2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act (continued)

S. Robinson

M. Karagianis

S. Fraser

C. Trevena

D. Routley

K. Conroy

R. Fleming

S. Hammell

H. Bains

Hon. T. Lake

J. Kwan

D. Eby

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. T. Lake

[ Page 4979 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2014

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 2.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL

REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT

(continued)

S. Robinson: I left off earlier talking about my concerns that Bill 2 does not really cover upstream emissions.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It doesn’t require GHG reductions. It allows for a free pass, actually permitting terminals to emit tons of pollution without any penalty.

What worries me is that with this plan there is no way that we can meet the B.C. legislated GHG reduction targets, and there’s no plan on how to reduce those targets.

It reminds me of when I was a city councillor not too long ago for the city of Coquitlam. Prior to getting elected in 2008, the city agreed to address climate change by signing the climate action charter. That was in 2007.

As a local government official, I took that signing very seriously. The signing meant that the city was committed to working toward becoming carbon-neutral by 2012 and to reduce energy emissions from city operations by 30 percent by 2015.

Over those years the city was very busy in engaging in energy conservation measures to fulfil the city’s corporate climate action commitments, because I took those commitments, along with my colleagues, very seriously. Some of the activities of the city included installation of LED lights, lighting controls, programmable thermostats, lighting retrofits, waste heat recovery systems and desktop power management software. The city initiated real-time monitoring of building energy consumption and a staff educational program to lower daily energy consumption that is within the control of staff.

Now, this wasn’t free. Our taxpayers paid for it. It was a value that we brought to the city. It was a value of the residents of the city of Coquitlam, that we all needed to work together to reduce our GHG emissions. When I was a city councillor, myself along with my colleagues, we worked together to bring that to fruition.

By the end of 2012 corporate GHG emissions were 17 percent below 2000 levels. The city is well on its way — and I’m very proud of their work — to achieving their 2015 target to reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent. Now that there’s a handle on corporate emissions, the city is focused on reducing the community’s GHG emissions.

[1335]

The city is working with senior levels of government — this level of government as well as federal level of government — to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent below 2007 levels by the year 2031.

So I have a hard time reconciling what’s in this bill before us with the work that was mandated by this government for local governments to start addressing the issue. Again, we have an example of saying one thing, “I want all of you local governments to be addressing this and spending tax dollars, because it’s important that we reduce our GHG emissions….” That was a value and a commitment made by this government a number of years ago.

Here we have a bill that actually flies in contradiction to that. It’s for that reason that I certainly can’t be supporting this bill.

M. Karagianis: I’m happy to take my place in this debate on Bill 2. First of all, I want to say that you occasionally have moments in this House where there’s such an abrupt message that you get from government that it stops you in your tracks, and you have to listen to the debates in a different way than just the normal day-to-day business here.

I think that occurred yesterday here in this House when the member for Chilliwack-Hope regaled us with his views on climate change. I think it’s particularly important, because I think it reveals something about the government, that members of this House sat and listened to what I would consider such an out-of-sync position with what’s going on in the real world around us and with public opinion and with public knowledge about climate change.

I was really quite appalled to hear the kinds of comments that we did coming from a government member, basically denying the science and the truth behind climate change, talking about things like regional climates, basically denying that there’s any human responsibility for climate change and certainly the responsibility that we as human beings on the planet play in trying to find some solutions around it. I thought the entire speech by that member was quite disturbing in the content of it.

But more surprising to me was that the government chose not to put up any following speakers to in fact soften that message or to change that message or to even in some way push back or oppose what that member had said. That, in fact, was the last message we heard from the government side of the House here on this bill, Bill 2.

The government side gave the member quite strong applause for the comments that he’d made. So I think it was very revealing. I think it was one of those little moments where you get a revealing peek into some of the

[ Page 4980 ]

background of the government and how they feel about this. They didn’t even take a moment out of their time to kind of deny or put out an opposing message for the public. So it’s surprising and disturbing. Nonetheless, the government, I guess, will take the responsibility in the long term for not pushing back on those comments.

I stand here today to talk about Bill 2, and I want to just really frame a couple of things. There’s a news article, which I’m going to refer to in a moment, that came out this morning. But I want to frame this within the larger debate that we’ve been having in the province, the larger kind of topic on everybody’s mind, which is the liquid natural gas industry and the potential of that.

Despite what the government continues to claim about this side of the House, I and my colleagues support the liquid natural gas industry. We see that it is a very exciting opportunity for British Columbians. I know we’re going to have a lot more chance to talk about that in the coming days when the specific tax regime bill around liquid natural gas comes before us. But I think it’s important to lay the framework for this in that it is a terrific opportunity for British Columbians.

I would certainly say that the more than over-the-top remarks that we heard from the Premier going into the last election around the over-promise of what liquid natural gas opportunities will be for British Columbians is something that has been frustrating. I think most British Columbians, and I know that the ones I talk to in my community every day, certainly have not believed the promises of trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

[1340]

We have seen, as we’ve moved closer to a reality around a tax regime here, that many of those things have, in fact, changed. The tone and the timbre of those have changed. The kinds of opportunities here — financial and revenue opportunities — have been scaled way back; job expectations scaled down. The government itself clawed back some of their conversation, some of their remarks, and kind of really pulled way back in from what we were hearing a year ago, a year and a half ago, leading into the election.

I think most British Columbians do understand that. Those will be, obviously, some of the opportunities we have to speak to when the bill for the tax structure for the LNG industry comes up.

I think that the reality for all of us, in laying the framework for Bill 2 and the government’s failings on this, is to look at the promises that were made and implied to British Columbians around what they could expect — the thousands of jobs they could expect and the kinds of financial opportunities that were going to be immediate to hand that the government talked about a year ago.

I think the reality is that we strongly believe on this side of the House that British Columbians have to be first and foremost to take advantage of those jobs. I think the government is doing a real ham-fisted job in how they are managing that piece. I mean, the jobs plan itself has been a bit of a catastrophic failure, and I think that the statistics have proven that out time and time again. But it does concern me greatly.

When the government — in particular, the Premier — makes all kinds of promises and then, of course, does something entirely different or can’t fulfil those promises, British Columbians are right to feel skeptical about the job opportunities in the future.

We feel very strongly on this side of the House that British Columbians need to have those jobs first and foremost. Once we have depleted any opportunity for British Columbians, then you may want to look further afield for employment opportunities for others. We will be talking in the days to come about this reliance on temporary foreign workers. The federal government has had to wrestle with this issue and the implications that it’s had in the workforce.

We know that the Premier herself has talked about this. She confuses often the issues between temporary foreign workers and real immigrants. That’s unfortunate when the Premier of your own province can’t get it straight in her mind about the difference between immigrants that come here and want to settle and stay here and the opportunities we want to offer them and the reality for temporary foreign workers who come here, work cheaply and get sent home.

When your own Premier doesn’t understand the difference there, it makes it difficult to have a cogent conversation in public about this. But we do believe that it’s important for good jobs to be given to British Columbians; that the training be there; that those good, strong, well-paying, family-supporting jobs go to British Columbians first and foremost; and that that should be an intrinsic part of any LNG agreement that we sign with any companies.

The government has failed there to fulfil some requirements to make sure that those programs are available to people in the province. That is, again, part of the whole failure of the government to see the province as a whole and all the components of what they provide as being part of a discussion on well-trained individuals for the jobs of the future.

I know that the other piece that we will talk about, before we start talking about Bill 2 in its essence and the environmental issues around this, is making sure that British Columbians have a fair and real return on the revenues that are produced out of this province. We see other provinces. We only have to look next door to Alberta to

[ Page 4981 ]

know what kind of financial security it has provided into that province to have a reasonable and fair return on revenues to the people of Alberta on their oil sands and oil exploration in that province.

I fear, in looking at what the government has foreshadowed here in their bill as being the circumstances around their LNG contracts, that we are not going to see that, that the government in its desperation to try and even remotely fulfil its promises in the last election has, in fact, cut a very poor deal for British Columbians. But we’ll have a chance to canvass that, I’m sure, when that bill comes forward.

[1345]

First Nations communities, obviously, need to be a part of this conversation as equal partners in this province. This is something, I think, that the government has only recently woken up to. I far too frequently believe that the government pays more lip service than real, genuine, substantial service to First Nations communities as partners. We’ll see, in the future, whether or not they can put some genuine and real effort into making sure that First Nations are included and have an equal share and are equal partners in exploration in the future.

I think one of the most critical responsibilities we have to British Columbians really speaks to the heart of Bill 2, and that is the protection that we responsibly, as government, need to provide around the care of our air, our land and our water, including our responsibilities around climate change. Now, government members may not believe that there is such a thing as climate change. It’s stunning in the 21st century that we would have those conversations here among a group of elected officials, but in fact, we did have that in the House yesterday. I believe that Bill 2 speaks very strongly to the issue around our responsibility on climate change.

Now, I alluded earlier to a report that’s come out just recently. In the papers today there has been the release from the Pembina Institute of a report on B.C.’s LNG strategy on global climate change. It’s a report that talks about how a strategy, in fact, is not going to help with global climate change. I just want to refer to a couple of pieces that I think are important in this report.

The Pembina Institute — a highly professional group of experts who, I think, have got all of the right credentials to wade in on this topic in a very credible way — have talked here about analyzing the current B.C. Liberal approach to LNG. They have outlined here some very clear and, I think, disturbing facts which, hopefully, the government will take into consideration. I’m sure they’ll be reading this report today, just as the rest of us have.

One of the strategies that the Premier has talked about to sort of rationalize the whole approach to liquid natural gas is that having a greener fuel resource here in British Columbia somehow changes climate change around the world and by us sending a greener fuel to places like China, we are somehow offsetting interplanetary climate change options. Nothing could be further from the truth. We really have to be responsible to ourselves first.

One of the things the Pembina Institute has said today is that British Columbia’s liquefied natural gas strategy won’t help the problem of global climate change in the absence of stronger policies internationally that limit carbon pollution. This is according to their new research.

Given the climate policies currently in place globally, the B.C. government’s claim that LNG will necessarily displace coal use is inaccurate. By considering coal and gas in isolation, the claim ignores the broader mix of competing energy sources. Without stronger policies that limit carbon, the study finds demand for coal, oil and natural gas continues to increase, pushing the world toward dangerous climate change.

The report goes on to note that policies required to give the world a reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change, commonly held as being less than 2 degrees centigrade of global warming, would cause three main shifts in the global energy mix: less demand for fossil fuels relative to business as usual, less overall energy demand because of better energy efficiency and more demand for renewable and nuclear energy.

Now, those are all things that we certainly need to be considering in the long term, but I do think that this continued reference to somehow business that we do in British Columbia is offsetting some larger climate change in the world, that it’s somehow balancing like a teeter-totter around the world, is silly talk. It’s not anything that we should be considering as a real argument around what we’re doing.

[1350]

Clearly, Bill 2 has outlined the conditions around how we are going to try and rename the LNG industry as green and clean. But in fact, we have failed to consider it in its life cycle, and we do know that 70 percent of the upstream emissions are not being included in this. You can’t, on the one hand, say, “We’re global leaders, and what we’re doing is going to offset things happening elsewhere in the world,” when we’re not even counting the totality of what we’re doing here in British Columbia.

If we’re only compensating for 30 percent of emissions in this province, then I don’t think that we’re fairly representing the entire picture. Because of that, I think that there’s a huge vulnerability in Bill 2. The way it outlines the way that we are going to address and legislate emissions is very flawed.

So if we are not going to recognize the upstream emissions and if we’re only going to recognize a very small component of this, then immediately we can see that there is a huge vulnerability here in how the government has outlined the way we will count and capture the emissions and the way we will address them.

The fact that we are not going to legislate neglects, I think, a huge part of the current situation around carbon capture and carbon recognition. In fact, the B.C. Liberals

[ Page 4982 ]

themselves have scaled back considerably on their whole carbon tax initiative that was such a huge part of the plan under their previous Premier.

I want to talk a little bit about the failings in Bill 2 and why I feel that we cannot support this, that I cannot support this bill. We talk about the fact that the government, under Bill 2, has not looked at the whole picture. They’ve only looked at a portion of it — 30 percent — and counted that and ignored 70 percent of the upstream emissions.

Because there is no actual GHG — greenhouse gas — reductions in this bill, then I don’t understand what the end goal is. Why would you have a bill, why would you put in place a regime, that does not, in fact, reduce greenhouse gas in any way at all?

There’s no cap on emissions here. Companies are not required to actually reduce their carbon footprint. Anyone who comes in here to develop liquid natural gas is not required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is not required in any way to incorporate that as part of their contract with us.

So it seems to me that there’s an immediate failing right now. If liquid natural gas, which is a great opportunity, is being touted as such a green option, why in the world would we allow companies not to be required to reduce their carbon footprint? A huge failing, I think, that’s been laid out in Bill 2.

Under this legislation the LNG terminals are allowed to basically emit 0.16 tonnes of CO 2 for every tonne of LNG exported, without any penalty. Immediately, there is no necessity to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and then there will be no penalty whatsoever on top of that. So any thinking British Columbian says: “How green is that, if you are not requiring any reduction and you’re not going to have any penalties for surpassing the limits that have been put?”

The plan for how offsets are going to play into this, again, is not clear, and frankly, the government has a terrible record on how they’ve managed offsets in the past.

Frankly, I often think that offsets are a bit of a weaselly way to get out of the responsibility of reducing greenhouse gas — if you can just go purchase them someplace else. So I don’t have to do a good job, in my corporation, of reducing greenhouse gas. I don’t have to pay in any way a penalty if I exceed the greenhouse gas emissions levels. And gosh, if I’m a really bad player in this, I can actually go purchase offsets from somebody else who’s doing a great job.

That seems to me to be…. In fact, I think it has proven to be, worldwide, not a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It has failed here in British Columbia. We have never managed to meet our greenhouse gas reduction levels.

[1355]

And if you can buy your way out of it, then what is the point of it? We know that the liquid natural gas industry, as many in the related oil and gas industry, has very deep pockets. There are billions and billions of dollars being spent in this industry, which means that the profits are much greater than that, much greater than billions and billions that can be invested. Of course you’d be able to buy your way out of this.

Why, again, has the government created a regime where they’re making claims that we’re going to have the greenest liquid natural gas? There’s no requirement to reduce, there’s no penalty if you pass the limits that have been defined, and at the end of the day the industry could buy its way out by purchasing from some other, more responsible corporation.

I think that that in itself makes you wonder: what is the end goal here? Is it, in fact, to not…. We’re only looking at judging 30 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions, not the 70 percent upstream. We’re not requiring companies to pay any penalties. We’re not requiring any significant hard reductions and caps. Not only that, but if the industry manages to find a way to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, they can then actually sell their credits to someone else who has been unable to achieve theirs.

It just seems to me that this buying and selling of offsets is a way for companies to either take much longer to be responsible about their greenhouse gas emissions or, in fact, to escape all together. That concerns me a great deal.

The government itself has been chastised by the Auditor General around the government agencies regarding offsets, that we’re buying offsets from a trust at really inflated costs, also at the expense of schools and hospitals. Ultimately, the Auditor General found that the trust that the government was purchasing credits from was, in fact, not eligible. Many of these things were not eligible as offsets. I’m not entirely sure where we’ve seen a record of the government’s performance on this that gives us any security or confidence in their ability to manage this piece of it.

It seems to me that Bill 2 is flawed from the very start. It seems to me that it has been contrived to set up a situation where the liquid natural gas industry has very few constraints, very few hard constraints on it, very few serious initiatives that are going to make it anywhere near the claims that it’s a green industry.

The plans for the incentive program that the government talks about are very unclear, very murky at this point. Again, there’s nothing there to rely on. It’s not like you can turn and point to that as being an alternative. That, I think, gives us more concern. These things just add up one after the other.

The details on the technology fund are not available right now. Again, we will have no idea what those may look like. It could mean anything. It could mean all kinds of change in the government’s position on this at some time in the future. The press release has provided no details on what this technology fund will look like, how it will be operated. There are no details. There’s nowhere

[ Page 4983 ]

to find this information. So that is a huge and significant piece of information that is missing.

Again, when you try and paint a clear picture under Bill 2 of the regime that’s going to be applied to the liquid natural gas industry, all of it seems very, very murky and hard to come to grips with.

If we are, in fact, in reality, unable to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets with this plan and there don’t seem to be plans for any other industry to have to reduce its emissions as well, then I’m not sure where we’re going in the future. I’m not entirely sure.

[1400]

There were a lot of promises made in the past about the greening of British Columbia, and we were, in fact, touted for making some advanced steps a decade ago. But I’m not sure that I see in the future that we’re going any place that is concrete, that is giving us the kind of green future that we are all entitled to and the security that government, in fact, has got a firm view and vision on what the future will look like.

It would seem to me that they’re setting in place, for the liquid natural gas industry itself, targets that are pretty easy to meet, ways to buy themselves out of a hard place — if in fact that is the end goal of it.

It seems to me that Bill 2, as a companion piece to the liquid natural gas tax regime, is a pretty poor substitute for hard targets and for the kind of hard policy that British Columbians are looking for. The legislation lacks so many important details, and it really gives the government, also, I think, the ultimate out clause here, which is that at any time they can, with the stroke of a pen, change the rules around this. They can make alterations to this, and they can weaken it at any time that they feel the pressure from the industry itself.

Now, we already know that the tax regime for liquid natural gas has been played out in public, in the headlines of the newspapers, as the industry itself has kind of put pressure on government in a very public way. They know that the government boxed themselves into a pretty sharp little corner 18 months ago by making declarations of what the industry was going to produce.

We have already seen that the industry knows how to play hardball with us. I fear that as with many things this government does, the clumsiness with which they operate has led to us negotiating in public on the revenue and resources possible for the future of British Columbia. And the fact is that with the Bill 2 companion piece on this, the government has given itself the opportunity to make changes at any time. One would expect it’s to please the corporations, not to please British Columbians.

So far, much of what I’ve seen here are ways for the corporations to weasel out of responsibilities or buy their way out of responsibilities. I hardly think that if the government has the ability to change the rules around greenhouse gas emissions at any time, they are going to do it to the benefit of British Columbians. We would have seen many more hard targets, and we would have seen a much more significant regime than what’s been laid out here.

If everything can be done by regulation in the future, even the benchmarks of 0.16 tonnes of CO 2 can be changed at any time. It’s not enshrined in any way in the legislation. All of these things are by regulation, which can be changed by the whim of government at any time. Once again, that is a failing of this piece of legislation. Overall, it just seems that piece by piece — each and every critical piece of this bill — as you read through it and as you look at it clause by clause, it fails in any way to meet the test, I think, for British Columbians to have faith in and expect a greener future out of these promises by government.

It’s interesting that the legislation also repeals the 2008 Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. Now, there was a lot of controversy around this at the time. European countries were working very hard to try and find a balance between cap and trade and find ways to really and truly cap emissions and find a way to make the whole concept of trading offsets work. That’s been going on for a decade in Europe. They have, I think, grappled with many of the issues around that.

It seems a step backward for us to now dissolve that, to repeal the greenhouse gas emission act and to replace it with Bill 2. Most observers of this, from environmental organizations to groups like Pembina to other academics, have all basically decried this bill as not having the clarity and depth that we need. That’s too bad, because this is the companion piece to the liquid natural gas tax regime. If they don’t both work hand in hand, then I think there’s going to be trouble in the future and there will continue to be skepticism.

[1405]

If we want the liquid natural gas industry to be successful — and we do — I think we have got to approach it in a much more polished and professional way than what we’ve seen this government do. They have, I think, contrived a bad contract, a bad deal in their tax regime. I’ll talk more about that when that bill comes forward to the House.

Certainly, Bill 2, in setting out the environmental package around this, is, I think, a failure from top to bottom. There are so many pieces of this that fail the test of real environmental responsibility that I certainly will not be able to support this. I will join my colleagues on this side of the House to say no, we will not support Bill 2.

S. Fraser: It’s always a pleasure and an honour to stand in this place and debate bills. I’m here today to take my

part in the debate on Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

At the outset, though, I’d like to say that on this side of the House we do see potential for LNG. Natural gas, of course, is a commodity in this province, a valuable commodity, as are many other commodities in the province.

[ Page 4984 ]

Moving forward with a bill that this government has brought forward on the one commodity…. It seems to be the only focus of this government. However, it would be…. For myself, as the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, I would have a hard time voting against a bill that would bring in, for instance — the quote was from the Premier — “the cleanest natural gas in the world.” But this bill does nothing of the kind.

It is somewhat frustrating as a member in this place to be debating a bill that purports to do something but does not. I truly would like to vote for a bill that would actually provide for the cleanest natural gas in the world. I’m talking about greenhouse gas emissions, of course, primarily, but not exclusively.

We have four conditions as the official opposition. The LNG industry is too important to get wrong. There is potential there, but in order to ensure that it moves ahead, it must have four conditions, which I will refer to right now.

That includes, one, including express guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians first. Provide a fair return for our resource to the taxpayers, to the owners of the resource. Thirdly, include benefits for First Nations. I will speak at length to this a little bit later. I’m honoured also to be the spokesperson for Aboriginal Relations for the official opposition. This is an industry that is in many traditional territories.

I’ll refer to the Tsilhqot’in decision as I speak to this a little bit later. We have a new landscape in the province since the Roger William decision has come down in the province, finding title, assessing title for the first time on a large amount of land in the Chilcotin. The Tsilhqot’in people in the court system for over 20 years…. The courts found that there is title. They’ve determined title to 1,750 square kilometres in the Chilcotin for the Tsilhqot’in people. I applaud the perseverance and the patience of the Tsilhqot’in people in their bid to get justice.

As we see that unfold, which I will refer to later, with First Nations across the province recognizing the importance of that court decision and the importance of recognizing title, it will have a definite effect on all of our commodities, all of our resources on the land base, including LNG.

The fourth condition is to protect our air, land and water, including living up to our climate commitments.

Bill 2, as it’s stated, is so vague it’s hard to debate. Many of the terms and issues that we need to discuss as part of this bill are not even included in the bill. It’s a vague, duplicitous document in many ways. The legislation is very short on details.

[1410]

Approximately 25 percent of the bill allows government to change various regulations at a later date, with the stroke of a pen, through cabinet regulations. It would never come to this House.

How could anyone be expected to vote on a bill that leaves so much in question after the bill would be passed? It would be irresponsible of members of this House to vote in favour of any such bill — just because of its specific vagueness.

Furthermore, the only part of the legislation that sets or even mentions the 0.16 greenhouse gas intensity levels is the

schedule at the end of the bill. The

schedule can be changed or added to or subtracted from at any moment subsequent to this bill. LNG could even be exempt entirely from the legislation if this government chose to.

Now, the government would have to be at least in part going against their word to do such a thing. But we have numerous examples in this House of that happening. To win every election that I’ve been involved in, and I’ve been in three…. Promises have been made specifically to win the election that have never been kept — the polar opposite, actually.

Whether it’s “We will not sell B.C. Rail” or “We will honour negotiated contracts,” there’s a lengthy list of promises made that have never been kept. So it isn’t beyond the realm of consideration that this government could even exempt LNG entirely from the legislation, which would render the entire Bill 2 worthless and meaningless, and this debate would be worthless and meaningless. That’s a big problem. The legislation does not cover upstream emissions.

Our fourth condition from the opposition is protecting our air, land and water, including living up to our climate commitments. I’m not sure how far-ranging this goes, but yesterday I was interested in seeing my colleague from the Liberal side, the member for Chilliwack-Hope, bring into question climate change.

As legislators, I get a little scared about that from a government that’s bringing in legislation purported to address climate needs in conjunction with Bill 2, in conjunction with LNG production that they’re planning. If there isn’t a belief that climate change exists, then there is not really any incentive to make meaningful changes or bring in meaningful legislation to address climate change. That, if you were a cynic, which I try not to be, could be considered a reason for bringing in such a vague and meaningless piece of legislation.

The greenhouse gas intensity benchmark of 0.16 CO 2 per tonne of LNG produced only includes facility greenhouse gas emissions. Most people know at this point from the conversation around LNG that carbon pollution is released all along the LNG supply chain, if you will. If you are on a rig drilling for gas in the northeast of this province, there are emissions, significant emissions in some cases, right from that point of the well itself where it’s drilled.

From the point where the shale gas is extracted to the point where it is burned for…. In most cases, if there are actual LNG plants created, the production plants to liquefy the LNG, that’s the other end of the supply chain. At that point of the supply chain if we get the supposed five numbers of LNG plants in the province, most of

[ Page 4985 ]

those plants will need to burn a significant amount of their own product to produce the electricity — the vast amount of energy that’s required to liquefy this commodity.

[1415]

The liquefication is done by cooling. The cooling, to the extent that it changes the state of a normally gaseous element, at atmospheric pressure — because LNG is lighter than air — to a liquid, actually reduces its volume, if I recall, by I think 1,600 times. So liquefication is a very important part of being able to export this commodity. You can contract the volume of it 1,600 times as it changes state to liquid, but the amount of power, of electricity, required to do this liquefication is astronomical.

The cost for the industry in most cases, if not all, to be able liquefy this material for export…. The cost for the hydro — if they were to use hydro power, electrical power — would be cost prohibitive in the extreme. The alternative by industry is to burn the gas and use that gas to generate the massive power needed to liquefy the natural gas.

That is the supply chain, and this is called the greenhouse gas life cycle. In the B.C. LNG context, life cycle, greenhouse gas emissions, include every point from the wellhead, the extraction point that I cited earlier, to the waterline, which is the point where the LNG leaves the province for export onto the tanker.

This bill does not include the vast majority of that supply chain. The extraction point to the waterline, right up to the plant that liquefies it — about 70 percent of emissions happen along that chain. This bill does not even apply to that. So far, there is nothing that applies to that.

It’s one thing to be able to say you’re going to have the cleanest LNG in the world, but it’s another thing to omit 70 percent of the emissions that the legislation needs to address if it’s to be accurate to say it’s the cleanest LNG in the world. You can’t have it both ways. You have to have a system in place that addresses the greenhouse gases from extraction point to the shipping point.

The legislation offers LNG companies some flexibility to meet the greenhouse gas intensity benchmark through offsets or technology fund contributions. Companies are not required to actually reduce their carbon emissions, their carbon footprint. There is no guarantee that that will happen at all in this bill.

Now, the Liberals picked 0.16 CO 2 per tonne of LNG produced as their benchmark, because in theory, that could represent the cleanest LNG in the world. However, since it doesn’t include the vast majority of the greenhouse gas emissions, it is irrelevant. The number is actually meaningless. And worse than meaningless, it’s a misrepresentation of the truth — simply not true. We would not be the cleanest LNG in the world.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, if this government wanted to, under this legislation they could exempt LNG completely from the legislation, if they chose to do so at a later date. They’ve built it into the legislation.

How could anyone vote in favour of such a bill? If those watching were wondering which way I was going to vote on this, I’m just trying to subtly allude to that. I will be voting against this bill, and I will continue to explain why.

[1420]

Today we had an

article in the Vancouver Sun . It was written by Larry Pynn. Larry has been a reporter for the Sun for a while.

As a matter of fact, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast and myself, several years ago, went on a tour of an underground limestone cave on Texada Island — a cave system, a karst system — led by Paul Griffiths, who is the pre-eminent expert on caves and karst in this province. Larry was along to document that for the press, so we got to know him pretty well — when you’re crawling around hundreds of feet underground with solid rock all around you.

I’m going to take the opportunity to read from his

article today because it captures an important event that happened today, the releasing of a report by the Pembina Institute. The timeliness of this is just…. It’s too hard to not refer to this. The environmental benefits of LNG exports are being exaggerated, as we’ll see, in the absence of any strong policy — certainly, in the absence of any strong policies in Bill 2 — to combat climate change.

From Larry Pynn’s report today:

“The report seeks to put the lie to the B.C.’s government claim in the February 2014 throne speech that exporting LNG is ‘the greatest single step British Columbia can take to fight climate change.’”

Hon. Speaker, I realize I used a word I’m not supposed to use here, although it was in sort of a global sense that it was used. I apologize and withdraw that if that was inappropriate. It wasn’t aimed at anyone, and if it was perceived that way, I would apologize. I’ll continue, and if I see such a word throughout this article, I shall try to refrain from using it.

“Proponents of LNG terminals and pipelines have also used their environmental assessment applications to argue that greenhouse gas emissions from their projects are not significant, the report finds. The primary argument is that LNG exports allow reductions in coal use for electricity generation in Asia, leading to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

“The report, funded by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, generally accepts the position that liquefied natural gas results in fewer greenhouse gases than coal. But it also warns that pitting one energy source against the other in isolation provides a skewed view of LNG’s benefits.

“‘The overall mix of natural gas, coal, nuclear, renewable energy and energy efficiency determines overall greenhouse gas emissions, and considering natural gas and coal in isolation misses this bigger picture,’ it concludes.

“The report cites three main shifts in climate change policies required by nations producing and consuming natural gas to ‘give the world an acceptable chance of avoiding’ warming by 2 degrees Celsius. They include reduced demand for all fossil fuels, more demand for renewable and nuclear energy, and less overall energy demand because of increasing energy efficiency and conservation. The 2-degree avoidance target was formally adopted by the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in 2009.

“If these policies are implemented, long-term projections for natural gas demand would peak around the year 2030 and drop below

[ Page 4986 ]

current levels by mid-century, the report predicts. That would involve stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million.

“In the absence of such policies, natural gas demand continues to increase beyond 2030 — until the end of the century in some models. Under a business-as-usual scenario, concentrations could reach 650 to 850 parts per million by 2100.

“‘In this scenario, natural gas, like other fossil fuels, does not contribute to a transition to a low-carbon economy but rather reinforces the likely outcome of dangerous climate change,’ the report concluded.

[1425]

“Because the policies are not currently in place, claiming that natural gas, and specifically LNG in B.C., is a climate solution” — claiming that — “is inaccurate.”

I think Larry is being polite here, but I will continue.

“Making more natural gas available is unlikely to change that conclusion unless the current gulf in an international policy is bridged.

“Communications Officer David Karn released a statement on behalf of the Ministry of Environment, saying B.C. is an international climate action leader through initiatives, such as the carbon tax, and that ‘global energy systems are complex and large and take time to change. Preventing other countries from accessing low-cost, reliable energy as they begin to develop is not what we believe in,’ the statement said. ‘Supplying the cleanest energy products we can contributes to global development and fighting global climate change.’

“The B.C. LNG Developers Alliance did not immediately respond to the report. To increase the likelihood that LNG from the province can contribute to global efforts to avoid 2 degrees of warming, the report notes, the province should apply a consistent, evidence-based, approach in assessing energy exports; strengthen domestic efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas and LNG development; and play an increasingly proactive role on climate change and global management of methane from burning natural gas.

“The report was written by the B.C. office of the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental think tank working towards clean energy solutions in Canada.”

The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions was created in 2008 with a major endowment from the B.C. Ministry of Environment.

Thank you, Larry Pynn.

I want to touch on some of his statements. The suggestion that is being made through this bill — and by the Premier, repeatedly, and the ministers responsible — is that our liquefied natural gas will reduce the carbon footprint in other countries like China, as though China would shut down coal-fired plants or oil-fired plants or other types of more polluting, greenhouse gas–wise, energy sources — hydrocarbons.

I went to the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region conference in Whistler this year. This is a large think tank of all the western provinces from Saskatchewan west and all of the northwestern states in the United States. They meet annually at these types of conventions.

The Premier spoke at that convention this year, and I listened with interest. She referred to the cleanest LNG in the world that will reduce…. She actually stated the amount of carbon reduction that we would be seeing as China, as Asia, replaced their coal-burning energy-producing plants with British Columbia’s natural gas.

Following her comments, her speech, I went to one of the workshops held. Many workshops were held at this Pacific NorthWest Economic Region conference. They had a pre-eminent expert on Asian export. I know he was referring to the Premier’s statements when he was saying this, because it was pretty direct.

He said that while it is true that natural gas is cleaner than, say, coal…. There is half of the carbon released from natural gas than there is from coal. While that’s true, and while it’s true that China and Asian countries have an insatiable appetite for LNG as their economies grow, it is also true that they have an insatiable appetite for all hydrocarbons, including coal and oil — heavy oil — and that there is no link between them importing natural gas from B.C. or elsewhere and any reduction in coal use for energy production or in oil use for energy production. All will increase.

[1430]

I think the minister was at that conference too. I don’t know if he was at that workshop. But this is not a left-wing think tank, the Pacific Northwest Economic Region. These are industry experts who were explaining that indeed British Columbia’s role here will potentially have no impact at all on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Now, we do want to see economic development in this province, and LNG can be a part of that. I would reiterate that it’s not the only part of that. Putting all the eggs in one basket is risky, shall we say. But getting the gas out of the ground and moving it by pipelines that haven’t been developed yet, which must be developed, to production plants that liquefy the natural gas has a bunch of challenges.

As aboriginal relations spokesperson for the opposition, this whole picture needs to include respect and recognition for the territories, the many territories of many First Nations that would be affected. We support the development of LNG if it respects First Nations and includes them in the benefits in a real way, as partners, so aboriginal people can share in the opportunities for employment and revenues and more independent and thriving communities.

But there are problems here. This government has been addressing First Nations issues, in many cases, with a certain flippancy. I’m going to harken back to not too long ago. I know the minister is here, the Minister of Environment. There was an order-in-council, a flip-flop on an order-in-council, and without any consultation….

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, I’d remind the member that who is or is not in the chamber is not something that the member should be making reference to.

S. Fraser: Oh, I’m sorry, hon. Speaker. I apologize

[ Page 4987 ]

for that.

There was an order-in-council brought in by this government, and the Minister of Environment had to actually pull back from this as First Nations raised their extreme opposition to the move. Without any consultation, the government used an order-in-council exempting ski resorts, which has no real bearing here, and natural gas plants from the environmental assessment process. This is not a way to build trust and relationships with the First Nations, who must be a part of this resource — natural gas extraction, transportation and liquefication.

That is not a good way to build a partnership and build trust. Following the Tsilhqot’in decision that actually declared title, that recognized rights and title to First Nations all over this province, not just in the Chilcotin and not just for the Tsilhqot’in Nation — the six nations in the Tsilhqot’in nations…. Government needs to respect that across the province.

The First Nations leadership made it clear that the flagrant disrespect shown to them by this government in its unilateral move would not be tolerated in future proceedings specifically dealing with LNG in this province.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs stated: “In a stunningly stupid move, the province has effectively declared war on all British Columbia First Nations and jeopardized all LNG discussions throughout the entire province of British Columbia.” Grand Chief Stewart Phillip is known for his oratory skills, and we have certainly heard some of that here today.

This government needs to get that right, and they have not got it right yet. Removing protections and oversights when it comes to LNG production in this province cannot be done unilaterally. It needs to be done in consultation, real consultation, with First Nations and especially affecting those First Nations in the territories involved, whether it’s for the extraction, the transportation or the liquefication and transport of the LNG.

[1435]

I’d like to take this moment to cite that in my constituency, there is a proposal that’s gone forward and a partnership that was developed in a letter of understanding, developed between the Huu-ay-aht First Nations — who I’ll be meeting with again later this month to discuss this at their AGM — and a company called Steelhead LNG.

Now, the proposal would mean a plant being built, liquefication, and a terminal built in the Alberni Inlet, not too far from Port Alberni in Huu-ay-aht territory. There are a lot of hurdles that have to happen with that.

I see that the red light is on, hon. Speaker. I thank you very much and look forward to more of the debate.

C. Trevena: I’m very pleased to be standing here and talking again about Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. I say “talking again” because last week I had the opportunity to speak to a hoist motion that was introduced by our friend the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who suggested that this bill be hoisted for six months so that we had the time to basically get it right.

It’s very interesting that the government didn’t participate in that debate and decided that it wasn’t worthwhile, to just stand back and say: “Look, this is too important for us, as a province, to get it right, so we’re going to just steamroller ahead with it.” I think that the government still has that opportunity, although it seems to be that the concept of debate is once again becoming more limited in this chamber.

We are speaking on this side of the House with our concerns about it and exploring our concerns about it but not hearing that much from the government benches. During my remarks I hope to explore a little bit of maybe why that is the case, why it is a one-sided debate.

I think it’s partly, really, the government’s uncertainty about their own position. From proponents, we have that we need to do something to fight climate change to those who say that there is no such thing as climate change and that we do live on a flat earth and everything’s going to be just fine if we sit back and watch it all happen. I’ll explore that a little more.

First, I would like to set the record straight. When we did vote in favour of the motion to put this back for six months to give it the opportunity to have a full debate, a full provincial discussion, international discussion, about how we should go ahead with this…. We had a vote, and as I say, the government refused to stand and agree with us on the need for a bit more thoughtful consideration, and at that time and since then — and, in fact, preceding that time — has been barracking us about how we’re against LNG and how we’re not supporting the industry. You know, ministers continue to do so.

I find it very interesting that we keep having that because we’re taking a stand on a very important part of the development of the LNG industry. We are actually supportive of the industry.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for North Island has the floor.

C. Trevena: It’s nice that the minister does want to participate in the debate. The minister has the opportunity to participate in this debate after I’ve finished speaking. I look forward to hearing that because we have not been hearing enough from the government side.

I hope that when I sit down, take my place, that the minister will use the opportunity, that, instead of just making loud noises and heckling throughout a speech, he has the actual dignity for the people of B.C. — whom he is supposed to represent, particularly as he’s also the Deputy Premier — that he will show respect to the people

[ Page 4988 ]

of B.C. and actually address this issue on the floor of the House rather than just heckling.

Interjections.

C. Trevena: While the minister continues to heckle and refuses to participate in the debate, I would like to reiterate the fact that we are actually, as I mentioned before, in favour of the industry, but it’s got to be done right, and we have conditions.

Like the Premier has her conditions over Enbridge and the northern gateway pipeline, we have some consideration for what we want to see going forward for LNG. These are quite simple.

[1440]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. The Member for North Island currently has the floor.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

C. Trevena: While the debate continues around, I’d like to proceed with my few remarks — I don’t have that many — about this bill. I do anticipate a healthy response from the Minister of Natural Gas, from the Minister of Justice and from others on that side of the House who have been using my opportunity to interject their remarks.

As I was saying, we are, despite….

Interjection.

C. Trevena: And the Minister of Transportation, who wants to see LNG on the ferries, which is an alternative. I think it’s great to see this level of debate. I just look forward to hearing it after I have finished speaking.

Interjection.

C. Trevena: The Minister of Transportation has said he doesn’t support LNG. I’m looking forward to seeing what is going to happen with the B.C. Ferries fleet that is going to be converted to LNG.

This side of the House wants to see a healthy LNG industry. A healthy LNG industry isn’t just one where it’s a race to the bottom. “Let’s sell it out. Let’s give the lowest tax rates. Whatever.”

What we want to see is an LNG industry that includes jobs and training opportunities for all British Columbians so that British Columbians come first and foremost, that they get the opportunities for the jobs and for the training.

We want to see…. We’ll have the opportunity when we get around to debating Bill 6. I hope we actually have members from the government side standing up and participating in that debate, because they clearly really don’t care about the climate more than for a few cheap heckles on this debate.

We need to have a fair return for our resource. It is our resource, and we need to make sure that all the people of B.C. get that opportunity, get the return. As my friend from Alberni–Pacific Rim was talking about, we’ve got to make sure that this includes First Nations, that we are talking all of B.C., not just the industrial part of B.C. but the whole of B.C. We’ve really got to ensure that First Nations are fully included in this.

Our fourth condition, which is pertinent to this debate — and this is why we’re standing up and wanting to engage in debate with the government — is that we’ve got to ensure that it protects our air, land and water and lives up to our climate commitments.

That isn’t too hard, I would have thought, a condition to meet — that we protect our air, land and water and we live up to our climate commitments. It was not this side of the House that initially put down those conditions for meeting our emissions targets. It was not this side of the House that put down, back in 2007-2008, reduction levels that we had to meet to combat climate change.

At that time, I think it was a very brave move by the then Premier Gordon Campbell — and I mentioned this in my previous remarks — to have the change of heart to see that the role of climate change, and the role of a government’s involvement in fighting climate change, was going to be huge.

B.C. led the way with its stand on climate change, with its stand on the environment. Much though I found huge amounts of what the then Premier, Mr. Campbell, did absolutely objectionable — I found he’s done huge damage to this province, and his successors continue to do huge damage to this province — his climate change initiatives were bold. They put us not just in the queue but put us in front. We were actually doing something. We had a carbon tax. We had a commitment to cap-and-trade.

Okay, there was the shell game of the Pacific Carbon Trust. After the Attorney General ripped that apart, we no longer have the Pacific Carbon Trust. But there were definite moves. There were targets and timelines of how we in B.C. were going to reduce our emissions, how we were going to ensure that we were going to meet targets to improve the climate, fight against climate change here in B.C. and therefore around the world.

[1445]

We were looking at doing a partnership with California, with the western provinces. This has gone by the wayside. It’s gone by the wayside in three ways. One is the refusal to increase the carbon tax, when it’s been proven that carbon tax is — okay, on this side of the House we didn’t initially go along with it — an extremely effective way

[ Page 4989 ]

of capping emissions. Extremely effective, but we’re not going to see that anymore. This Premier — who decides that if you say it once and it sounds good, we’re going to stick with it, at least until the photos are taken — is not allowing a carbon tax increase.

The Pacific Carbon Trust. As I say, really, it was an iffy. It was a bit of a shell game, so that’s gone. Now in this bill we see the final nail in the coffin of the previous Premier’s, Gordon Campbell’s, environmental vision that he had. That’s gone. Page 38 of this bill, right when we get to the transitional, provisional, repeal and consequential amendments: repealed. Point 55: “The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, 2008…is repealed.” What are we left with? We’re not left with that much. We’re left with these targets that, with the present plans for the LNG industry, have no ability to be met.

There is absolutely no way that the government is going to meet its targets on greenhouse gas reductions with the plans that it’s got for this industry. We are supportive of the industry, but we also have to be supportive of our environment. We’ve got to make sure. We’ve got to be responsible here, not just start talking in front of the cameras about: “It’s okay. By us having an LNG industry, it’s going to make China clean.”

Really, I have worked hard at trying to make that connection. I’ve got to say that when you read the details about what our LNG industry is going to look like as a result of this bill and the Premier’s statement that this is all going to be wonderful for China, it beggars belief. It really does.

We’re moving on. We on this side of the House would like to see a healthy LNG industry, one that will actually be clean, but unfortunately, what we have in this bill does not really allow that. What we’ve seen here is a shift from the whole LNG industry and making sure that that was going to be the cleanest. These were the Premier’s words: “It’s going to be the cleanest in the world. We’re going to have the cleanest LNG in the world.” Well, now she seems to be talking just about the facilities, not the whole of the industry. If you do that, it means that we are actually missing a huge amount of greenhouse gases.

The Pembina Institute has provided a breakdown of the sources of greenhouse gases from LNG through its life cycle. That’s basically from when you are pumping out of the ground to when you’re shipping it on the vessel, getting it out to help the Chinese become clean.

Based on the numbers that the Pembina Institute have put together, 30 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions come from the terminals, and 70 percent come from what are called upstream sources. That includes pipelines and the whole process of extracting shale gas. That 70 percent of greenhouse gases that are produced in the LNG industry are not actually produced at the facilities, so this bill will only capture 30 percent of the emissions. How’s that going to create the greenest LNG industry? It does belie belief.

Going back a few years, going back to the previous Premier’s time, when we had the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which I believe was back in 2008, 2007-2008. That’s where we actually first got our legislated targets for what we wanted to get for how much greenhouse gases we could have in our environment before we were causing…. We were starting to bring it down to levels that would be acceptable in fighting climate change.

[1450]

I know many governments have decided it’s not worth fighting climate change, and I know that our federal government is backing down from fighting climate change. But it is something that we really have to show leadership on. It is not something we can deny. It’s not something we can put our heads in the sand or pretend that it doesn’t really exist or say that it’s a theistic debate, as one of the members was discussing yesterday. It’s real, and we have a responsibility as leaders to take the lead on this.

Back in 2007-2008 we got the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act. It set the levels — so it’s 2008 — compared to 2007 levels. At that time emissions had to be reduced by a minimum of 33 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 — pretty dramatic, at 2007 levels. Still people wanted to go further, but this is what we had. There were then interim reduction targets for 2012 and 2016, which were set by ministerial order.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act required that the annual carbon pollution from all activities, which includes transportation, buildings, agriculture, forestry and other industries, be below 43 million tonnes by 2020 — so that’s in another six years — and below 13 million tonnes by 2050.

Based on the 2012 greenhouse gas inventory report, the total greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. were 61½ million tonnes. At the moment B.C. has achieved a 4.4 percent reduction from 2007 emissions. We’re not doing very well.

Look at the LNG industry. Assuming that, with standard practice, one typical LNG terminal and the associated shale gas development…. I think we’ve got to look at the whole package. The government doesn’t want to look at the whole package, but we have to look at the whole package, literally, from the well to the plant to the shipping. That would result, in a typical one, in 12 to 13 million tonnes of carbon pollution per year.

Now, we all know that the government is anticipating…. We all want to see a healthy industry. The government is estimating there are going to be five LNG terminals, LNG plants. My colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim mentioned the one in his constituency. We have Discovery LNG in Campbell River, and people are looking at that with anticipation. So we have five LNG terminals, perhaps two on the Island — who knows? — that they’ll move ahead. If that development were to occur, the resulting carbon emissions would be up to 75 million tonnes per year.

[ Page 4990 ]

Now, that’s more than B.C.’s current emissions totally — transportation, forestry, agriculture, housing, heating, automotive sector, everything. That’s with five. If only one plant goes forward — so estimating that 13 million tonnes of greenhouse gases every year — even that’s going to impact our ability to meet any targets that have been set for climate change.

One LNG plant would represent 20 percent of our current emissions, 30 percent of our 2020 greenhouse gas target and 100 percent of our 2050 greenhouse gas target. That means we can’t do anything else. Don’t think about turning on your heat. Don’t think about driving your car. Don’t think about somebody working in a mill. That’s it. We’ve done it — one LNG facility.

That’s why I would hope that we actually had a serious debate about this bill. If we’re to live up to these targets that are legislated, that are important…. If we are to fight climate change, as we have a responsibility to do, we have to get it right. At the moment Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, is hugely defective. It’s missing…. There’s no way we can do it.

[1455]

What I would hope is that the government gets serious — this is why I supported the hoist motion — and starts dealing with it now so that by 2050 we actually have an LNG industry that isn’t busting all targets and that is responsible.

But maybe this was always going to be the case. What we found back in 2012, through a freedom-of-information request…. The then Minister of Environment, now our Minister of Health, got a briefing note entitled “Advance Drafts of the Progress to Greenhouse Gas Targets Report and Provincial Inventory Report,” and that briefing note actually agreed with the Centre for Policy Alternatives report which stated, at the time, that fracking and LNG exports would make it virtually impossible for the province to reach its legislated greenhouse gas targets.

Back in October 2012, well before this legislation was even envisioned and well before the last election, the government knew that they would not be able to meet their targets — back in 2012. I mean, how disingenuous can you be? We’re going to have the “cleanest LNG in the world”, and yet they knew in 2012 that that was not possible.

There was another freedom-of-information request in which it was revealed that the current Environment Minister had briefing materials which indicated that the LNG sector emissions could be “comparable to those from Alberta’s oil sands” and result in “a doubling of B.C.’s total emissions.” Again the present minister knew very clearly the impact of LNG emissions and the problems it could cause.

The fact that it’s compared to the tar sands is extraordinary. We know how much greenhouse gases that puts out. And yet they’re still pushing ahead. I’ve got to say there is an element…. My colleague from Nanaimo–North Cowichan often talks about doublespeak, the whole Orwellian use of language. There is something very Orwellian sometimes about the way that this government approaches its use of language.

There is also the fact that they do…. We say it frequently because it is so true: that they say one thing, the Premier says one thing…. You know, she’ll say one thing and then do something else. She’ll say we’re going to have the cleanest LNG. But now it’s no longer the cleanest LNG in the world; it’s actually the cleanest LNG facility.

I didn’t mean to say “LNG”; it’s just a facility. Soon — I can see within a few years — it’s going to be the cleanest LNG workers…. You know, what are we going to have? How low are we going to go in that definition of “cleanest LNG” descriptor?

The Premier promised that we were going to be the “cleanest LNG in the world,” and that’s when she was speaking in China in 2012. As I say, in 2012 the government amended the 2010 Clean Energy Act to exclude natural gas from the requirement that at least 93 percent of electricity generated in B.C. comes from clean or renewable sources.

They excluded natural gas from this requirement if it was used to power LNG plants. The Minister of Natural Gas Development, who I’m sure is going to stand up shortly and explain all of this to us, why he said that, justified the changes by saying that we “changed the Clean Energy Act to accept natural gas for the purpose of making LNG in British Columbia under the Clean Energy Act. That’s in the law. We’re working to ensure that LNG operations in B.C. are the cleanest in the world.”

But the Premier then went a step further in October of last year when she claimed her commitment for clean LNG was only intended to apply to the liquefication of natural gas. So that’s those big plants — what they call the trains and the big plants that are going to be taking it. So it’s not the extraction and not the wellhead and nothing to do with the pipeline — in fact, nothing to do with the shipping of it, just purely the plants. That’s what it was going to be.

Even that, as we have seen through the statistics and through examples here, would never be able to create that level of clean emissions.

So we have the Premier saying now, or early in October, that it’s just going to be the just the liquefication plants.

[1500]

Tides Canada estimates — and, as I mentioned before, the Pembina Institute also estimates — that 70 percent of the emissions come from the upstream rather than the plants.

But at that time the Premier had said: “My commitment is to have the cleanest LNG facilities in the world.” We don’t produce LNG in the northeast; we produce natural gas. There is no L in LNG until it gets to Kitimat or Prince Rupert. Again saying: “Oops, sorry. I’m not going to say I made a mistake, but believe me now. I’m going to

[ Page 4991 ]

do something different. Believe me now. I’m going to get my photo taken just in front of the plants when the first shovel goes in.” I mean, great photo op, but absolutely untrustworthy. It really is astounding. The act has come out.

Again in May of this year we had the government moving even further from their promise when the Minister of Natural Gas — who I’m sure is going to stand shortly and participate in this debate — said that B.C.’s cleanest LNG plants were only going to be measured against other LNG plants fired by natural gas.

Well, seeing as the government first said that they were going to commit to LNG plants that were going to rely on renewable electricity, this is a stunning shift, because that would have an impact of about 80 percent. Using renewable electricity, B.C. Hydro — what comes from our reservoirs and actually is very clean energy — could lower emissions by a further 80 percent.

The Minister of Environment, again, has had her position, and there’s been more backtracking on what clean LNG means. The Minister of Environment, in her first mandate letter under this new iteration of the government with the present Premier…. Her mandate letter read at the time: “Working with the Minister of Natural Gas Development, ensure that LNG operations in British Columbia are the cleanest in the world.” There we are: cleanest in the world. Fantastic. Let’s step forward, like we’re going to have the best way of fighting climate change.

This year’s version of her mandate letter reads: “Work with the Ministry of Natural Gas Development” — same person — “to develop criteria and standards for emissions for liquefied natural gas projects in British Columbia.”

I think that pretty well says it, doesn’t it? Within a year the Ministry of Environment has gone in writing…. These mandate letters come from the Premier’s office. These are not drawn up by the minister; they come from the Premier’s office.

We have gone from 2013-14, when we’d just come off the back of the election. We had the shiny new government, full of election promises that people are still hopeful that they would fulfil. I mean, I think an educated guess was that they were never going to fulfil them. But they were of full of the election promises of “Debt-free B.C.” — how’s that one going, government? — and ones like the “cleanest LNG.” Within a year, we have gone from “cleanest LNG” to “develop criteria and standards for emissions.”

Criteria and standards for emissions. I’ve got to say that’s really going down several levels of what was anticipated and what was sold.

Interjection.

C. Trevena: What was sold, I think. My colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast says: “What was promised.” I think that this government throws away promises like Santa Claus in the parade throws away candies. “It’s out there. Just take it, take it.” It means nothing. This shows the doublespeak, the absolute hypocrisy on, first, the fight against climate change and now the whole aspect of clean LNG. It’s really astounding. It’s absolutely not surprising that the government is not taken seriously.

As we go through it, I’ve got a number of people who are very concerned — Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada. We have a number of organizations — Tides Canada — standing up. Anybody with any ounce of environmental awareness is standing up and saying the government’s got it wrong. Bill 2 is not going to be good. It’s not going to be good — not just for our environment but for our economy, because the two go hand in hand. You can’t just say: “Oh well, we’ll undercut it. It’s going to be fine.”

I’ve got to say that perhaps the reason I mentioned about debate — I hope the Minister of Natural Gas will stand up and participate in a debate. If he doesn’t, and no other member from the government side does, perhaps it was very appropriate that the last member from the government side who spoke was the member for Chilliwack-Hope — who in this House basically said that he didn’t want to admit to being a climate change denier, but he spent half an hour denying there is such a thing as climate change.

[1505]

I think maybe that epitomizes what this government is about. It will not accept that we have a serious problem.

We have an opportunity to do something about it and invest in our economy — to ensure we get B.C. jobs, to ensure we get the benefits here in B.C., that all people of B.C., First Nations, get the benefits too — by doing this right, by ensuring that when we’re talking about LNG and we’re talking about this very fundamental thing, it isn’t handed over just to cabinet to make the decisions but that we have serious targets, serious emissions levels and ensure that we get this right on real industrial reporting and real controls.

We haven’t got that at the moment, and I, along with every member on this side of the House, will continue to support LNG as an industry but oppose this bill.

D. Routley: It’s an honour to speak in the House on any issue, on any piece of legislation. It’s not exactly a pleasure some of the time, because of course, some of what we’re having to address is rather disheartening. We are rising to speak in opposition to Bill 2, and for very good reasons.

I think, first, I’d like to address why it would ever be disheartening to have the privilege of standing in this House and speaking, being one of 916-odd — I think somewhere in that neighbourhood — people who have been elected to serve in this House. It should never be anything but an absolute pleasure and a distinguished privilege to speak in the House. Unfortunately, this gov-

[ Page 4992 ]

ernment has so reduced the credibility of what it means to stand in the House of the British Columbia Parliament and speak to legislation that it has become just a little bit depressing.

You know, the issues that face our province are complex and complicated. They are difficult and vexing questions that require deep consideration, long thought, deep consultation with the people, the citizens of British Columbia. Those of us, the 85 of us privileged to be elected to speak in the House, are tasked with deciding these issues purely in the public interest. But in my nine years in this House I have rarely seen legislation that has been written to serve the public interest. This is no exception.

It is so sad that on an issue as essential to this province, to the planet, as the control of greenhouse gas emissions and the production of energy to power an economy, it is absolutely a tragedy that this subject is dealt with, with such simplicity, such duplicity and such failure to act in the public interest. I am absolutely dismayed by this.

When we stand in the House and speak about the complexities that face the people of the province, we’re met with the ridiculous and simplistic heckles of someone who is tasked with being the Minister of Natural Gas in this province. “You don’t believe in LNG.” I mean, what a ridiculous statement. It is just absolutely pathetic.

We have a minister who sits and simplistically bleats out that we don’t believe in something when we have nuanced concerns about the quality of the legislation that’s being brought forward, about the ability of the government to manage such an essential industry, such an essential component of the economy, in the public interest. We’re met with that kind of simplistic jeering.

[1510]

The real question is: who will manage this industry, this energy source and this contribution to global warming in the most responsible way in the public interest? That would be the side of the House that wants to take a considered and careful examination of the facts and all of the factors that influence our economy, our use of energy, our production of energy, our role in the global scheme of economy, energy production and the fight against global warming. That would be responsible.

What is irresponsible is for the minister who’s responsible for managing that to sit and simplistically bleat to the other side: “You don’t believe in butterflies. You don’t believe in the liquefied natural gas industry.” I mean, it is a pathetic insult to the people of B.C.

It is coming from a government that has contributed, perhaps irrevocably, to the overriding cynicism that is developing in our communities when it comes to the democratic process. We have a people who are failing to turn out to vote because they say it doesn’t matter.

Why do they say it doesn’t matter? Well, primarily, in my opinion, they say it doesn’t matter because they’re told one thing by a government in campaign mode and then they see that government do quite the opposite, or nothing at all. That is where the cynicism in our communities is coming from, and unfortunately, the whole democratic process is tarred by that brush.

This bill contributes to that growing cynicism. We had a government that said before the election that we would have 100,000 jobs and a $100 billion prosperity fund and maybe even no sales tax and a debt-free B.C. if only the people of B.C. would write them a blank cheque on managing this industry in particular. This is what they hinge their entire political future and the economy and future of this province on.

What they’ve delivered, when it came to the throne speech, is a step back that said: “Well, maybe there’s an industry here. Maybe there’ll be some jobs. Maybe what we said might come true. But probably not.” This bill, Bill 2, is a prime indicator that they’re going to do exactly what they’ve done before, and that is to simply make promises, break them, contribute to the cynicism that is plaguing and vexing democracy in British Columbia and elsewhere, and that is a tragedy.

What this province needs is people who will manage all of our resources in the public interest. When someone puts up an objection to a component of their plan, they say: “You’re simply against everything.” If you’re against contributing wildly to the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, you must be against LNG. If you are against a pipeline, you must be against jobs.

Well, all German shepherds are dogs, but not all dogs are German shepherds. It is possible for people, for human beings, for responsible people, to distinguish and to discriminate between what is good and what is bad in what they’re offered. What we are being offered by this government in developing this industry is simply bad for the public interest.

What we need is an industry that will contribute to the development of this province economically, socially and environmentally. We need an industry that will contribute to creating communities, not camps. We need an industry that will contribute to building communities with immigrants, not temporary foreign workers. We need an industry that will truly put British Columbians first in the jobs that are available.

This government has failed on all of those scores. Now we’re faced with Bill 2, in which they absolutely fail to live up to another promise, which is to make B.C.’s LNG industry the cleanest on the planet. This bill confirms their abandonment of that promise.

This bill essentially commits the B.C. taxpayer to subsidizing this industry. Far from getting the massive benefits that were promised during an election campaign, this bill confirms that the benefits will flow the other way, from the people to the industry.

[1515]

This bill betrays the four conditions that the official opposition, the NDP, placed on our support for the LNG industry as envisioned by this incompetent government.

[ Page 4993 ]

It fails to produce the jobs that were promised. It fails to put British Columbians first in line for jobs. It fails to provide the training that would be required to put British Columbians first in line for the jobs offered by this industry.

It fails to get a fair return on the resource that is owned by British Columbians. It fails to get the return that was broadcast and advertised by every member who stood for election behind the Premier and her wild promises. It fails on that score.

It fails to build the benefits necessary for First Nations to endorse the plan and to benefit from the plan, which we all know is essential to the success of any resource industry in this province. It fails.

It fails to protect our air, land and water and to live up to our climate change commitments that are legislated. But that’s no news to this government. Failure to live up to legislated commitments is nothing new. In fact, what would be new would be for the government to actually live up to legislated commitments.

As an example of what happens when this government fails to live up to legislated commitments, let’s take a look at balanced-budget legislation. It’s funny, isn’t it? If it weren’t such tragedy, it would be comedy. But it is tragedy.

What have we done? For the nine years I’ve been in this Legislature, every time the government, at its whim, wants to run a deficit, what does it do? It trots the 85 members — or 79 before, in their earlier days — into this House to simply set aside the legislation. It’s in law that we must have a balanced budget. But when we don’t: “We’ll just change the law.”

What will happen when companies are unable to fulfil the mandate of this legislation? I wonder what the government will do. Will it just trot us in to change the legislation? Well, perhaps we’ll be spared that misery, because fully one-quarter of this legislation is devoted to flexibility — flexible standards in regulations. So the government can not only simply offset its commitments and change the regulations and allow any level of pollution whatsoever; they could actually exempt the entire industry from this act, if they so chose, without debate in this House.

That’s the level of deceit that is now represented commonly by B.C. Liberal legislation. That’s the potential they’ve brought to this House. They can make a law, and when they want to disregard it, they don’t even have to change it. They simply have to completely rewrite its regulations and make it meaningless. That’s what this bill sets up.

How could any responsible member of this House support such

an act? This is the level of cynicism that British Columbians have become used to in the behaviour of their government. This is absolutely tragic. It’s almost as though we could simply repeat our speeches and insert any subject on the legislative title. Absolutely every element of B.C. Liberal policy, from forestry to LNG to budgeting, has been subject to the same level of deceit and broken promise.

Deputy Speaker: Member, that’s very close to the line.

D. Routley: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that I’m close to the line in terms of parliamentary language. Description and debate of a B.C. Liberal act like this requires that one walk very close to the line of acceptable parliamentary discourse. Absolutely, this legislation betrays responsible parliamentary behaviour, so we must come close to that line. Mr. Speaker, I trust that you’ll correct me if I stray across it.

[1520]

Certainly, the members on the other side must recognize that it is a deceitful act to promise to a person, or to a people, an outcome, and then just blatantly disregard that commitment. That’s what this act amounts to — a blatant disregard of a promise made to British Columbians.

Again, I could simply…. That phrase in my speeches in this House has been recycled over and over again. It’s probably the most environmental thing that’s been done in this House, the recycling of these phrases. This is the only way to describe the behaviour of this government. They make promises, and then they absolutely disregard them.

Let’s look back on the Pacific Carbon Trust, where they promised that they would make schools and hospitals carbon-neutral. If they didn’t, even though those schools and hospitals had nowhere near the capital required to retrofit their buildings and actually achieve that goal, they would be forced to use public money to buy credits — public money meant for the education of children and the care of patients in the health system to buy carbon credits from the Pacific Carbon Trust.

That was their scheme. They transferred public money in the many millions to huge corporations in B.C., and the Auditor General tore it apart as completely lacking credibility. The credits that were being bought were not viable, they had no integrity, and so it had to be abandoned.

Now, the same government, in the same fashion, is asking us for our trust that the companies who build these LNG plants and go over the greenhouse gas emission intensities described in this act will pay penalties for carbon credits to a technological fund for investments here in B.C., and it will be the same thing — the same damn thing.

That will be the outcome, because not only will these companies have to contribute and pay that penalty, but the public will subsidize the penalty. Can you imagine? We have gone from the sparkle-pony huge election promise of 100,000 jobs and $100 billion in a prosperity fund and debt-free B.C. and sales tax–free B.C.…. We’ve gone from that to “We’re going to pay half their penalties” if they fail to meet the targets put out by this government.”

[ Page 4994 ]

Pathetic.

Unbelievable. Unbelievable that we could end up in this place. Unbelievable to me even after nine years here, but I suspect not unbelievable to those people who fail to vote and say: “I never vote, because it doesn’t matter; because whatever they say, they won’t do; because they don’t really mean it; because they can’t be trusted.” That’s what this bill is doing. It’s contributing again to that cynicism. It’s really pathetic.

Here’s an example. If we are aiming to ignore the upstream contributions of greenhouse gas emissions of the production of natural gas, which this bill does…. It ignores 70 percent of the source of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s in the extraction of the gas, the flaring, the pipelining. We’ll only consider the emissions once the gas reaches the door of the plant. That’s what the bill says. Okay, so give them that. We’re going to ignore 70 percent of the production of greenhouse gases from this industry and still pretend, somehow, that we’re going to meet our legislated targets.

We’re going to ignore that. Then it gets to the plant, and the plant is told, “If you want to operate without penalty, your greenhouse gas emission intensities must be no greater than 0.16 tonnes per tonne of production” — 0.16, an important number.

[1525]

Now, if the plant operates above that level, up to 0.23 tonnes of emissions per tonne produced, then there will be a penalty. There will be a penalty, and as much as 100 percent of that penalty will be paid for by us. The people of B.C. will pay their penalty. That is the unbelievable outcome of this legislation — that we will pay. The taxpayers of British Columbia will pay yet again for promises that this government made and can’t keep. It’s beyond belief.

If a plant, for example, a ten-million-tonne LNG plant, operated at 0.23 tonnes per tonne produced, it would have to pay a penalty of $17.5 million. Half of that penalty would be paid by the public. The remaining company share of that penalty would be paid against $2 billion in profit. The penalty they would pay amounts to half of 1 percent of their profits. This is obviously simply a cost of doing business.

If we look at what is the easiest plant to produce, to build and to operate, it will be far cheaper simply to operate in the red of the penalty structure — have the public pay up to 100 percent of your penalties, or half or whatever the mix might be, and simply write it off as a cost of doing business. It’s truly unbelievable.

Even if they get closer to 0.16 intensity of emissions against production…. If they are at 0.19, for example, the subsidy ramps up a bit from the public. Imagine that. The company would end up paying 1/10 of 1 percent of its profit to the penalty structure.

Who really believes in this House or anyone paying attention to what’s going on in this province — not that the rightfully cynical population should bother anymore…. Who, who is really paying attention to this, believes that any plant is going to operate at 0.16 intensity? No one believes it. This bill confirms it. This bill structures the exit door. Exit stage right — B.C. Liberal promise. Exit stage right — B.C. Liberal campaign commitment. It just doesn’t matter.

What will be next? Blood alcohol trading? You know, you can have a higher blood alcohol level if you just trade with a guy who hasn’t been drinking. It’s just absolutely ridiculous. It contributes to this massive cynicism.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yeah. I might have something, the member says. I might have something.

This is the level of ridiculousness that we’ve arrived at, where the government is rightfully famous for absolutely disregarding its own legislation, for writing penalties into legislation and simply writing the legislation off when it breaks the rules. From this government, we have an election won on a promise that turns out to be a deceit.

I know I’m close to the line again, but describing the B.C. Liberal election campaign, this one or the one before with the HST or the one before that with the $495 million deficit — not a penny more — or the one before that with the “We won’t sell B.C. Rail” or “We won’t tear up contracts….” These outcomes and these promises require a Legislature to skate as Elizabeth Manley, on an edge, along the line of parliamentary acceptability. It is impossible to say the words in this House that this government should be hearing. They didn’t tell the truth. You know what that means, right?

[1530]

I mean, I can’t say it, but they committed

an act of failing to tell the people the truth, telling them something that wasn’t true, telling them that if they wrote a blank cheque on their environment, on their economy, on their society, they would have a debt-free B.C., 100,000 jobs, $100 billion in a prosperity fund.

How do we make a statement that jars this place enough to have a notice made of a promise broken? It would be to say the word that the Speaker is afraid I might be about to say, but I won’t say it, to save him the trouble of having to correct me and to save me the trouble of having to apologize for something that I can’t possibly, really, authentically apologize for. I would, in fact, be doing exactly that if I were to say I was sorry for saying the word that the Speaker knows I’d like to say.

It would be disingenuous to the level of a B.C. Liberal promise for me to say that I’m sorry for saying the word I can’t say.

Deputy Speaker: The Speaker would like you to move on now. I think it would be best.

D. Routley: Thank you, yes, Mr. Speaker. It’s probably

[ Page 4995 ]

a good idea for me, and you.

We have come to a sad and sorry place where our government, who was entrusted with a faith, a faith that is exercised, and we pay…. I think legislators and politicians around the world pander to these notions — honesty and integrity and commitment and patriotism. We celebrate the victories, historical and current, of our country. We lament the losses.

Just this week we had the lamenting of the loss of a serviceman simply because he wore his uniform. We stand as legislators and say how terrible it is that people who defend our democracy, who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend these institutions have been lost without purpose.

Then we turn around and trample on what it means to be subjects of these institutions. We take what is fought for — we take what was won for us by generations before us and is defended now by brave souls and should be served with the absolute, absolute limit of integrity — and we trample it.

We trample it with legislation like Bill 2. We trample it with election campaigns that make promises that no one ever really believed would be realized. We trample it by contributing to a cynicism. We trample it with an arrogance that dismisses criticism, that simplifies the complex and vexing problems that face our communities. We simplify it. We have ministers who heckle and ridiculously insult the people of the province.

I have to say, for those who might watch debate in this House now or at another time…. They might wonder why we don’t call each other by name. When we have school kids here, I always tell them that there is a very good reason for that. It’s because we don’t stand here as individuals. We stand here representing, in my case, 41,000 voters, over 50,000 citizens of British Columbia. So when I speak to a member of the House, I am speaking to someone who equally represents such a number of citizens of this fair and wonderful province.

It requires respect, which is exactly the reason why I didn’t use the word that the Speaker was afraid I would use and that I’m not permitted to use, even though it is so obviously necessary to describe what has been happening in this House. We do that because we respect the people we represent.

[1535]

When the minister heckles those who are elected to oppose his government, to criticize their plans, to take the nuanced, complex and vexing problems of this province and discuss them in order to reach solutions in the public interest…. When he does that, he betrays the trust that we are given, just as this government did so in the election and the actions that have followed.

I will proudly vote against this legislation. That is not because, as the minister so simplistically heckled, I oppose an LNG industry but because I oppose a government that fails to act in the public interest, and I oppose a bill that fails to defend the public interest and answer the complexities of this vexing question of climate change, energy management, economic development and social well-being in a way that defends the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity.

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: I have had the privilege of spending time with two young women from Semiahmoo high school in South Surrey who are here with Democracy in Action. They are both interested and interesting young women. Their names are Suyoung Anh and Nicola Menzel. Would the House please make them most welcome.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Prior to moving on, I’d remind all members that it’s the nuance and not necessarily the words themselves that are unparliamentary from time to time.

K. Conroy: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to nuance my words too much here.

I, too, rise to take my place to debate Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. I must say that we have all been waiting for the legislation that would, in fact, regulate the LNG industry. We have been waiting for over a year now. So we expected some significant regulations that would ensure the Premier’s promise of the cleanest LNG facilities in the world would, in fact, be kept. But what we see with Bill 2 is another broken promise from this Premier and the Liberal government, who have a habit of saying one thing and doing quite another.

In fact, it’s exactly what was said by the Minister of Environment on the tabling of the bill, and I quote: “Our government promised the cleanest LNG facilities in the world, and that is exactly what we are delivering today.” Not only did she say it with a straight face; she went on to deliver a bill that didn’t even come close to achieving that.

I think Clean Energy Canada agrees. I want to quote from Clean Energy Canada, where they say:

“It’s a good start, but on its own, it won’t result in the cleanest LNG in the world.

“LNG production releases carbon pollution all the way down the chain of production, from wellhead to waterline. Today’s legislation only addresses the last link in that chain, the port facilities, where companies would chill the gas to load it aboard ships. It also allows companies to buy credits rather than actually build cleaner terminals.

“It will take continued and strengthened leadership from both government and the industry before government can credibly tout the cleanest LNG in the world. And even if B.C. does ensure

[ Page 4996 ]

that this industry is built to world-leading standards, it would still sharply increase the province’s greenhouse gas emissions.”

How can you say you will deliver the cleanest LNG in the world when you bring in legislation which allows a number of regulations that allow LNG producers and the government to do as they please?

Bill 2 legislates a greenhouse gas intensity benchmark for LNG facilities. How does the intensity benchmark work? The benchmark would be 0.16 carbon dioxide equivalent — CO 2 equivalent — per tonne of LNG produced.

However, the benchmark applies only to LNG facility emissions. Just as Clean Energy Canada says, it doesn’t apply to any upstream GHG emissions. For instance, extractions, upstream combustion, flaring — we all know how much flaring is an issue up north, in the northeast — fugitives and pipelines. That means that 70 percent of GHG emissions in the LNG life cycle are not even covered by this legislation — 70 percent.

[1540]

Then the bill provides LNG providers with flexibility, and I use that term loosely. What does flexibility really mean in this bill? It means that LNG facilities can reduce their on-site emissions — actually reduce it at their site — or if they can’t reach that intensity benchmark, they can purchase offsets or contribute to a technology fund to reach the benchmark.

For me, that sounded like the Pacific Carbon Trust scheme all over again, that scheme that required public institutions, such as schools and hospitals, to pay offsets into a trust that seemed to be then used for businesses to reduce their own emissions. Our schools and hospitals were using taxpayers’ dollars to offset emissions, instead of investing in our children’s and grandchildren’s education as well as in the health care of people in this province — like paying for colorectal cancer screening instead of telling people to go to a private clinic and pay $2,000 to get it done. But I digress.

Private companies getting subsidized to make their own businesses more energy-efficient — businesses that I think could well afford to do that themselves, not on the backs of taxpayers. Are we going to end up with another Pacific Carbon Trust situation in this province?

There are some guidelines: guidelines that the offsets have to be purchased at market prices; they have to be B.C.-based; the offset companies must register with the government and receive certification; the offsets must receive third-party validation. Now, hopefully these guidelines will actually be implemented — that they don’t ensure another Pacific Carbon Trust fiasco on our hands. We all know that that was thrown out and cut after a scathing report by the Auditor General. We don’t want that to happen again, to the LNG industry, so I’m hoping that these regulations and guidelines are actually adhered to.

The bottom line is what the legislation does do. It doesn’t actually require LNG operators to reduce their GHG emissions. It sets the benchmark standard, a standard that’s not even enshrined in the legislation. Why would you bring in legislation and not enshrine the basic benchmark into it? It doesn’t make sense. It gives operators a variety of options to get around the standards, with the offsets or technology fund contributions.

I don’t quote reporters in the House very often, but I think Les Leyne actually put it quite succinctly when he said the legislation “will allow the B.C. Liberals to continue to claim that any B.C. LNG will be the cleanest in the world, but there’s a lot of flexibility and plenty of government help available to make the target achievable…. The common perception holds that it’s a means of buying a way past a problem.”

“Buying a way past a problem.” How does that work to produce the cleanest LNG in the world? And at what cost? What is this going to cost the people of B.C.? What’s it going to cost when the bill brings in an incentive program? How does that incentive program actually work?

Well, the government will enable an LNG environmental incentive program, which provides further subsidies to this industry and proposes a market system for tradable performance credits for facilities that perform below the 0.16 CO 2 equivalency benchmark.

Facilities that have achieved an annual performance below 0.23 tonnes of CO 2 per tonne of LNG produced are eligible to participate in this LNG environmental incentive program. Those below the 0.23 and above 0.16 will receive a prorated incentive based on their actual compliance costs. The performance below 0.16 will earn the facility a performance credit that can be sold to other LNG facilities. However, there are no further details. How does this work? It’s not even clear how big the subsidy will be or how the performance credit market will be regulated.

The government does admit a few things. It does admit that these programs will require government funding and administration, that they will need to commit new spending dollars to offer the incentive program. But they believe the program will help ensure that B.C. will have the cleanest LNG facilities in the world.

Now, wouldn’t legislation help to ensure the cleanest LNG facilities in the world? Wouldn’t regulations that LNG companies have to abide by help to ensure the cleanest facilities in the world? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

[1545]

I think: “Why would the province have to pay companies not to pollute?” That’s what I’m reading in this bill. I mean, it’s a novel concept, one that I think hasn’t been used before and one that maybe some other companies in this province are thinking. “Gee, I wish they’d pay me not to pollute.” I can think of some mining companies that would have been there with their hands out. I can think of a number of places that would say: “Gee, why not? If LNG gets paid not to pollute, why shouldn’t we get some

[ Page 4997 ]

incentives not to pollute?”

It just doesn’t make sense when you think that you’re using taxpayers’ dollars, taxpayers’ dollars that could be providing things like health care, education, trades training. I mean, we have these much-needed services in our province, and yet the government is introducing an incentive so that the LNG companies don’t pollute.

Now, am I understanding this right? Forgive me if I am wrong. Maybe during committee stage or something the minister will stand up and say: “Of course, you’re wrong. Of course, we’re not paying companies to not pollute.” It just doesn’t make sense. Are the Liberals actually saying: “Please lower your emissions, and if you’re good companies, we’re going to reward you”? I think they really should try this with other companies in this province. I think it’s an incentive that people would just love.

You know, the bill says that the Ministry of Environment will administer the incentive program and that they’ll also administer the benchmark program, the offset program, the technology fund. It’s interesting. They’re going to bring in all this new bureaucracy to administer these brand-new programs, and they can’t even take care of existing issues in this province.

The Minister of Environment is not dealing with issues in this province as they stand today. And now they’re going to bring in a whole new bureaucracy to deal with this? It just doesn’t give somebody a good sense of comfort, thinking that we’re going to do this even though we can’t even manage to do the things we should be doing to regulate the environmental issues in this province as it stands today.

Where are the programs? Where are the people, the boots on the ground to get out there and monitor tailings ponds or ensure a vibrant forest industry to invest in or actually invest in agriculture? That’s not happening, but we’re going to invest in this industry, which is an industry that’s needed in the province and an industry where I think the companies that are coming to invest are going to do just fine, thank you.

Do they really need taxpayers’ dollars? Do they really need taxpayers’ dollars invested in them to ensure that they don’t pollute, for instance? It defines a question.

The legislation is really short on detail. Approximately 25 percent of the bill allows the government to change various regulations at a later date with the stroke of a pen, through cabinet regulation. So incredibly important decisions don’t need to be brought to the Legislature, don’t need to be brought here to be debated by all of us legislators who were elected by the people of our constituencies, who expect us to come here day in and day out and debate the issues that are going to affect them in this province. That’s not going to happen.

It’s going to be done by a stroke of a pen at cabinet, where they say: “Okay. These guys want this. I guess we better do this, or who knows what’s going to happen.” Who’s going to be giving the advice to cabinet? Is it going to be the industry consultant of the month or whoever is providing whatever information the Premier is accepting this month? Who is going to make these regulations?

Certainly not the Legislature. We’re not going to have input to it. It bothers me that we had all those young people here from Democracy in Action watching us and listening to this and looking and saying: “Okay. We, too, want to be involved in democracy in action someday.” Then they hear what Bill 2 is all about. Is that really democracy in action? I’m sure they must be shaking their heads, thinking: “What kind of a world is this going to be giving us in the near future?”

Furthermore, the only part of the legislation that sets or even mentions the intensity level, the 0.16 GHG intensity level, is the actual schedule. That’s right at the end of the bill. We know full well that a

schedule can be managed and changed, added to or subtracted as the ministers see fit, as the cabinet sees fit. Again, not something that’s going to be debated here on the floor of the Legislature.

[1550]

That’s not going to be part of the discussion that we all thought we would be part of. Who knows? LNG could even be exempt entirely from the legislation if the cabinet sees fit, if the minister sees fit, if someone in the industry sees fit.

I mean, you have to wonder. The government has already succumbed to a lower level of taxation. Is this going to be next on the list? Are we going to succumb to lower levels of environmental regulations? Are we going to allow greater pollution? What does it mean? My gosh, I hope the minister comes up with the answers during committee stage.

It’s concerning that when the bill says, when the government says, that it’s going to be the cleanest LNG in the world…. I mean, there are all these great promises that come out from the mouth of our Premier, and there’s just never any way of delivering on them. They’re never delivered on. And here’s another one.

I’m honoured to be one of our members who can stand in this House and proudly talk about what my kids are doing and my grandkids. I think all of us are. We don’t enter into politics just because we think we’re going to benefit ourselves. I think the majority of us do it because we think it’s the right thing to do, that we can do things for future generations.

I wonder how many of the Liberals can actually look at their kids and grandkids and say to them: “Bill 2 is going to be good for you. Bill 2 is going to ensure an environment that’s clean. It’s going to ensure an environmentally sustainable LNG industry for you. Not only are you going to have an LNG industry in this province that’s going to provide for you; it’s going to be environmentally sustainable.” How many people, once you read this bill, can actually look our kids in the face, can look our grandkids in the face, and say to them: this bill will

[ Page 4998 ]

guarantee it? It doesn’t.

This bill comes nowhere near guaranteeing that we will have an environmentally sustainable LNG operation done in this province. I think it’s just, once again, a promise that was made. It’s going to be broken. It’s all pure hearsay, I guess, is what is happening. The benchmarks aren’t there.

When you look at what “cleanest” really means…. What does it really mean in this legislation? It means the 0.16 benchmark? That’s really cleanest in theory only. It means that the legislation doesn’t require any actual GHG reductions, because we know that the companies can buy their way out of it. It doesn’t really need to happen.

We know that the legislation doesn’t cover 70 percent of the emissions in the LNG industry. It only covers 30 percent. How does that work? It doesn’t plan to reduce GHGs in other sectors. It’s a very, very special deal for the LNG industry.

It’s a special deal that other industries have been asking for ever since the carbon tax legislation was introduced by Premier Campbell. I think a number of industries have asked for exemptions — the cement industry comes to mind — and how are they going to feel about this one special deal being given to one sector in our province?

You look at the cement industry. It’s well established in this province. It provides jobs, great jobs in Kamloops. It supports the economy of the province, and they give the darn nicest little chocolate cement trucks every year when we meet with them. How do they feel about this bill? You wonder about it — if they’re sitting there looking at how they have been lobbying the government since 2007. Every time we meet with them, they lobby again. Are their concerns heard? No.

What is this setting up? It’s setting up have and have-not companies in this province. You wonder how the former Premier feels over there in England, all his hard work, all the hard work to establish a carbon tax — and a carbon tax that is recognized. I was just at a conference in Spokane. They recognized the carbon tax in B.C. and expressed concern about this bill that was being implemented — legislators from all over the Pacific Northwest expressing concerns. It didn’t seem to jibe with the carbon tax that was presented. You’ve kind of got to wonder: where is the mindset at?

[1555]

When you look at what that legislation would do back in 2007, it would reduce greenhouse gases by 33 percent from the 2007 levels by 2020. The current B.C. total is 58 million tonnes, which is 6 percent below the 2007 levels, which is pretty good. It’s not bad. I think it’s a good thing that that’s actually happening in this province, and I’ll give kudos due where they are due.

But one typical LNG terminal plus all the associated upstream emissions — because we shouldn’t forget about the 70 percent that really is part of it; we want 100 percent of emissions — would add up to 12 million to 13 million tonnes a year. So five plants in the province…. I know that the minister has talked about — what has he talked about? — 25 or 29 or something. I mean, there are oodles of them.

The reality. I know I’ve talked to some bureaucrats, who’ve said, “The reality is that we could end up with five plants,” which is great. It could add up to 75 million tonnes per year. That’s much more than B.C.’s current total. And 75 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions is an incredible number. It doesn’t even come close to reducing to the standard by 2020. It’s not going to happen.

I think it’s really important to recognize that we need good, environmentally sustainable economic opportunities in this province. I think we’re the first ones to say that. I think everybody in this House agrees with that. We need to ensure, though, that parts of the province aren’t left behind. LNG isn’t really a big mover and shaker in the southern interior of the province. I think anybody that represents that area would agree. The direct benefits to those of us that are living in that part of the province are through a tax system that works and ensuring a clean environment — not further pollution.

Now, I know we’re going to talk about a tax system that works in future legislation. There are some concerns around that, I understand. But we need to ensure that people across the province get the benefits of a proposed LNG industry in this province. I think that we need to look at not only a clean industry with regulations and legislation that actually regulates a clean industry, that doesn’t give companies an opt-out option; I think we need to guarantee jobs and training opportunities for B.C.

The government only needs to look at the excellent examples of the Allied Hydro agreements utilized in the Kootenays for the expansion of the three dams under the Columbia Power Corporation and the Columbia Basin Trust partnership — now Fortis is part of that partnership — and how they brought in local hires.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

It’s to ensure that not only do we see local hires in this province and ensure that British Columbians get the jobs they need but that they get the apprenticeship programs as well. That’s another thing that the three organizations working together have done an excellent job of — ensuring that the people that are working in the region get the apprenticeships that need to go with those jobs, as well as working with First Nations people.

I know that at the latest jobsite at Waneta, I think 15 percent are actually First Nations people that have come and are working on the site and getting apprenticeship training. It’s excellent. It can happen. I think we need to ensure that. Along with ensuring a clean industry, along with ensuring an environmentally sustainable industry, we need to ensure these other things so that the province can benefit.

[ Page 4999 ]

We need to ensure that we get a fair return on our resources. I mean, these are our natural resources that companies are going to come in and utilize. You can’t tell me that the LNG companies that are coming aren’t going to make a significant return on their investment in B.C.

I wish that we had the courage here in B.C. to do what Norway did with their tax that they put on companies. When they put that tax on, the oil companies didn’t run screaming, saying: “Oh, that’s too expensive. We’re not going to stay here. You’re crazy people.” They actually have stayed and invested in Norway and created an incredible legacy fund for the people of Norway that’s going to sustain them for years to come. They’re getting a good, fair return on their natural resources — something that our kids and grandkids should also be getting.

I want to make sure that the legislation does that, but I don’t see it. It worries me that we would be giving away our children’s and grandchildren’s legacy, that we would be giving those resources that should be there for them, that should be there for their future to ensure a future for this province. What’s happening to it?

[1600]

Are we going to just say: “Here you go, folks. You get it all. You can take what you want. In fact, we’ll even pay you so you don’t pollute. We’re going to give you an incentive”? It’s a real concern for me that the legislation that’s brought in is not going to live up to the standards that it needs to live up to.

Now, I know that the minister sighs. I’m sure he’s tired of hearing things over and over again. But it’s really important, I think, that he hears it from each one of us. We each have a different perspective. We come from different parts of the province. The folks in West Kootenay are just as concerned about LNG and greenhouse gas emissions as folks in Langley are and as folks up in the Peace country or over in the northwest.

I mean, people in the province are concerned about this. I think what you’re seeing from all of us is the concern expressed about what’s happening to this province and what’s happening to the democracy when you bring in legislation like this and it doesn’t give the facts. It doesn’t give the regulations. It doesn’t ensure companies have to abide by the rules. I don’t see it in this legislation, in Bill 2.

I want to make sure that there’s legislation that protects our land, protects our air, protects our water, and make sure that we’re living up to our climate commitments — our commitments we’ve made to other provinces, to other countries, to other states. We have states across the line that are looking at our climate commitments and thinking: “We should be doing the same thing.”

Why aren’t we doing it? Why is Bill 2 not addressing the needs of people in this province? Why does Bill 2 not say to the companies, “You need to ensure that this is done, this is done, and this is done,” to in fact create the cleanest LNG in the world? That’s not what this bill says.

This bill says: “Okay, we’ll negotiate. You could do this, this and this. You don’t have to meet the guidelines. These are benchmarks and benchmarks only.” It says that you can pay your way out of it or, if you do make those benchmarks, you can make money from other companies that haven’t made the benchmarks.

I mean, it’s hypocrisy to stand there and tell the province that we’re going to bring the cleanest LNG in the world and then bring in legislation that doesn’t even come close to ensuring that those guidelines are met.

You know, I think about it, what the province has been through since August around environmental issues. We can’t even guarantee right now that the standards are maintained in the province.

We can’t guarantee we’ll have boots on the ground, to make sure that we’ve got people that will go out and work in this province to ensure regulations are being kept, and suddenly we’re going to have legislation that doesn’t ensure that there is environmental protection — doesn’t ensure that there are actually regulations that are there that are going to ensure that companies are going to abide by just basic regulations.

I’m tired about the attitude of “Oh, don’t worry your little head about it” — or whatever they want to say. “Just don’t worry. We’re going to take care of everything.” That is just such….

I have to be careful what I say. I’m going to be like my colleague. It is just so not very genuine to be making