop right there. I’ll come back to the letter. “The EMPR has

become responsible to promote the B.C. natural gas and LNG industry

internationally.” Hang on. Right there is the first flag. EMPR is the

regulator, not the promoter. The regulator. When the regulator becomes

the promoter, we have what’s called capture, and we have perceived, real

or not, conflict of interest. We need to ensure that the public’s

interests are always front and centre, and this can never be trusted

when we have the regulator captured by also being the

promoter.

These are aren’t my words. These are the words coming from this

ministry analyst, who has since resigned.

I continue: “The ministry closely collaborates with gas producers

on a variety of initiatives.” Hang on again there. “The ministry” — that

is, the regulator — “collaborates with gas producers on a variety of

initiatives.”

[1:45 p.m.]

“However, there is a natural conflict of interest between promoting

gas producers profitability and ensuring the B.C. public receives a fair

royalty for the private extraction of our shared natural resource. A

segregation of duty should exist between policy makers and industry

promoters but, from my perspective and experience, clearly does not.

Consequently, there is no unbiased champion for the B.C. taxpayer’s

rights at the policy table, and the costly consequences of this absence

are hidden behind complexity.”

I’ll continue with this letter. It’s quite long. This is precisely

the issue that I’ve been trying to peel and unwrap and unravel in budget

estimates with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, who, to be honest, I’m pretty sure doesn’t

actually understand the file. When I was asking about the variety of

royalty measures that were in place, the answers I got in the estimates

in the fall were, frankly, shocking. I would have expected better from a

minister charged with regulating an industry — not championing an

industry but regulating an industry — but sadly, that was

lacking.

I continue with the letter. “Billions of direct subsidization

disguised as drilling incentives” is the next headline. The deep-well

credit program, which I’ve raised many, many times in this Legislature —

I don’t know how many times — was originally designed around now

outdated assumptions of drilling technology.

That means that back in the day, we used to frack in B.C., for 50,

60 years. It was vertical fracking. The onset, in the early 2000s, of

horizontal drilling allowed for much more intrusive as well as much more

efficient fracking. No longer are you just drilling vertically, but you

can go for great distances horizontally with the same process of

injecting a mixture of water and chemicals and some sand at high

pressure underground to fracture the shale and allow the gas to flow.

Revolutionary technology created the boom of shale gas and oil around

the world. The original deep-well credit was designed to incentivize

those deep vertical wells.

Coming back to this: “The deep-well credit program, originally

designed around now outdated assumptions of drilling technology,

represents an ongoing, eye-watering transfer of the provincial tax

burden from natural gas producers to the B.C. taxpayer.” This person

continues: “This program, originally devised in 2003, has directly

reduced gas producers’ existing and future royalty liability to the

Crown by nearly $6 billion Canadian today.” So $6 billion has been taken

off the table because of this credit going back to 2003.

I hear some mumbling from the members opposite, and I’ll tell you,

I’d much rather listen to a civil servant who has resigned over this

than some former member of the B.C. Liberals who happened to be in

charge of this file. I’m going to go with the civil servant on this,

because, to me, I’ve been very impressed with our civil service in this

province of British Columbia and the diligence with which they approach

their job and the ethical approach that they take in doing their daily

work. This person showed great courage in bringing this

forward.

“The subsidy continues to grow. In each of the last fiscal years,

the Crown has issued more offsetting deep credits than it collected in

actual total oil and gas royalty revenue.” That, I have checked myself,

is true. We’ve given away more future deep credits than we’ve actually

earned in royalties. When I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources in the fall what the accrued liability was, it was

something like $3.2 billion of unclaimed deep-well credits that can be

applied to future royalties that were on the books.

Some have wondered why Petronas bailed and then joined LNG Canada.

Well, we know why Petronas bailed and then rejoined. Petronas is the

proud owner of many, many of those billions of dollars. I don’t know the

exact number, but a significant number of that credit is associated with

Pacific NorthWest gas, which is an upstream supplier that was going to

work with Petronas. They now feel a bit landlocked, but they could bring

those credits into an LNG partner as, I believe, the fifth

partner.

On we go. It says here:

“The Crown has issued more revenue-offsetting deep credits than it

has collected in actual total oil and gas royalty revenue. Royalty

agreements exist to compensate owners of mineral rights for the removal

of their mineral resources.

[1:50 p.m.]

“The deep-well program continues to ensure that B.C. citizens, as

collective owners of B.C. natural gas, receive a net negative return for

the depletion of our gas resources. We issue more royalty/tax offsets

annually than the revenue we receive. Put simply, the Crown is giving

out $2 in available royalty tax rebates for every dollar in royalty tax

payables.”

Now, I’ve been raising this in this Legislature for what must be

two to three years now, and it seems to be hitting deaf ears. Frankly,

the legislative press gallery has been caught up in the hoopla of the

LNG promises and has really not been exploring the scale and level of

this giveaway either.

It gets even worse here. I’ll just digress from this letter for a

second. Let’s go back to what the B.C. Liberals have done in terms of

trying to entice LNG here. They said: “Well, okay. We’re going to bring

the cleanest LNG in the world.” I know, rhetoric. I remember, and I’ll

read quotes later, how member after member from the B.C. NDP ridiculed

the Premier at the time — simply ridiculed her and the Minister of

Natural Gas at the time — about cleanest LNG. The same language is

coming up now about clean LNG.

However, the B.C. Liberals said: “Okay, LNG Canada. We’re going to

give you cheap electricity. We know we can’t deliver into it unless we

build Site C. But we’ll give you cheap electricity to deliver on this

‘cleanest in the world’ promise if you use electricity to compress the

natural gas. You’ll be a big user. You’ll still need lots of other

electricity in your upstream and downstream activities, but the

compression will take a lot of energy. We will give you the industrial

rates, something like 5.4 cents a kilo an hour, if you use electricity

to compress.”

Now, that was the rationale of the B.C. Liberals. B.C. NDP

economics, for what it’s worth — I don’t know whether it’s an oxymoron

or not….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Thank you. The member from Chilliwack pointed that out, and I

think we were thinking alike at this time.

It’s as follows: “Oh, that’s not good enough. We’ll let you still

get the industrial rate if you compress natural gas, but we’re going to

give you the resource up front.”

Go figure that. In the B.C. Liberal world, you actually pay very

little royalties up front. However, we’re going to force you to be clean

and green down the road, if you’re going to get the industrial rate.

B.C. NDP says: “You don’t have to pay the royalties up front for the

natural gas. You’re going to ship it to yourself and use it.”

Essentially, we’re giving LNG Canada free LNG compression. What

sort of economic argument is used to justify that, other than outrageous

NDP economics? It simply doesn’t make sense to look at a company and

say: “You can have the gas for free to actually compress it.” And a ton

of gas will be used in the process. That’s a problem yet again in terms

of the race-for-the-bottom economics that goes on here.

Let’s continue with this letter.

“The deep credit program does not achieve any measurable behavioural

impact on industry or benefit society other than increasing the

profitability of gas production at the expense of the public.

“When the program began, only a small fraction of new wells would

qualify for credits. A single deep well produces more gas than many

shallower wells. Therefore, fewer total wells needed to be drilled, with

less surface equipment and roadbuilding reducing costs and environmental

harm.

“However, in the past four years, 99 percent of all new wells

qualify for the program. An industry would drill these types of wells

regardless of our policy, due to the inherent cost savings and

productivity gains that arise from horizontal fracking versus vertical

fracking and profitability achieved by this modern, commonplace type of

well construction.

“Royalty tax reduction programs should be employed to change

behaviour and solve specific problems, rather than a complex and

misleadingly labeled subsidy”

That is what it is — a subsidy, yet another subsidy to a sunset

industry. We’ll come back to that.

“The cost of drilling and completing a deep gas well in B.C.’s main

formations has declined drastically over the past decade. Yet our

royalty discounts per new deep well remain fixed.”

There are arguments to be made that supporting B.C.’s gas industry

benefits our society. Fair enough. Let’s make those arguments. However,

the public should be able to determine how much support is being given

and whether other industries could put that financial support to better

use.

[1:55 p.m.]

What might be the societal benefit of $6 billion in subsidies for

B.C. infrastructure — for the tech sector, agriculture sector, R and D,

innovation? Alternatively, could the province simply lower other taxes

and service fees? Would we really need to be going through the headaches

of the employer health tax in certain municipalities and school boards

if there was $6 billion more found from not subsidizing this industry?

If our gas sector requires a subsidy, it should not be hidden from

public view behind complex, mislabeled policy, and that is precisely

what’s going on in the province of British Columbia.

The letter continues: “Last year’s 2018 public accounts document

revealed that over $2.5 billion worth of deep credits will offset future

revenue. This disclosed liability figure will continue to rapidly grow

this year and into the future and does not include those credits that

have been granted and already used by royalty payers.”

The next

section of this letter, quite a scathing indictment of

what’s going on in the oil and gas ministry here in the province of

British Columbia, is entitled “Gas producer cost of service allowances

grossly inflated.”

“Producer cost of service allowances,” another additional royalty

reduction program, “are calculated based on an approximation of the

‘Crown share.’ The policy compensates producers for certain

field-gathering costs associated with the ‘share’ of their production

value collected as a Crown royalty payment.

“In theory, what this means,” according to the letter, “is this

should mean that if the province assesses a 10 percent royalty of the

value of a producer’s gas production, we could compensate for 10 percent

of the associated costs — i.e., the cost of service.

“In reality,” the letter goes on, “the Crown’s share is approximated

by a factor called the weighted average royalty rate, or WARR. The WARR

is consistently inflated two to three times higher than the amount we

actually collect from producers because this factor is a measure of

‘gross’ royalties before deductions, which are far higher than actual

royalties payable.

“The average effective royalty rate payable is about 5 percent in

the province of B.C.,

whereas the average WARR” — that’s the weighted

average royalty rate used in the PCOS allowance calculation — “is

several times that on average over the last few years. The Crown pays

for 10 percent of the costs and receives 5 percent of the

benefit.”

Think about that. The Crown is paying 10 percent of the costs and

receiving 5 percent of the benefit. This is both unfair for the B.C.

taxpayer, and frankly, it’s not, as he says here, what we’re telling the

public.

You can go directly to the ministry website and go and look at the

producer-cost-of-service natural gas allowance information, on the B.C.

Ministry of Energy and Mines website, and you can read the information

there, and you’ll see that this writer is exactly right. The Crown pays

for 10 percent of the costs and receives 5 percent of the benefit. It’s

not what we tell the public on the producer-cost-of-service natural gas

allowance information page.

“For instance,” the letter continues, “evidence suggests that gas

producers’ costs were offset by $3,248,871.27.” That’s $3,248,871.27 too

much for their production costs incurred during a single month of 2018.

There have been some calculations, which I can make available — I’ll do

so in my blog later — that actually show some supporting evidence for

this.

“The total producer-cost-of-service allowances offset Crown revenue

annually by over $100 million.” He says here, “in my opinion” — that’s

the letter writer’s opinion — “the unfair and illogical way the

allowance is granted to producers overcompensates them by many tens of

millions of dollars per year at the expense of the B.C. public.

“The problem is very difficult, if not impossible, to understand by

reading public-facing information alone. The policy rewards high-cost

operators while disincentivizes industry behaviours that might lower

costs or increase efficiency.”

[2:00 p.m.]

The letter continues, another area. “Significant policy compliance

burden” is the subsection of this part of the letter.

“B.C. gas royalty policy is exceedingly complex, and the province

has made strong efforts to monitor the industry. However, the royalty

regime could be greatly simplified by the use of fixed, fair, monthly

reference prices for all the product types and assigning fixed, fair

costs that would apply to all producers.”

The province of Alberta already does this and comfortably relies

far more heavily on royalty revenues as a proportion of their budget. In

contrast, B.C. producers are forced to compile, calculate and submit

thousands of valuation and cost details each month for what are already

closely monitored commodity transactions.

Coming back to the letter, the writer says this:

“In my opinion, a much closer look should be taken at any

cross-jurisdictional, royalty-competitive comparisons, as B.C.’s current

natural gas royalties includes revenue from gas, liquids and field

condensate, which is dissimilar from other provinces, such as Alberta. A

comprehensive policy review and simplification could significantly

benefit industry, government, staff and the B.C. taxpayer.”

Coming back to this civil servant, this civil servant has

resigned. This civil servant has resigned now and has taken it upon

himself to provide information to the Premier and others as to the

rationale for why he or she was feeling somewhat uncomfortable in that

position.

Let’s continue forward with the scale of the giveaway here. I

alluded to the fact the B.C. NDP agreed to give LNG Canada the

industrial rate of electricity, even if they don’t use electricity in

the compression of the natural gas at an LNG facility. I also suggested

that the B.C. Liberals gave them the caveat that we give it to you if

you use natural gas in the compression. What I didn’t elude to in more

detail was that we couldn’t deliver into that contract unless we did one

of three things.

We could’ve evoked the Columbia River entitlement and got about

the equivalent of Site C power to come in. That produces — I forget the

exact amount — a couple of hundred million dollars directly into

provincial revenues. Nobody is really wanting to mess with that, it

seems, but we could have gone that way.

We could have gone for a very aggressive standing offer program

for independent power producers to put out a call for power. These might

have gone in partnership with Indigenous communities from north to south

and east to west to produce a multitude of small, more intermittent

types of power. The load could have been levelled either through

coupling them with local storage systems, which are now becoming

ubiquitous, or even using our existing dams to actually stabilize

load.

B.C. Liberals decided that what we’re going to do is continue with

Site C. Back in 2010 or 2009, when stage 3 of the environmental

assessment began, there was a lot of uncertainty as to what the total

costs would be. However, at the time, it was a relatively inexpensive

way of producing power, compared to things like solar and wind. Now, of

course, that price curve has completely changed.

Now we have the B.C. NDP, who campaigned on stopping Site C.

Whether it be the member for Saanich South, who stands up in front of a

large audience in Victoria and stands before that audience and urges

people to vote for the B.C. NDP — not the Greens, of course, but the

B.C. NDP. Only the B.C. NDP can form government, and they will stop Site

C. “And guess what. We’re going to send it to BCUC, but that’s really

just an inconvenience. There’s no way it’ll pass.”

That’s what the B.C. NDP campaigned on. We, in our confidence and

supply, thought, “Okay, you need the political cover to do the decision

that needs to be done.” We knew what the BCUC was going to put forward

in terms of a cost analysis. It’s going to come in at ten to 15 cents a

kilowatt hour to produce that electricity.

We know, right now, that we can produce intermittent power or

small-scale hydro, solar, and others, at a fraction, a half to a third,

of that cost. We know we could do that right now, today, with standing

offer programs if they were put forward. But no, the NDP wanted to build

Site C — remarkably, with SNC-Lavalin as one of the big proponents. But

that’s neither here nor there. However, they wanted to build Site

They argued, “Oh, we can’t cancel Site C, despite the fact that

the BCUC gave us all the information that we needed to make that

decision” — the political cover that they so desperately wanted. They

now could not bring $5 billion on to the provincial books because it

might hurt the credit rating.

That didn’t stop them bringing Golden Ears and Port Mann debt onto

books — didn’t stop them for even a microsecond bringing them onto the

books. Now what has happened….

[2:05 p.m.]

Sure, it may have won them a couple of seats in and around the

Port Mann Bridge. But what they have done, through bad policy measures

of removing that toll, is ensure that no future infrastructure projects

will be able to have a tolling component, the user-pay component which

is so critical for the development of modern infrastructure in today’s

world — user-pay. But by removing those tolls, we no longer will have an

appetite to move forward with user-pay. Are the B.C. NDP going to have

an urban congestion tax in Vancouver? That’s another option — congestion

taxes. I’ll believe that when I see it.

The B.C. NDP continued down this path, building Site C. There are

an awful lot of their former supporters who are quite upset about this.

Their Premier, our Premier, the member for Saanich South, the member for

Powell River–Sunshine Coast and others were very proud to stick a yellow

stake on the side of the Peace, standing up for the Peace, saying they

would do what they could to save the Peace Valley from being

flooded.

They were going to do what they could for the Indigenous

communities in and around the Peace who were concerned about their

territory being flooded forever. They were going to do what they could

to preserve the heritage site that was on the fort down at the water

level. They were going to do what they could to preserve the habitat for

the ungulates, some of which winter-over on some of the islands there.

Only would they do it if they became government. But they did, and they

ignored what they promised people.

They ignored what they promised people, in my view, because for

this present government, what was more important than actually looking

out for future generations, ensuring British Columbians got value for

our natural resources, was that this government felt that it wanted to

deliver what Christy Clark couldn’t. That’s the base level of politics

and natural gas in B.C. “We’re going to try to deliver what Christy

Clark couldn’t.” The only way to do that is to take the giveaway — the

giveaway that I’m so looking forward to articulating through quotes — to

a whole new level, a whole new level like we’ve never seen in Canada in

terms of corporate welfare.

I’ve already articulated the $6 billion that the upstream oil and

gas sector have got in royalty credits. That’s not counting a myriad of

others. That’s not counting the below-market power that the ratepayer of

British Columbia — you, hon. Speaker, me, other members here — are going

to have to pay.

When I’m paying ten cents a kilowatt hour for my tier 1

electricity and I know it’s going to cost 15 cents a kilowatt hour to

produce electricity from Site C and I know that I’m a ratepayer who is

subject to BCUC prices or whims of the government and I know that

industry’s not going to have to pay that because they’ve been locked

into a multigenerational rate of 5.4 cents a kilowatt hour, I’m going to

be paying for that. That’s saying to me that, at minimum, my hydro rate

has got to increase by 50 percent in the next few years, and more like

it’s going to push to a 100 percent increase within the next

decade.

That falls squarely on this government. We have stood here as an

opposition party doing our best to point out these issues that

government has to address.

Now, at any given time, we could act like children and throw up

our hands, walk out, pick up our bat and ball and say: “Oh, we’re going

to an election.” Is that really the best way forward? Or is the best way

forward to stand up and hold this government to account for what it’s

doing here today, hold this government to account for, on the one hand,

saying to the province of British Columbia…?

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, the B.C. Liberals opposite. You’re entitled to vote against

this bill. And if you vote against this bill, because it is a

generational sellout, we know you didn’t do this. You did not have the

gall to do such a giveaway. Let’s see if you have the courage, the moral

fortitude, to vote against this bill. Because it won’t pass if you have

the moral fortitude to stand up for British Columbians. This is on you;

this is not on us.

We are standing up here and saying enough is enough. This

generational sellout is not on. This is not a free market. This is a so

wedged-out market that has so got corporate welfare on it like steroids,

that if this is what you want to support, the so-called free market

party…. Is the free market party going to talk about the mother of all

non–free market bills? Let’s see, because the ball is certainly in their

court.

[2:10 p.m.]

We’re at a juncture here in B.C. We have two paths. We have the

CleanBC path, which is the path that we were so very proud to work on.

It’s not a path for greenhouse gas reductions. What CleanBC is, is an

economic vision for prosperity in British Columbia that’s grounded in

our strategic advantages, that recognizes that we will never compete

against jurisdictions like the Philippines, Indonesia or Malaysia in

terms of straight digging dirt out of the ground.

It’s because we in British Columbia care about our social systems.

We care about our environment. We have, typically, regulations in place,

although not so much in the oil and gas sector, and we believe that it’s

critical for businesses doing business here to internalize the social

and environmental externalities that other jurisdictions don’t. Sure, we

can compete on the international resource extraction front, but we don’t

do so with race-for-the-bottom economics. You’re watching that here with

Bill 10, the Income Tax Amendment Act, right now as we speak.

You do it through being smarter, by focusing on efficiency, by

focusing on value-added and by bringing the tech sector together with

the resource sector to ensure that when we are accessing our resources,

we’re doing so in means that are cleaner, are more efficient, allowing

us to value-add and exploit the technology and knowledge at the same

time as those resources. Yes, this can happen in British Columbia,

because it is happening in British Columbia.

What’s missing is leadership — leadership by government and, prior

to that, leadership by the official opposition. The market needs signals

to be sent. Now, I take my hat off to the member for Surrey-Whalley, not

Surrey South — I take my hat off to Surrey South as well — who is a

proud champion of the tech sector in British Columbia.

However, being a proud champion is one thing, and then all of the

good work that you’ve done is undermined by this signal, because you

can’t signal to the market in two different directions. You signal to

the market that B.C. is the place for new innovation, for the economy of

tomorrow. We want leaders of tomorrow. We know we can attract and retain

the best and brightest in the world to B.C. because of the quality of

the life we can offer, a stable — quasi-stable — democracy. We’ve got

the most beautiful place in the world to live. We’ve got bountiful

energy, wood, water that we have access to. The quality of life we can

give people in British Columbia is second to none.

Highly mobile industries like the tech sector, like the biomedical

sector, like value-added, like manufacturing…. These highly mobile

sectors can come to B.C. and know and rest assured that they’ll be able

to attract and retain the types of workers they need because of the

quality of life we can offer them. On top of that, our education system

is second to none in the world. So we know we can offer employers

first-rate trained and skilled workers to actually consider hiring them

for their new-economy jobs.

No, take that back. It’s time we stopped talking about jobs here

in British Columbia and time we started talking about careers. It’s easy

to create jobs. Build a bridge, and you’ve got a bunch of jobs. What we

want in B.C. are careers. We want people to be able to go into a

profession and know that their investment in education is going to pay

off because there’s a future for them in their chosen career. Not job —

career. And it’s about time in British Columbia that we stopped focusing

on jobs and more on careers. Careers are what will lead to sustainable

employment and income security. Jobs are what pay the bills at the end

of the week, but it is a career that you need to ensure sustainable

income security.

We’ve been clear. The B.C. Greens will not support an expansion of

taxpayer-funded giveaways to help a large, multinational fossil fuel

industry set up in B.C. The corporate welfare…. These are not even B.C.

shareholders, by and large. This is LNG Canada. Many of the

shareholders, the five big ones, are based in Asia.

The resource is ours, but we’re giving it away. We want to repeal

the LNG Income Tax Act because we don’t want to earn anything there. We

think that there’s going to be wealth and prosperity through the false

promises that we’ve heard for four years from the Liberals and now two

years from the NDP, and we claim that the B.C. NDP have now approved

this because their four conditions have been met. To remind you what

these four conditions are: fair return, jobs training, respect and

diversity for Indigenous values and rights, and to meet the climate

commitments.

[2:15 p.m.]

Now, what I find so incredibly…. What’s the word I’m looking for?

Frustrating is one word. It’s probably not the correct word.

Mind-boggling is another good word. Much like Christy Clark’s five

conditions for agreeing with the Trans Mountain pipeline going forward,

the B.C. NDP provided zero metrics, not a single metric, as to what

would determine whether a fair return is there or not. Because they said

so? Well, they criticized Christy Clark for having five conditions — for

which she never articulated what the metrics were that those conditions

were judged against — yet we have the same here with the B.C.

NDP.

Fair return. Well, in light of the fact that we’re getting no

return, as far as I can tell, for decades, I’m not so sure what metrics

they’ve used for fair return. I guess it’s above zero, because it

wouldn’t happen unless they did this generational sellout.

Jobs training. Well, you know, I’ve already gone to the

International Union of Operating Engineers and filed complaints. I’ve

filed complaints because I actually know people who are working on the

Boskalis dredging ships in Kitimat. Let me tell you how this so-called

hiring local works.

There’s a Newfoundland company that’s contracted out to provide

workers for Boskalis, which is dredging in Kitimat. The Newfoundland

company gets people from wherever. How many of them are from B.C.? Well,

I know a couple, but they were summarily fired when they dared to raise

questions about safety standards on the Boskalis dredge: “We don’t want

those pesky British Columbians raising questions about hydraulic fluid

spilling over the decks, because that could lead to issues.” So nothing

has changed. Boskalis is a Netherlands company, dredging with temporary

foreign workers, much against the so-called promises of the B.C. NDP,

saying that we’re going to have jobs and prosperity for

locals.

Respect and partnerships. I understand that the member for Skeena

is quite pleased with the development of LNG Canada. I take my hat off

to him for standing up for his community, but I would suggest that we’re

far from respect and reconciliation along the entire route —

particularly when you ask the question of Indigenous people, not only

immediately affected but in Haida Gwaii. Ask the Indigenous people of

Haida Gwaii what they think of this. They’re opposed. The Unist’ot’en

Camp, the Wet’suwet’en. They have some issues.

To suggest that this is all clear sailing is by no means giving

the complete picture. It’s actually worse than that, because the

government has a duty and a responsibility, as an agent of the Crown, to

negotiate and work with Indigenous communities in our province, yet this

government abdicated its responsibility and left it up to LNG Canada to

go deal with the so-called pesky Wet’suwet’en. What did LNG Canada do?

The only thing they could do, which was ask for injunctive relief, get

the RCMP to clear the path, because this government abdicated its

responsibility as an agent of the Crown required to

negotiate.

Meet climate commitments. Well, as I get towards the latter part

of my second reading speech to this, I’ll suggest that it’s somewhat

premature to be celebrating that we’re meeting climate commitments with

LNG Canada. There’s simply no way in a million years that you’re No. 4.

The B.C. NDP’s own criteria — No. 4, “meet climate commitments” — is not

met by the legislation today. For that reason and that reason alone, I

will be moving, later on, a reasoned amendment in a few minutes, but not

just yet.

Before I get to that, I want to come to some of the more

interesting quotes that we’ve seen with this. I want to start off with a

couple of my favourites. Let’s go directly to the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources. The Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources has been quite boisterous on this file. In fact, my

understanding is that there’s a funeral happening right now in Nelson, a

funeral going on commemorating the credibility of the now Minister of

Energy and Mines. It’s quite funny. I mean, it’s kind of weird, but

they’re holding a funeral for the credibility of the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources in Nelson.

Fair enough. Well deserved, frankly. The same minister who stood

up and argued — I’ve got this on video: “Vote for us, the NDP, because

we will stop Site C, and I’m for you.” It was under her watch, as the

minister….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Paddle for the Peace. I never went to Paddle for the

Peace.

Interjection.

[2:20 p.m.]

A. Weaver: Yeah, I didn’t do Paddle for the Peace. As you know, I’ve been up

there several times. I’m extraordinarily supportive, but in my view,

we’re there as elected MLAs. We’re not elected to be activists; we’re

elected to listen and to engage with people. When you become an

activist, as the member from Nelson did, and you start doing things that

activists do, who are calling on this, it all comes a cropper when you

are now in a decision-making capability. Frankly, she has no credibility

in this file.

In light of that file and in light of these comments…. These are

the comments that Minister Mungall said, and I’m referring to Bill 30,

the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act, on July 14, 2015. Let

me read this. It’s fairly lengthy, but it’s filled with rhetoric and

hyperbole, and I think members opposite, at least, will take some solace

in hearing this, and I suspect there will be one or two

smiles….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Member for Langley East, are you up after me? You know I’ll be

staying. I’ll be looking forward to listening to your

thoughts.

Here is what it says.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: That’s right. The member for Chilliwack tells me he doesn’t smile

any more. It’s quite sad, but we’ll see if we can’t break a smile on

you.

This is the Minister of Energy and Mines, July 14,

2015:

“Now, they” — they being the Liberals — “wouldn’t understand what it

means to say no to selling out this province. They put themselves in

such a desperate position when it comes to negotiating for LNG that they

had to say yes to any single thing that walked through the door. That’s

exactly what they have done. This is the big sellout of British

Columbia.

“British Columbians are going to be on the hook. Should they raise

taxes for LNG, we have to indemnify Petronas. We have to indemnify the

nine other corporations that are involved with this deal. Taxpayers are

footing the bill.

“If we want to target this industry for any future environmental

changes that would improve environmental sustainability, we’re going to

have to pay them for that. We have to pay that. The taxpayers have to

foot that bill.”

Here we go:

“It’s just utterly ridiculous and irresponsible and reprehensible” —

no hyperbole there — “to sell out British Columbians for the next 25

years, not just for this industry but potentially others as

well.”

Those are words from the member from Nelson.

“No longer can we impose that based on public interest and do the

public will, as we are supposed to do here. Instead, the company will be

indemnified by the taxpayers for any costs incurred to meet the new

standard. That’s ridiculous. That is a sellout. That is a sellout of

this province. That is a sellout of this future, and that’s not

okay….

“People in my part of the world” — the same part of the world that

is presently giving her a funeral for her credibility — “view the

environment and long-term environmental sustainable planning as one of

the top priorities that any government should be considering, and that

is not reflected in Bill 30. What is reflected, rather, is a desperate,

desperate grasp at any deal put in front of them, because promises were

made in an election….

“There’s a revenue-generation opportunity that has been sold out by

this government. It’s been sold out by this government. And we’re

hearing from the opposite side that some deal is better than no deal,

and this is a good start, that we’re getting to yes and so on and so

forth. I think what’s interesting is that Alberta never gave the same

type of sweetheart deal to its oil and gas sector.

“What we hear from this government is a big yes to selling out

British Columbians, selling out British Columbians’ futures, selling out

our future potential at reducing our impact on global warming and

selling out future revenue sources. That’s what I hear from this

government, and I don’t think that’s right for British

Columbians.

“We have a big sellout of B.C.so somebody can stand up for a photo

op around the next election. British Columbians deserve better than what

they got with this development agreement and with this bill. They should

be demanding better, and they are demanding better.”

Well. Oh, for the days when we had the Petronas development

agreement on the table before us, because what the B.C. NDP want to do

is take that so-called sellout and put it on steroids. The industrial

rate for electricity — 5.4 cents a kilowatt hour. Wanting to exempt LNG

Canada from a future increase in the carbon tax because they will be

“world leading.”

The only problem with that is LNG Canada wanted to use natural gas

in the compression of natural gas. Well, guess what. In Louisiana, we

now have electric compression, which has zero emissions from

it.

Interjection.

[2:25 p.m.]

A. Weaver: The member for Peace River South is clearly up on this file and

quite enjoying this.

In a briefing where I asked some questions about this, oh, how the

goalposts do move.

Now we start hearing about: “Well, we’re going to start

considering the entire supply chain, including where the electricity

comes from, as well as other things, in terms of this, that and the

other.”

Well, I’m afraid that just doesn’t cut it. Right now electricity

is an integrated grid, and you pay the spot price if you wish. There’s a

ton of cheap wind on the market for two cents a kilowatt hour, if that’s

what you want.

It just doesn’t work that way. If this government thinks that

somehow it can con British Columbians…. To suggest that, in fact, LNG

Canada should be exempted from future increases in the carbon tax

because it is the cleanest in the world…. It’s not. It’s nowhere close,

because they are continuing to propose to use natural gas in the

compression of natural gas.

As I pointed out, in the great sellout, the NDP have given LNG

Canada natural gas, essentially, for free, because of the royalty

structure and the preponderance of credits that exist. No wonder LNG

Canada are pretty happy about this deal. They clearly were negotiating

with people who have very little experience in negotiation or were

utterly desperate to deliver what Christy Clark couldn’t. That was the

bar, and no other bar was used. Frankly, this is very troubling — what’s

being brought before us here today.

I’d like to come to another quote. The member for Saanich South,

another member, door-knocking in my area, a very strong opponent of LNG.

Well, let’s just see what happens when she becomes government. We know

what happened with respect to fish farms. Say one thing; do another. We

know what happened with respect to Site C. Say one thing; do another.

What about LNG? Well, let’s have a look here.

In the budget debate on February 18, 2015, the member for Saanich

South, now the Minister of Agriculture, said this: “It’s politics, not

impartial analysis, that led this government to focus on LNG to the

exclusion of all other sectors in this province.”

Then, on April 6, 2016, in the debate on the Greenhouse Gas

Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, she says

this:

“As we look at the latest rendition of the B.C. Liberals’ attempt to

carry on this facade and to have ‘the cleanest LNG in the world’ — I

mean, at this point, it’s any LNG — Bill 19, the Greenhouse Gas

Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, we need to go back to

Bill 2. My colleagues really laid out our strategy on Bill 2 last time,

but I’m going to just talk about my views on it.

“We opposed Bill 2.” That was the LNG Income Tax Act. I think that

was it. “I think we made really great arguments around why it should

have been opposed. While doing that, we laid out our concerns about what

this bill did and what it didn’t do. Really, what it didn’t do was it

failed to address the whole picture. That’s again what we’re doing with

this amendment. The whole picture is not there.

“When you talk about the cleanest LNG or an LNG industry or

opportunities that we have as a province, and you fail to address all

the emissions coming from the LNG processing and extracting process,

then you’re not there. You’re not doing our province any favours. You

certainly don’t have the right, I don’t think, to stand up and talk

about how much you care about children’s future….”

Oh, my goodness. The member for Saanich South is evoking the

children’s future. You remember the protests on the steps of the

Legislature just last Friday? Thousands of people, millions across the

world, of children, standing up and saying: “Listen to us. Hear us. Our

concerns about climate change are real, and you, the adults, are

ignoring them, and you’re not taking our interests in your

decision-making.” Are those the children she’s referring to? I’m not

sure, but I do suspect my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands

will provide some further information on that.

“…I don’t think, to stand up and talk about how much you care about

children’s future in this province if you’re not taking into account 70

percent of emissions coming from an industry….

“So the cleanest LNG?” she goes on to say. “We’re going to have an

industry that discounts 70 percent of emissions. How do the other

members sleep at night knowing that that’s what they’re running on, that

that’s okay?”

[2:30 p.m.]

A very, very poignant question posed by the Minister of

Agriculture back in 2016 to the members of the B.C. Liberal Party, a

question that I pose to the members of the B.C. NDP today.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

How do you sleep at night? How do you sleep at night knowing that

you are putting before us a generational sellout that actually goes

against everything you campaigned on in the last election?

You campaigned on generational equity. You campaigned on dealing

with climate change. You campaigned on a new economy. You campaigned on

protecting water. You campaigned on Indigenous rights. You campaigned on

having electricity rates that are reasonable and cheap. Yet what we see

here is you just going to another side.

My challenge….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I was asked the question: how is the confidence and supply

agreement going? It’s going just fine. You see, I get an opportunity

here to stand up and point out all the problems with this

bill.

I’m looking to you. I’m looking to my friends in the B.C. Liberals

to see whether they have the moral fortitude and the courage to stand up

and vote against this. Do you have the courage to vote against this?

It’s my challenge to you, because you know we are. If you want to defeat

this bill, we can defeat it here today.

I’ll keep going here from the same minister because she has a lot

to say, an awful lot to say. It’s remarkable. “It’s problematic for me,”

she continues. “It makes me….”

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Well, I vote…. I’m getting a few comments from the peanut gallery

here. It does make this time fly a little faster. I’ve already covered

the decision-maker on file, so we’ll come back to that.

“It’s problematic for me,” she says. “It makes me believe that as

the public and as people in this province look at this government and

its decision-making process, their credibility is going down the tubes

just as fast as their opportunities to develop an LNG industry.” That’s

a nice quote.

The member for Langley East is going to like this one. Just before

you go, I’m going to say it again. “It’s problematic for me. It makes me

believe that as the public and as people in this province look at this

government and its decision-making process, their credibility is going

down the tubes just as fast as their opportunities to develop an LNG

industry.” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Wow.

“This is a government,” she says, “who’s leading, not on the

climate change file but, I think, on the file of being entitled to make

decisions. In this case, I believe it’s because they’re so desperate to

fulfil campaign promises that aren’t going to happen that they’re really

throwing away our future in this province. It’s a selfish, selfish

decision.” Putting it in context, what the Liberals are doing actually

looks super conservative fiscally relative to the giveaway we have

before us right now.

She continues: “They’re not legislating like we’re in one of the

most important races of our lives, and that’s the race to slow down the

effects of climate change on our planet.” I’m just going to pause there

for a second. Let me read this again, and let that sink in to those

millions of viewers at home. This is what the member for Saanich South,

the Minister of Agriculture, had the gall to say, hurling abuse at the

B.C. Liberals when she was in opposition in 2016: “They’re not

legislating like we’re in one of the most important races of our lives,

and that’s the race to slow down the effects of climate change on our

planet. This is not a joke.”

You could have fooled me that this is not a joke when I see this

piece of legislation before me, which takes the legislation that the

B.C. Liberals brought forward and puts it on steroids. I’ve only covered

a few of the exemptions. I talked about the carbon tax. I talked about

Site C. I talked about the elimination of the LNG Income Tax

Act.

Then we talked about the steel tariffs because, of course, LNG

Canada doesn’t want to build this plant in B.C. That is not going to

happen, despite the rhetoric we hear. They want to build it in Asia. In

order to do that, to build it in Asia, they want to build it with Asian

steel. If they did that, they’d import everything built in Asia with

Asian steel, and they’d be hit with an import duty. But good old Trudeau

stood up for Canada and waived that duty as well. So we have another

giveaway there. That’s on top of what the B.C. Liberals…. There’s still

more, and I’ll come to those more giveaways as we keep going.

Let’s continue down with these very illuminating comments by the

member for Saanich South. “Other areas of the world are acknowledging

that,” she says. “At the same time that they’re acknowledging that,

we’re passing legislation that basically greenwashes climate change

legislation with” — again, this needs to be said slowly — “reckless,

empty rhetoric that doesn’t mean anything. And it’s very, very

dangerous.”

[2:35 p.m.]

Hear, hear, I say, to the member for Saanich South. Where are you

now in this chamber? What are you going to vote for? Do you have the

courage, do you have the moral fortitude, to stand up for what you

believe in and you said so back in 2016? I’d like to be pleasantly

surprised. Sadly, knowing the way this place this place works, I suspect

you’ll be whipped to vote the way you’ve been told to vote, as opposed

to the way you should.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I bet you you’re right. I bet you we’re going to see one or two

people speak on second reading, and that’ll be it. They want this bill

to pass fast. The beauty of our parliamentary procedure is we have ample

opportunity to debate this moving forward. I look forward to continuing

this debate.

Let’s continue with her comments. This is what she says: “We have

a government that, on one hand, talks about a climate change action plan

and being a climate leader but, on the other hand, brings in legislation

to govern an industry that would, in Liberal reality, operate outside of

a climate action plan. How does the government square that? It’s very

concerning.”

Good question. Good question, minister from Saanich South. Lead me

read you your own question that you posed then. “We have a government

that, on one hand, talks about a climate change action plan and being a

climate leader but, on the other hand, brings in legislation to govern

an industry that would, in Liberal reality, operate outside of a climate

action plan.”

Remarkable. Truly remarkable, because that is precisely what this

government wants to do. It wants to have a climate plan and then exempt

LNG Canada from being part of that climate plan if they’re the cleanest

in the world. But they don’t really have to be, because others are using

electric compression. We’re going to be cleanest by NDP definition,

which means that you are cleanest by definition, because you are who you

are.

This is what we’re dealing with here — shameful. How these members

sleep at night, I actually don’t know. I don’t know how they can.

Principled people would not be able to stand by and vote for this

legislation, knowing that it betrays future generations by bringing into

play in Canada the single biggest point source of greenhouse gas

emissions this country has ever seen in one fell swoop. That is what

this legislation is doing, and that is shameful, using the words of the

member for Saanich South. What is this government doing? She says: “And

it’s very, very dangerous.”

The member continues. “The fact is that there are no commitments

made to control or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 70 percent of

emissions.” The same is said for LNG Canada. There is nothing on the

books as of today that says in CleanBC how LNG Canada is going to reduce

emissions — zero. We have not got the methane regulations in place as of

today. We’re waiting for the feds. So what was said back in 2016 is a

variant of today. Nothing has changed.

The member goes on. “Of course, they’re in a bit of a bind right

now, these members. They’re creating reckless legislation, which, in my

mind, as someone who has always been an environmentalist” — that’s a

joke — “is absolutely reckless, irresponsible and disappointing.” Being

an environmentalist until you don’t want to be considered one anymore,

because now you have to make a decision — that’s a tough one. So your

principles are out the window.

“They’re creating reckless legislation,” she says, “which, in my

mind, as someone who has always been an environmentalist, is absolutely

reckless, irresponsible and disappointing. They’re creating this

reckless legislation. They’re sweetening the deal as much as they

possibly can, treating LNG like a loss-leader in a department

store.”

I just have to read those quotes one more time. “They’re creating

this reckless legislation. They’re sweetening the deal as much as they

possibly can, treating LNG like a loss-leader in a department store.”

That from the fiscally conservative B.C. Liberals. That Pandora’s box of

irresponsible activity was unleashed when the NDP took over this file.

What the B.C. Liberals were proposing to do, while I stood against it —

and I agree with the member back then — pales in comparison to what the

B.C. NDP are doing. It pales in comparison.

It’s one of three things. I just don’t understand. It’s either

that we’re blinded by what we’re doing — we just want to deliver what

Christy Clark couldn’t, because that’s just cool — or they don’t

understand it or they’re just opportunistic. I don’t know which of those

it is, but it’s got to be one, because you can’t have it both

ways.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Point taken, from the member for Peace River South. It could be

some combination of all three. I didn’t appreciate that, and now I

do.

Let’s keep going. Same minister. She provided so many juicy

quotes. “One of the things that I find so despicable, the most

despicable almost, with this bill….” She’s referring back to the

Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

Interjection.

[2:40 p.m.]

A. Weaver: I digress a little bit. The member for Peace River North is

getting a little upset at me because I’m using all his quotes up, and he

had some quotes that he wanted to read into the record. I’ve got 20

pages.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: We have lots of them. We jest about these quotes, but it is really

serious. This is important, because this is a government now that

literally hurled abuse. I sat here for four years…. Hurling abuse,

rhetoric, catcalling, name-calling, all sorts of things, for four years

— and now what they propose to do is take what the B.C. Liberals did to

a whole new level. It’s remarkable.

Coming back to the member for Saanich South:

“One of the things that I find so despicable, the most despicable,

almost, with this bill is something that Marc Lee from the Canadian

Centre for Policy Alternatives states so clearly” — and it's this — “A

small step for GHG emissions and a giant leap for greenwashing.

Greenwashing is such a good term for this….

“Now we see legislation coming forward to allow government to

greenwash the LNG industry. How does that make sense? It doesn't. It

doesn't make sense. Obviously, I'm going to be voting against this bill”

— and I certainly hope she carries this forward now — “as well as my

colleagues. I would assume the independents are also doing the

same.”

Those independents did indeed vote — for those bills — against it,

and we will do so again now, except we’re now no longer

independents.

Here comes down another case. I remind you again of the funeral

for the credibility of the member from Nelson that’s ongoing. But here

she says it again, the member for Saanich South:

“I think it comes down to credibility. There’s a problem with

credibility. I want to be proud of this province. I want to be proud of

the government. Whether it is us in government or someone else in

government, it still doesn’t mean I don’t want to be proud of the

decisions and the directions that governments are taking here in this

province.

“We do have amazing opportunities here, but why would we squander

them just to get an election promise through at all costs? It doesn’t

make sense. I’m disappointed. Why don’t you take this time to pull this

bill right off the table, to come back with an amendment that actually

speaks to climate change and emission targets? Then you could see us

support something like that. But until you do, we will not be supporting

this bill.”

Words that I’m not going to argue with. Words that I clearly agree

with. Words I just wish the government chose to follow

themselves.

Now, I’m going to read another quote from another member. I’ve

become quite good friends with this member, and I don’t mean this with

any disrespect at all. I just mean it to…. I recognize that this member

is probably struggling with the decision, because I truly believe this

member’s heart is in the right place. I truly believe this member wants

to do the right thing, and I truly believe this member is frustrated.

I’ll let you guess who this member is. I won’t say the member’s

name.

The member said this on April 23, 2015, to the Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act, Bill 23. We were doing some LNG stuff. This is

what he said:

“They must come through with some kind of approved project at any

cost. The cost was defined in Bill 6 debate around LNG royalties and

corporate taxation. Now we have Bill 23 that opens the door to any

giveaway that government should imagine would materialize a deal. Not

only are they actually opening the door to the favourable provisions

around tax benefits, tax cuts and royalties, but this bill essentially

shields those agreements from Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act scope.

“Not only are these deals going to be offered, at any cost to the

interests of British Columbians, in order to achieve a political benefit

for the B.C. Liberal government — a promise during the election which,

of course, could never have been fulfilled — but even to remotely come

close to actioning the promises that the government made during the

election campaign….

“Having made this great commitment, having now opened the barn doors

to any imaginable benefit to be offered to these corporations, having

hidden it from FOI scope so that the people cannot discover what those

agreements might be, using project development agreements which are more

common in the Third World….”

“Project development agreements more common in the Third World.”

I’m going to have to pause there, because I just had a light bulb go

up.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: You might want to use this later, this quote here: “Project

development agreements which are more common in the Third

World.”

[2:45 p.m.]

We just signed project development agreements on the Port Mann

Bridge, on the highway near Revelstoke — not Port Mann, on the Pattullo

Bridge — and there’s talk about more project development agreements

being signed in the near future, and other infrastructure projects

too.

The member’s own words here are that project development

agreements are more common in the Third World. That’s odd. He gave a

shout-out to me, this member:

“As the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said, it is not just a

generational sellout but a multigenerational sellout. In fact, what we

see is the B.C. Liberal government saying it’s the resource of the

people of B.C. In order for us to save our political skins, we must have

the free hand to give this resource away, perpetuity, to hide that

giveaway from the public and not even require the approval of cabinet to

make that giveaway.”

How little has changed in just a couple of years on this

particular file.

They’re coming back to the main…. Obviously, I’ve got many more.

Hon. Speaker, could you give me a sense of the time on this?

Deputy Speaker: Forty-six minutes remaining.

A. Weaver: Thank you. Oh, great. Let’s go to Vancouver-Fairview then. Let’s

have some comments there.

We’ve been very clear — the B.C. Green party have — all through

this, that we’re never going to support the expansion of this

taxpayer-funded giveaway, and we’re not going to help the B.C. NDP

implement this generational sellout. We’re going to remain focused on

seeing B.C. seize the opportunity that it has to build a sustainable

economy based on the foundation that was outlined in CleanBC. That is

exciting. That is where our focus is.

After years of criticizing the B.C. Liberals for their giveaway of

our natural gas royalties, the B.C. NDP have, as I’ve mentioned, taken

it to a whole new level. Just to provide some context to that, I’d like

to pivot to some of those very salient remarks from the Minister of

Environment, also known as the member for Vancouver-Fairway.

Fraserview?

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Vancouver-Fairview. Fairway is a local grocery store here in town.

I don’t recommend they send any MLAs to represent them here.

Let’s take a look at these. This is a debate on the LNG projects.

Hansard provides so much richness in terms of hypocrisy of

the B.C. NDP on this file. We didn’t even know where to begin. But these

are some fine comments made by the Minister of the Environment, who

knows my frustration on this file, as we’ve talked many times over

CleanBC. I’m very pleased with the direction we’ve got on CleanBC, but

we’re not there yet.

This is what he had to say:

“Let's look at what the benefits are to British Columbia. What we

are seeing in this agreement is a particularly favourable tax regime for

this proponent, one that will be replicated for other proponents in the

future. It allows the proponent to write off capital costs against

profits until they're paid off. It also allows a particular reduction in

the corporate tax, and it has a lower special natural gas LNG tax than

was originally proposed by the government.”

Fair enough. And the B.C. NDP just want to get rid of it

entirely.

“But critically, it locks that in for a period of 25 years. I

listened to the Minister of Finance on CBC, about a week ago, say, ‘Oh,

no, no. We're not binding the hands of future governments. We're simply

saying that if a future government changes a tax regime, the proponent

will be reimbursed dollar for dollar by the people of British Columbia.’

It's sophistry. That's tying the hands of future governments. It's tying

the hands of British Columbians.”

Well, what are we doing right now? Right now this government is

saying: “We’re okay hurling abuse at the B.C. Liberals for not having a

stringent enough tax regime, so what we’re going to do is to eliminate

it entirely, but” — but — “we want to ensure that the companies still

get a credit. And let’s not worry about those capital costs. Let’s

exempt you from PST during the construction.” Like another one of their

great giveaways that was not in the original NDP project development

agreement with Petronas. I mean, I don’t even know where to begin. No,

that was Liberal beforehand.

The Minister of Environment also said this:

“It’s not keeping our environmental options open for government and

the people of B.C. It is not leaving room for a future government to

deal with the environmental policies or to deal with measures that have

costs that are important, that we may deem to be important in the

future.

[2:50 p.m.]

“That is why so many people on this side of the House disagree with

the government’s approach, disagree with the 25-year deals and disagree

with the guaranteeing to Pacific NorthWest LNG and Petronas that they

will not have any additional costs if things change, as we know they

will, over the next 25 years.”

Let’s come back to where we are now. I’ve heard members of this

government talk about IPCC reports. I was a lead author, 1995; on the

second report, 2001; on the third, 2007; on the fourth, 2013. It was

tough on that one, because I was in an election campaign, trying to

write a

chapter on…. Anyway, there as well. I can tell you that these

members understand the importance of climate change. At least they say

that they do, and they’re not shy about telling the electorate that they

do. They’re not shy at all.

They will know from those climate change reports that the latest

one, which I wasn’t part of, suggests that we have 12 years to turn

around. That’s a meaningless number. I’ll be honest with you. Climate

change is going to…. We’re going to have a certain amount. The question

is how much we, as a society, are willing to accept. There’s no magic

number of ten, five, six, seven years.

I will tell you this. The world has already warmed by over a

degree. It’s warmed by over a degree. We know that the level of

CO 2 in the atmosphere is a little over 410 parts per

million. We know that if we do no more than keep existing levels fixed,

we’re going to warm by another 0.6 degrees. That’ll take us to

1.6.

All this talk about 1.5 degrees is hooey, because we’re already

going to break 1.5. We also know the permafrost carbon feedback is going

to give us another 0.1 to 0.2. We know we’re going to hit 1.7, 1.8, 1.9

degrees. That’s regardless of what we do. That’s the

baseline.

For this government to start using sound bites from the Liberals

about how we’ll save China from themselves by shipping them LNG is a

little bit remarkable to me in light of the fact that what the IPCC is

saying, what the climate community is saying, is decarbonization begins

now, not 25, 30 years from now. It’s now. If we want to deal with this

problem, then there is no solution but to start now.

The Paris treaty, signed by Canada, to which this Minister of

Environment went and was proud to be seen at, committed the world to

keeping warming below 2 degrees, substantially below 2 degrees. The

direct translation of that statement is this: effective immediately, we

can put no more money into building new fossil fuel infrastructure that

will be around for decades to come. Decarbonization begins now. Today.

That’s what Paris said.

The reason why I say that is that you don’t build infrastructure

today to tear it down tomorrow. Nobody in the climate science community

is saying shut down the tar sands. Nobody’s saying stop producing oil

and gas.

What we’re saying is that if you care about this problem, then you

have no choice but to stop building new infrastructure today, because

when you build that infrastructure today, you’re committing emissions

for decades to come. You build a coal factory today. It’ll be in place

for 50 years. You’re committing 50 years of coal-burning emissions in

doing so. You build a two-train LNG facility, you’re committing four

megatonnes of emissions in perpetuity.

We all know that LNG Canada actually has an environmental permit

for four trains — not two but four. They have a permit in place for four

trains. Now, this government will say: “Oh, we’ve only given them

approval for two.” Well, they don’t need approval for the other four.

They’ve already got the permit. I can tell you, and I’m willing to stake

a bunch of money on this, that if you build two, you’re going to build

four, because you’ve already invested fixed capital costs that you don’t

have to double-invest. You’ve got the site there, and away we

go.

This is very dangerous. This is a government that is actually

trying to have its cake and eat it too. I commend this government for

the work on CleanBC. It is good public policy. The ZEV mandate — good

public policy. The rollout of infrastructure — good public policy. The

changing of building codes — good public policy. The cottage industry of

small business that will be created as we move down that path, like we

did when Gordon Campbell brought in the LiveSmart program back in 2007 —

a whole cottage industry of small business developed. That will happen

as well. So I’m pleased with that.

At the same time, going after LNG Canada is reckless. It’s

actually giving false hope to the people of Kitimat and Terrace. For a

long time, we’ve been saying this. We understand that the economics of

the rural north are hurting. It’s hurting precisely because of the

all-in attitude that the previous government took to natural gas. You

must diversify economy to make it resilient to the ebb and flow of

commodity prices.

[2:55 p.m.]

The north needs diversification. The way we get diversification is

by bringing in broadband — which this government is doing, after some

pestering — bringing in tech, ensuring that we reinvigorate a

manufacturing sector.

We have access to that clean energy like no one else in the world.

Where are B.C. Hydro and this government in signalling out to the world

that we want you to bring your manufacturing here? We want you to bring

manufacturing to Terrace, to Kitimat, to Prince Rupert, to Burns Lake —

all along that northern corridor where that rail line connects Prince

Rupert to Chicago. The gateway to Asia. The gateway to the eastern

U.S.

That is the hope that we should be focusing on. That is the

hopeful message that we have an opportunity to deliver on, not this

promise for prosperity from a pot of gold that may or may not ever

materialize, a pot of gold that we’re giving away. Those who might reap

the benefits will be multinational shareholders sitting in some office

tower, probably not in Vancouver.

Let’s find some more comments by the member for

Vancouver-Fairview, because he also provided some insight into his

criticism with respect to the previous government’s efforts on this

file. Here’s one, April 5, 2016.

“We have a government that on the one hand talks about a climate

action plan and being a climate leader and, on the other hand, brings in

legislation to govern an industry as if that industry would operate in

complete and total isolation from an overall provincial climate plan,

from commitments made by this government to control and reduce

greenhouse gas emissions overall.

“In reality, when we voted against Bill 2 in the first place, we

said clearly said that we criticized the bill, as did independent

members” — that was me at the time and Vicki Huntington — “mainly

because it excluded upstream greenhouse gas emissions from the ‘world’s

cleanest LNG benchmark’ — which we said isn’t a world’s cleanest LNG

benchmark at all. It’s a sham. It’s illusory.

“You can’t take an entire industry that depends on extraction,

transportation, construction, power, export and ultimate burning of the

fuel and pretend that, if you’re accounting for cleanliness in a mere 30

percent of it and ignoring another 70 percent, you’re developing the

world’s cleanest LNG.”

Yet that is precisely what this government wants to do right now.

It wants LNG Canada to be viewed as the cleanest LNG in the world —

using the exact same language as they criticize the NDP for but not

willing to consider that, in fact, there’s electric compression in the

U.S. Gulf Coast, and that is cleaner.

In order to kind of square that round peg…. In a briefing, I’m

told: “Well, we’re going to count the upstream supply of where the

electricity costs down there.” What about the fact that the natural gas

is conventional versus unconventional? Are you going to be accounting

for that? Because conventional gas is an awful lot easier to get out of

the ground Jed Clampett–style.

That dates me. Should have had a couple of chuckles from some of

the older gentlemen on the other side there. Bubbling crude?

An Hon. Member: We’re all younger than you.

A. Weaver: Sad, sad.

We’ll continue:

“You can’t take an entire industry that depends on extraction,

transportation, construction, power, export and ultimate burning of the

fuel and pretend that, if you’re accounting for cleanliness in a mere 30

percent of it and ignoring 70 percent, you’re developing the world’s

cleanest LNG.

“We have a government that says, ‘Here we have this industry that

will deliver everything for British Columbia’ over here, and over here:

‘British Columbia has been a climate leader. We have demonstrated

climate leadership, and we’re going to continue to demonstrate climate

leadership and be at the head of the pack.’”

I’ll say that again. This is what the member for

Vancouver-Fairview, the Minister of the Environment says. He’s saying

this cynically and with derision. “We have a government that says, ‘Here

we have this industry that will deliver everything for British Columbia’

over here, and over here: ‘British Columbia has been a climate leader.

We have demonstrated climate leadership, and we’re going to continue to

demonstrate leadership and be at the head of the pack.’”

To quote the Minister of Environment: “There is no connection

between these two statements” — hear, hear — “and Bill 19 does nothing

to establish that connection.” So what has changed? All that has changed

is that now you’re in a decision-making position.

[3:00 p.m.]

Rather than recognize that you were on the right side of history

when you stood and pointed out that this was a generational sellout,

you’ve fallen in the same trap — race-for-the-bottom economics in a

desperate attempt to try to land something that Christy Clark

couldn’t.

As far as I can tell, it’s solely for bragging rights. There’s no

economic sense in it, because of the giveaway that you’re doing in terms

of electricity; the fact that the jobs are essentially offshore where we

construct this; the fact that we’re exempting PST, the steel tariff; the

fact that we’re asking all British Columbians to pay a carbon tax but

not LNG Canada. They don’t have to pay the tax above 30 bucks, because

they are going to be cleanest in the world — but not really. So we’ll

change the rules so we can call them the cleanest in the world even

though they’re not.

This is the kind of hypocrisy explained by this government. At any

given time, we have to ask the following question: what do we do about

this hypocrisy? We call it out, yes. We give the opportunity for members

opposite to stand up and join us in voting this down. I’m sure each and

every one of you has your own litany of quotes that you’re just itching

to read into the record, like I am.

I’m looking forward to seeing you actually stand by those quotes,

stand by the fact that you took the responsible position. You recognized

that there has to be something in this for British Columbia. I didn’t

like the direction you were going. I thought you were trying to squeeze

rock from a stone, but never in my wildest dreams did I think you had to

take that stone and put it in a hydraulic press to try to desperately

get water out, like the B.C. NDP have done. I look to your

support.

I look to the B.C. NDP. I ask the question of those backbenchers

in the B.C. NDP, who, I understand, know the seriousness of this

decision before them: what matters to you, to the back bench? Does your

integrity? Do future generations matter? Or are you going to toe the

line and support this direction by government, after having to hear

three years, maybe four, of the same government hurling abuse at members

opposite?

You know, the B.C. NDP don’t own this LNG file. They’re simply

trying to fulfil the B.C. Liberals’ vision. Made a few more minor

tweaks. Gave things away even more. It seems to me that both the B.C.

NDP and, to a lesser extent, ironically — I never thought I’d say this —

the B.C. Liberals….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I’m voting with you now, if you want.

They are both two sides of the same coin. Flip the coin, heads or

tails, it doesn’t really matter. You get LNG and all its negative

pollution on that side. You get corporate welfare on that side. You get

corporate welfare on steroids on this side.

That is really odd, because this is supposedly a left-of-centre

government. But in recent days, we’re starting to see a government more

along the lines of what you might envision in a conservative approach, a

Stephen Harper approach.

I’ll say that for a couple of reasons. Look at the war on drugs.

We’re starting to see, like with the civil forfeiture bill, the act

that’s brought forward…. The B.C. NDP, and particularly the Attorney

General, criticized the B.C. Liberals for bringing in civil forfeiture

law as being draconian, as being police state. Now we have the B.C. NDP

taking it to a whole new level.

We have the B.C. LNG. We have the climate plan. The B.C. NDP

criticized the B.C. Liberals for ignoring the climate plan and focusing

on LNG and giving a generational sellout. Here, sure, we have a climate

plan, but it’s the same sellout but at a higher level. We’ve actually

taken the giveaway and added some steroids to it.

I have much more, and I will speak to my amendment. At this stage,

I would like to move:

[That the motion for second reading on Bill 10, Income Tax

Amendment Act, 2019 , be amended by deleting all the words after

“that” and substitute the words “be not now read a second time as the BC

government has not yet identified a pathway that brings us 100% to our

2030 target, and it is inconsistent to add significant new emissions

sources even as we strive to show the world that it is possible to

develop a low carbon, sustainable economy that can meet our

targets.”]

I have multiple copies of this signed reasoned amendment to pass

to the Table. I’ll wait a few minutes before I speak to the

amendment.

Interjection.

[3:05 p.m.]

A. Weaver: No, this is reasoned. We’ve got the hoist coming.

Deputy Speaker: The member has moved: “That the motion for second reading on Bill

10, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019, be amended by deleting all the words

after ‘that’ and substitute the words ‘be not now read a second time as

the BC government has not yet identified a pathway that brings us 100%

to our 2030 target, and it is inconsistent to add significant new

emissions sources even as we strive to show the world that it is

possible to develop a low carbon, sustainable economy that can meet our

targets.’”

You may proceed.

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: I have a few words to speak in favour of this amendment. First

off, the amendment is important because the amendment peels right back

to the four conditions that the Premier said needed to be satisfied

before this government was going to support LNG. One of those conditions

was that we had to fit it within our climate targets. That’s an

important reason. Now, the climate targets have been articulated both in

CASA as well as in legislation — that is, a 40 percent reduction in

greenhouse gas emissions relative to 2007 levels by 2030, with interim

targets as well.

[3:10 p.m.]

We have identified, in the CleanBC plan, a pathway to reach 75

percent of those emissions, assuming all goes well and everything is

met. Twenty-five percent is the wedge, the gap that has not been met.

What is being proposed with the Income Tax Act is that we are going to

add 3.45 megatonnes of emissions. Those are LNG Canada numbers. Pembina

estimates would be higher. And we have to get to 75 percent

below.

Now, had we identified 100 percent, this reasoned amendment would

have been viewed as out of order, of course. But we have not. So the

fact of the matter is that the Premier has said that we cannot go ahead

as a province with LNG Canada until such time as it fits within our

climate plans. Those are his words, reiterated again by the Deputy

Premier, the Finance Minister, in her opening remarks to this

bill.

The amendment says this. We have not made it that way. We’ve only

identified a pathway to 75 percent of the way there. Were LNG Canada not

to go ahead, the six megatonne gap that exists…. Two-thirds of that

would vaporize because two-thirds of that gap is essentially being added

from LNG Canada.

I would suggest that the members in government should be

resoundingly supporting this amendment, as well, in light of the fact

that they actually told British Columbians that they would only support

LNG if it fit in our climate targets. They have yet to show that that is

the case. The fact that they’re trying to bring this in now is not

consistent with their intentions as singled out to the broader

electorate.

You know, we’ve been pushing, down here in the B.C. Green caucus,

for quite some time, a different vision for how the province of British

Columbia might move forward. Not a vision of saying no but a vision of

capitalizing on our strengths and building an economy that’s resilient

and sustainable, that focuses on our strengths and recognizes our

strategic opportunities that allow us to compete in areas that others

can’t. That is what we’ve been pushing for — a 21st-century economy,

investing in renewable energy infrastructure and transforming the

province into a destination for innovation and for innovative industries

to thrive. This is what should be happening.

Sadly, today I missed a meeting with a shipbuilding group.

Shipbuilding is a classic example of what we should be doing here.

People will say: “Oh, shipbuilding is an old industry.” Think about it

this way. Right now we have, in Richmond, B.C., one of the leading

companies in the world in terms of the development of storage batteries

for ferries. We ship those batteries and that technology to Poland and

Norway, where they build these ferries and they use them. They’re using

B.C. technologies in electric ferries in Europe.

We just had an announcement here that B.C. Ferries is considering

building a passenger transportation ferry from the West Shore to

downtown Victoria. What an ideal opportunity. We know that there are

30-something B.C. ferries in the B.C. fleet. We know that each B.C.

ferry lasts 30-something years.

Why is it that in B.C., we’re not thinking about building a

sustainable, resilient shipbuilding industry? We know the government

could signal in that we’re going to need one ship a year and we’re going

to rotate through our B.C. Ferries fleet every 35 years. This is a place

where we know we can actually put in place standing orders, and we can

feed B.C. innovation into practice by developing the latest and best and

shipping that technology elsewhere.

That is what leadership is. That is what a sustainable, resilient,

new economy is. That would be getting places like Nanaimo. Nanaimo,

which is turning into a satellite home for people who live and work in

Vancouver, should and could go back to its roots and should be having a

vibrant shipbuilding industry there. But again, we have people who are

afraid of showing the leadership that needs to be shown on this

file.

We have a company that builds forklifts in Germany wanting to

relocate to Langford. We have a company that builds electric buses that

moved to Edmonton, and they wanted to be in B.C. There are so many

manufacturing companies that want to come to B.C.

We’ve got Langford mayor Stew Young, who has already zoned an

industrial park for clean business to grow. But what it needs, again, is

the government to send a signal that they want it. It needs government

to identify people within its Premier’s office, within its ministries,

who are going to be the go-to people for industry and manufacturing that

want to come to B.C. — to know who to go and ask questions of. Right now

people don’t know who to ask, because no one quite knows who’s on first

base.

[3:15 p.m.]

These are the opportunities. Truly implementing CleanBC provides a

pathway to a carbon-neutral economy, one in which British Columbia is

free from having to rely upon the boom-and-bust cycles of fossil

fuels.

The International Renewable Energy Agency, for example, recently

reported that there are over ten million jobs in renewable energy — ten

million jobs. At the 2016 UN Climate Change Conference, 48 countries

have agreed already to make 100 percent of their energy production

renewable by 2050. So 48 countries. Not Canada. Not British Columbia.

Not Canada.

The rest of the world is moving into the future while this

government is tethering us to the past. And unfortunately, with this

legislation, we’re allowing LNG Canada to make history for all the wrong

reasons. We’re actually saying that we want to enable the single largest

point source of carbon emissions in this country’s history under the

watch of this government. Is this really what our province wants to be

known for? Is this really what this government wants to be known for? Is

this really what this government wants to risk?

All the good work that’s been done in terms of affordability. All

the good work that’s been done in health care. Very impressed with the

good work being done by the Minister of Health. The good work being done

in child care. The good work being done in the Attorney General’s

office. Is this really what this government wants to risk?

It wants to risk all of that goodwill solely to try to land a

project that Christy Clark couldn’t and, in order to do so, undercut all

of your principles and point out — as I’ve done, and I’m sure members

opposite are — the grand hypocrisy of those last four years that many of

you sat in this House. Many of your words are coming back to haunt you

as you say one thing, but now what is good for the goose is no longer

good for the gander. Is this really what your government wants to be

known for?

Is this really what the members on your back bench…? The member

for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. Is this really what he wants to be

known for? The newly elected member for Nanaimo, who claims to be an

environmentalist. Is this really what she got into politics for? The

member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale. Is this really what she wants to be

known for?

The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. The member for Burnaby

North. Is this really what they want to be known for — standing up and

blindly voting in support of the single biggest point source of

greenhouse gas emissions in Canadian history at a pivotal time in human

history when we have to set the path on decarbonization?

This government wants to take the sellout that they described of

the B.C. Liberals to a whole new level — on steroids. Exempt the PST.

Don’t have to pay the carbon tax. Redefine what “cleanest” is. Give you

Site C power. You don’t have to use electricity in the compression. No

steel tariffs. No PST in construction.

Did you offer them your second babies? Did you offer them to pay

your speculation tax too? I mean, this clearly was a deal written by LNG

Canada for LNG Canada.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Probably got an exemption for that as well. Good point raised by

the member for Peace River South suggesting that we haven’t really got

that on the paper yet. There’s probably going to be an…. Well, there’s

no exemption, because they’re all going to be temporary foreign workers.

Why would you exempt on the employer health tax?

We will be voting against this legislation and in support of this

amendment. I will, at this stage, take my place in the debate. I have so

much more to add. But I look forward to any other amendments that might

come forward. If I get an opportunity at that time, I would love to

speak in favour of anything. But I assume that members opposite will

support this reasoned amendment and move this down the road.

S. Furstenau: I want to give just a few words in support of the amendment moved

by my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Like many members in this House, I live in a small community,

Shawnigan Lake, right in the heart of the Cowichan Valley south of the

Cowichan River, one of the few rivers on the Island that still has a

steelhead run and a chinook salmon run, the salmon that the southern

resident orca rely on for their survival.

[3:20 p.m.]

As an MLA, I have the responsibility and the pleasure to serve

other communities throughout the Cowichan Valley: Cobble Hill, Mill Bay,

Duncan, Lake Cowichan, Youbou, Maple Bay and so many others. I’ve also

had the opportunity to visit numerous communities represented by other

members of this House. From Prince Rupert to Prince George, Keremeos to

Kaslo, Stewart to Smithers, my family and I have made a point of seeing

as much of British Columbia as we can.

I’ve always been struck by the fact that despite the uniqueness of

individual communities in B.C., there is much more that we share in

common than what sets us apart. We all share a love of this beautiful

province that we call home. Everyone wants opportunities for themselves

and their children. Communities across the province have always tackled

challenges by harnessing innovation and entrepreneurial spirit and the

ability to work together.

Every community across the province is on the front line of

climate change. Whether it’s wildfires and floods threatening our towns

and displacing our communities or drought leading to crop failures or

species extinctions, which steal so much of what defines the physical

beauty of our province, B.C.’s communities see and feel the costs of

climate change directly. There is no community in our province where

this is not the case.

We must strive for more than band-aid solutions. We must be

willing to challenge the way we do things in this province. It’s why our

caucus has put so much energy into ensuring CleanBC wasn’t simply a

climate or environmental plan but one that offered a different vision

for the future of our province, a different vision for who we might be

and how we might prosper.

We have to change the way we do things in this prov­ince.

Simply pursuing economic growth while neglecting the health and

well-being of our people, the resilience and adaptability of communities

and the health of our democracy will not set us on a better path. We

need an economy that serves the citizens of B.C. and an economy that

will point us in the direction that we want to go — to a clean,

sustainable, livable future. We owe it to our grandchildren and their

grandchildren to do everything we can today to get us there.

This is the inconsistency of what we have in front of us now. If

we are truly committed to striving for a new vision for our province, to

strengthening our ability to adapt and respond to climate change, then

we must reject doubling down on the status quo. Pursuing an LNG industry

is not offering communities a sustainable opportunity. It’s tying

ourselves to the same boom-and-bust cycles that we see in all fossil

fuel development, and it is contributing to the very thing that is

putting all of our communities most at risk.

We must have the courage to reject the enticement of the status

quo way of doing things. “One more time. One last plant. Next time it

will be different.” These are the refrains of government past. Not this

time. Not one more. Something else. Something better. This is the real

opportunity in front of us.

So no, let’s not accept this government acting like every other

government before it. Our focus must be on building the economic, social

and environmental vision that will allow us to reach our targets and, in

doing so, build healthier, sustainable communities, where our children

and their grandchildren can thrive.

A. Olsen: I stand today to speak in support of my colleague’s amendment to

Bill 10, the Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019.

I see my colleagues in this place with their kids and the joy and

the smiles that they have on their face when they’re able to reconnect

with their children or their grandchildren in this place, and I wonder

where the disconnect happened. I have the benefit, the honour, to be

able to go home at the end of the day and spend time with my family, and

I recognize that I’m one of the very few in this House that has the

ability to do that.

[3:25 p.m.]

It’s not lost on me, the wisdom of those children. I know that

when my colleagues go back home and they reconnect with their families,

with their kids, their children and their grandchildren, they can see

the inspiration and the creativity that comes from those little perfect

human beings.

It’s very frustrating to wind my way through the misdirection, the

miscalculation, the misinformation that is LNG in British Columbia, the

cognitive dissonance. At a time when eight- and nine-year-old children

are standing on the front steps of this building, everybody — our

colleagues, our friends that are in local government — is falling all

over themselves to be a part of that.

Falling all over themselves to have their pictures taken with

those children, in the background of those children with those beautiful

signs that they have written. Elbowing their way into those pictures and

on to the microphone, to be standing with those eight- and nine-year-old

children. Somehow, some way, the decisions that have been made in

buildings just like this have inspired them to become marchers,

protesters, activists at a time in their life when they need to not be

activists — to be anything but protesters.

Somehow they’ve been inspired by their peers that are just a

little bit older than them to be standing outside in front. See, they’re

asking for different decisions to be made. They’re asking their current

government to make different decisions than the previous one. In many

respects, those eight- and nine-year-olds voted for the people in this

place in their school vote.

We see these signs. We see the message on the signs. “We should be

preparing for the future, not fighting for it.” “The climate is

changing. Why aren’t we?” This is what our kids are putting on signs to

bring in front of their Legislature asking, demanding, that their

decision-makers pull themselves up from out of the boil that is in this

place, to make a different decision.

Those kids have been inspired by one particularly powerful young

woman. In fact, by many particularly powerful young people. But it

started with this particularly powerful young woman who decided at some

point that she was going to pull herself out of school — Greta Thunberg

is her name — take herself out of school, make herself a sign and go sit

on the front steps of the Swedish Parliament. Very similar to this

place.

Her words should indeed be a wake-up call. In fact, when we

disconnect LNG from the conversation, you can hear and see Greta

Thunberg be celebrated by many of our friends. Many of our own family

members are calling us to stand with Greta Thunberg. Yet somehow, the

cognitive dissonance in this place, the disconnection, the

misinformation, the misdirection, the miscalculation of this place

allows us to disconnect for just a brief moment in time so that we can

be wooed by only part of this debate — the dog whistle part of this

debate.

Greta Thunberg says: “I am doing this because nobody else is doing

anything.” How sad is that — that a 15-year-old can say with some

certainty that she’s doing this because nobody else is doing anything?

She says: “It is my moral responsibility to do what I can.”

What is our moral responsibility? Do we share in Greta Thunberg’s

moral responsibility to do what we can? I think so.

She says: “I want politicians to prioritize the climate question,

focus on the climate and treat it like a crisis.” It is a crisis. She

says: “I have my books here. But I’m also thinking: ‘What am I missing?

What am I going to learn in school?’ Facts don’t matter any more.

Politicians aren’t listening to the scientists, so why should I

learn?”

[3:30 p.m.]

What sense of hopelessness are we instilling in our children that

they somehow find the words at 15 to string together that their

politicians aren’t listening to scientists, so what is the point of

learning?

We have a responsibility as leaders to respond to Greta’s call,

not by patting her and them, the children out there, on their heads but

by taking real action, by finding the courage within us to relieve

ourselves of the burden that this decision that’s going to be in front

of every member of this House — not just the right and the left, this

side and that side, our side and their side, but by all 87 members in

this place….

We are the ones that can set our government on a path that shows

that we actually care about the problems that our children are

inheriting from us.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We can pretend like we don’t understand them. We can pretend like

we are disconnected from them. But we take those problems home with us.

So at this critical moment, we all have a choice.

The argument that we must do this because there’s nothing else has

long since lost its glow. The CleanBC plan that my colleagues and I

helped build with government shows just how incorrect that view is. Why

we water it down with major fossil fuel expansion is beyond me. We

should be leaning into the opportunities that we have to be an

innovation hub in this country, on this continent, in this hemisphere

and in this world.

I and my colleagues will not support any more taxpayer-funded

gifts to subsidize climate change. That is absurd. It is insanity. I

will be able to look my children in the eyes and tell them that I stood

on their side of history.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the members from the Third Party bringing forward an

amendment and, more importantly, highlighting a lot of the hypocrisy of

the now government and what they’ve brought forward.

We have a lot of concerns, obviously, that we’ve raised not only

earlier in my speech but as members of our side of the House in

opposition will be raising later on that we want to really dive into at

committee stage and really get some solid answers from government on

where they came up with a lot of these issues and numbers and figure out

how they’re going to actually be able to square the circle on some of

the issues, especially that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head

raised.

At this time, we won’t be able to support the amendment and look

forward to further speakers.

[3:35 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is on the amendment moved by the Third Party

Leader: “That the motion for second reading on Bill 10, Income Tax

Amendment Act, 2019, be amended by deleting all the words after ‘that’

and substitute the words ‘be not now read a second time as the BC

government has not yet identified a pathway that brings us 100% to our

2030 budget, and it is inconsistent to add significant new emissions

sources even as we strive to show the world that it is possible to

develop a low carbon, sustainable economy that can meet our

targets.’”

[3:40 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 3

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

NAYS — 80

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Malcolmson

Glumac

Cadieux

Bond

Polak

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Isaacs

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

Foster

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: We are now continuing with the second reading.

On the main motion.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Member, no. I’m going to go with the next

speaker.

Hon. M. Mungall: I rise in support of Bill 10 today, which is our Income Tax

Amendment Act. I’m going to speak to how we came to this place for this

bill. Just for those who might be watching at home, these are some

amendments that are part of our LNG framework that this government

developed in the spring of last year.

How did we come to this place? Well, when I was first appointed

and first sworn in as Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

on July 18, 2017, six days later, Petronas, which was the major backer

of Pacific NorthWest LNG, had decided that they needed to move away from

that project, abandon that and dissolve it, essentially, because of

global market conditions that were not favourable for their particular

project — six days into a new job as minister responsible for this. It

was, of course, a project that had been driven, considerably, by the old

government, as they were starting to develop the new industry of

liquefied natural gas in the province.

[3:45 p.m.]

I should correct myself right there, because of course, liquefied

natural gas is not just a new concept under the previous government. As

the Premier and others have mentioned in the past, it is an industry

that has been explored since the 1980s, since I was a small child. But

it wasn’t until relatively recently that the world started to turn its

head to liquefying natural gas for export as demand for energy grew,

mostly in Asian countries. More and more jurisdictions around the world

that have natural gas started to look at growing this industry from

resources in their jurisdictions. British Columbia, of course, having a

natural gas sector, also looked at developing this industry.

I should mention that those who represent the Peace country in the

northeast of the province can tell you of the Montney play, the Montney

field — however you want to categorize it — in that area. We know that

we have hundreds of years of natural gas available here in British

Columbia alone. Not surprisingly, the British Columbia government of the

day thought that LNG could prove to be an opportunity for B.C. on that

world stage.

Now, I don’t necessarily agree that some of the big promises that

came from the attempt to sell the industry to the public were

necessarily accurate and were necessary in the first place. I think an

honest conversation with British Columbians would have sufficed.

Nevertheless, it wasn’t entirely shocking, necessarily, that those big

promises weren’t realized right away, because it takes time. But it was,

I think, very disappointing — and, I know, very disappointing,

particularly, for communities in the northwest of British Columbia —

when Petronas had to leave their project.

There were many communities, First Nations and non-Indigenous

communities, that were looking at LNG as a serious opportunity for their

economic development. When Petronas left, six days into our government

being in place, I of course heard from those communities on what that

loss meant for them, especially Indigenous communities. For them, they

saw job opportunities leave. They saw training opportunities leave. They

saw opportunities for funding social programs in their communities

leave.

Mayors of non-Indigenous communities were similar. They saw the

job opportunities leave. They saw training opportunities leave. They saw

economic development for their area leave. That was very upsetting for

them, but they didn’t want to see LNG be abandoned entirely by

government. They wanted to see those opportunities be realized, because

there were other projects out there. They had stepped away under the old

government, and they wanted to see those projects, potentially, come

back.

Obviously, as a new government, we had to take their

considerations seriously. We have to take this new industry seriously.

When you’re looking at a $40 billion investment — $24 billion of that in

private investment — coming directly to this province; $23 billion in

revenue coming to this province in the form of taxation over the life of

the project; 10,000 jobs during the construction phase; 950 permanent

jobs in northern B.C…. These are the very reasons why any government,

regardless of political stripe, needs to take a serious look at this

industry.

When one company with a very large project leaves the province

saying, “Global market conditions are disallowing us to continue on,”

it’s why we, as a government, had to say: “Well, why is that? What is

the lay of the land, globally, for this industry?”

[3:50 p.m.]

How does B.C. factor into that lay of the land? Are we going to

see no opportunity at all? If we don’t see any opportunity at all from

this new industry, that means that First Nations across the north,

non-Indigenous communities across the north, who had been working for

years…. I know that the member for Skeena can speak to this personally

because of the work that he did for his community and his nation on this

very issue.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. M. Mungall: As I was saying, the member for Skeena can speak personally from

his experience of working on this very issue for many years. He knows

directly how this is going to benefit his community and the Haisla

Nation, how seriously his community takes this industry and what they

want to see from any government, regardless of political stripe, going

forward, when a company like Petronas had to leave British

Columbia.

They wanted to see a government that was going to look into this.

They wanted to see a government that was going to come back with

solutions. And that’s what we did. We looked at: what were those global

conditions going on? We looked at how B.C. factored into the global lay

of the land. And we looked at what would need to happen if we were going

to actually be competitive on that global scale.

As we did that, we also said that whatever we do, it has to meet

our four conditions. These are principles that we identified in 2011.

These are principles that we said we will uphold if an LNG industry is

going to move forward in British Columbia.

Those four conditions are: a reasonable or a fair rate of return

for B.C.’s resources…. We said that it needs to provide jobs and

training opportunities to British Columbians first and foremost. We said

that there need to be meaningful partnerships with First Nations. We

said that we will not abandon our need to protect our air, land and

water and that any project also must fit within our climate targets.

Those are our four conditions.

We also looked at those competitiveness issues that we had, and we

were able to find a way forward. A year ago we announced that way

forward with our new LNG framework. A large part of that framework was

placing LNG on the same footing as other industries so that they would

be paying the same industrial rate for electricity and that we would be

able to use various tax incentives that other industries have used over

the years, such as the PST deferral that we have. We also looked at the

corporate income tax rate, which is part of this bill here.

Now, if Shell Canada was headquartered in British Columbia, they

would be able to benefit from that income tax credit that we’re doing,

but they’re not. They’re head­quartered in Alberta. But we wanted

to put that in this legislation because we wanted to make sure that it

was clear going forward for the industry as a whole.

Furthermore, what we have done is we have repealed the old

government’s approach that would have allowed for companies to be

indemnified if future governments made any taxation changes or so on. We

took that type of handcuffing off of future governments — for having to

act in the best interests of the citizens of their day — that the

previous government had in place. Those are some of the things that you

would find in this bill.

[3:55 p.m.]

Now, I’ve mentioned that this is all part of our new LNG

framework. I’ve mentioned why I think it’s important that any

government, regardless of political stripe, needs to have taken this

industry seriously by looking at the economic benefits that it has for

communities, the economic benefits that it has for British Columbia as a

whole.

When I talk about $23 billion of revenue to British Columbia over

the life of that project, I immediately think of the things that my

constituents and their children care about. They want to see a universal

child care program. I know that so do many other people in this

House.

They want to see affordable housing. We have a crisis in

affordable housing in this province. In my community, there are two

projects proposed right now that are working with B.C. Housing as we

speak. The amount of units that they’re going to be able to put forward

into our community isn’t nearly enough of what we need in Nelson alone.

The same can be said for Creston, for Salmo, for Kaslo — all communities

that I represent.

Health care, seniors care. Long-term care for seniors —

desperately needed in rural communities all across British Columbia. In

my community, we know that our seniors need to be taken care of. The

struggle to make that happen, after years of massive changes to the

health care system, is quite large — that challenge. We need to move

forward and address that challenge.

The other things that my constituents care about. They care about

climate change. They care about meeting our climate targets. LNG Canada,

this particular project that is actually at a final investment decision,

fits within our climate action plan. The revenue that we’re able to

generate from this project is funding things like support for electric

vehicles so that everybody can reduce their carbon emissions through the

very way in which they travel between our communities.

People in Kaslo. It takes an hour to get to Nelson. Most people in

Kaslo will do a lot of their shopping in Kaslo, but they’ll have to do a

lot of grocery shopping as well in Nelson. Just imagine their

ability….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s have one speech at a time.

Minister, continue.

Hon. M. Mungall: People in Kaslo. It takes an hour to get to Nelson. Now, just

imagine that they’re able to do that, rather than with a combustion

engine, in a zero-emission vehicle that they’re able to purchase — it’s

made more affordable — with the incentives provided by this

government.

I have constituents in Salmo who are excited about getting a heat

pump,