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

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

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the member for his questions.