Today in the legislature we debated Bill 11: International Commercial Arbitration Amendment Act, 2018 at second reading.

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

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I had thought that it was a much longer speaking list, and that I would be speaking subsequent to other speakers. But I do thank you for recognizing me.

I arise to speak in favour of the bill before us. That is Bill 11, International Commercial Arbitration Amendment Act 2018. As has been mentioned, this is an important piece of legislation that modernizes our existing International Commercial Arbitration Act, taking into account the changes that were done by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law in 2006 in their updates to model legislation there.

This comes on the recent move that Ontario did to update its act in March, 2017, where they did something very similar, in a very similar attempt to modernize the original 1985 model law that was adopted by B.C. — we were one of the first to do so, frankly — as well as other jurisdictions.

It’s clear as well that this is not something that was dreamt up overnight, that obviously there has been some good work that was done unto this over many years. So it’s important to credit both sides of this House for the work that they’ve done to bring this to fruition to ensure that we actually bring our arbitration law up to international standards, taking into account the best practices that exist as outlined in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s model law.

As the government has noted…. The government has suggested that they have a responsibility — and I agree — to ensure that standards are modern, that they meet the standards of the bar and judiciary, and that these standards have the confidence of international and domestic clients. This is one of the goals of modernizing our present legislation.

In addition, virtually all provinces and territories in Canada have incorporated UNCITRAL — sorry, I won’t say it again; it’s the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, the UNCITRAL, a model law of 1985 — into their respective statutes.

Each province or territory has a separate piece of legislation that deals typically with domestic or international commercial arbitrations. In fact, all Canadian provinces and territories as well, with the exception of Quebec, have adopted and ratified the New York convention, allowing for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards from its signatory states, of which Canada and British Columbia are.

Ontario was in fact the first Canadian jurisdiction to amend its legislation to reflect the changes made to the model law in 2006. As I noted, this was done in March, 2017 — last year. And B.C. was setting the stage to do that. Of course, we had something rather irritating occur between March and May of last year. Irritating for some, but delightful for others. We had an election, and that clearly would have ensured there were these sort of pieces of legislation that take time to develop.

Obviously, the civil service had been working hard on this in consultation with stakeholders as well as government, and this piece of legislation smoothly passed through the transition from the former government to the present government, and is brought here today for our debate — and presumably adoption, based on the comments I’ve heard from both sides of this House.

Federally, international commercial arbitration is governed by the Commercial Arbitration Act. This deals with things like investor-state disputes brought under NAFTA or CETA and similar agreements. NAFTA, of course, is the subject of much debate as we speak here in this Legislature, due to negotiations happening with our federal government, Mexico and the United States.

I’d like to provide a quote here from an individual. I’d like to get the exact…. It’s the International Arbitration Review — edition 8, Canada — by Gordon Tarnowsky, QC, Rachel Howie, Chloe A. Snider and Holly Cunliffe, published in the Law Reviews of August 2017.

They say this. “Although similar in many respects, there are certain marked differences in international commercial arbitration legislation among Canadian jurisdictions. This situation can create unforeseen risk to inter-jurisdictional entities that might ultimately resort to arbitration in more than one jurisdiction, or to those choosing a city in Canada as a seat of arbitration, if they are not fully aware of the variations.”

This is one of the reasons why it’s critical for us to adopt legislation along the lines we have here, to modernize and bring the standards that are adopted by the United Nations arbitration laws here, both nationally and federally.

Australia did some recent work in this regard. Prior to 2010, domestic legislation regarding arbitration varied between each and all of the various different states in Australia. The model commercial and arbitration bill that they agreed upon by the standing committee there of the Attorneys General actually was a way of creating domestic arbitration law throughout Australia that was uniform. They’ve all since adopted that, and we’re hoping to see such things happen here in Canada as well.

There are a couple of benefits of adopting this law. Not only is it important to have Vancouver become a host for international arbitration; it’s one of the selling cards of Vancouver. A government led by Premier Gordon Campbell did a very fine job of actually bringing British Columbia to its pinnacle of international recognition as a go-to destination in the world, culminating in the 2010 Winter Olympics.

Prior to that, of course, we have to give due respect to Bill Bennett, who recognized…. He was probably the first that really went beyond the parochial vision of British Columbia as only a province of Canada, with bringing in Expo 86, I believe it was. I was in Vancouver, living there at the time, at UBC. That, too, put British Columbia on the international arena as a go-to destination. The 2010 Winter Olympics — another critical aspect in this regard. And Vancouver has grown.

This is very much a bill that’s focused on Vancouver, but Vancouver has grown to become an international city, one that unfortunately has by-products associated with that happening, one of which is, of course, the affordability crisis that’s affecting Vancouver. Nevertheless, this is actually good for business, this bill. This bill is good for business and for sending business the exact type of signal that they need to say that British Columbia is open for business, it’s open for international business, and it’s a go-to destination if you want to actually have business in the new economy.

I’m excited by the prospects of this emerging economy that’s happening here in British Columbia. I’m less excited by the trials and tribulations of members opposite as they sulk and complain about Kinder Morgan and others.

There are so many opportunities in British Columbia. Adopting legislation like this, legislation that modernizes our arbitration proceedings, actually positions Vancouver as a leader, a go-to destination in the world, along with places like Paris and New York — to come and actually have arbitration cases settled in a very non-partisan way, in a way that’s viewed to not have any particular biases. We have a good brand internationally, Canada, in terms of brokers of deals and being fair-minded, and Vancouver and British Columbia and Vancouver can lead in that regard.

It does have that other very important signal that it’s sending — that in Vancouver, in British Columbia, we want to be a focal point for international business, and we want companies to come here. We want companies like Tesla to come here. We’d love it in British Columbia if Tesla came to B.C. and built a giga factory in Terrace, to ship those batteries to Chicago or Prince Rupert via the railway that exists. We’d love companies to actually build in terms of the innovation potential that we can offer here.

This is the direction we’re going. This piece of legislation is critical to continue our path forward to building Vancouver as an international hub for excellence and British Columbia, in general, with all its communities, from north to south, east to west, rural to urban, suburban to single cabins on the lake. We’re excited about the prospects for British Columbia.

Another benefit of this bill, of course, is that there is, coming forward relatively soon…. I believe it is in 2022 that Vancouver is bidding to host the international United Nations conference. My notes here don’t actually have the date. Well, they do somewhere, but they’re buried within my multiple pages of notes.

In this international conference which is coming to Vancouver, it’s kind of hard, as part of your bid, to put a bid in to host the international UN conference on arbitration and then, at the same time, not have brought yourself up to standards — standards that, since 1985, recognize that in fact we have the preponderance of technology that exists today that didn’t exist then, and many other such examples.

With that, I’ll say that, after speaking with both my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands as well as my colleague from Cowichan Valley, we are in support of this bill and look forward to committee stage and supporting the bill through to final adoption in this Legislature.

Video of Speech

Today we issued a press release (reproduced below) calling out the political rhetoric surrounding the ongoing debate about the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Earlier in the day I did an interview with Stephen Quinn on CBC Radio’s Early Edition show. In that I expand upon some of the rhetoric emanating from Ottawa.

I also participated on CTV’s Powerplay with Don Martin and was interviewed by Vassy Kapelos well as  CBC’s Power and Politics (below).

Media Release

Truth and facts must prevail in Trans Mountain discussion: Weaver
For immediate release
April 10, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, is calling for politicians to hold themselves to a higher standard of facts and evidence in discussions around the Trans Mountain pipeline.

“There is an inordinate amount of fear-mongering going on in the political climate surrounding Trans Mountain,” said Weaver.

“In 2018 in this country, our commitment to facts and the truth is more important than ever.

“Today in the House, the MLAs for Abbotsford West and Chilliwack-Hope implied that their communities are at risk due to bitumen shipments by rail, stoking fears that a Lac-Mégantic-style disaster could befall them if the Trans Mountain pipeline does not go through. This is patently false – the truth is that the train in the Lac-Mégantic tragedy was loaded with highly combustible Bakken crude, not heated bitumen or undiluted heavy crude.

“The risk of Trans Mountain lies in the way diluted bitumen behaves in an ocean spill. Studies using suspended particulate matter, which characterizes the water off B.C.’s coast, suggest that bitumen would in fact either form tar balls or sink. There is not sufficient scientific evidence on whether such a spill could be cleaned up.

“In Alberta, Ms. Notley is engaging in her own fear-mongering by alleging this amounts to a ‘constitutional crisis’. It is irresponsible to be throwing such inflammatory terms around when B.C. is simply trying to consult with British Columbians and to seek scientific evidence about a substance that poses a significant risk to our communities and to our economy.

“The Prime Minister acknowledged that the NEB process that led to this project’s approval was flawed, and promised to subject it to a revised environmental assessment process. As an intervener in those NEB hearings, I know that they were woefully inadequate in terms of facts and evidence. For instance, the spill response was predicated on calm conditions and 20 hours’ worth of sunlight in a single day. This is unacceptable and ample evidence suggests that Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Notley’s attempt to strong arm B.C. into rolling over for this project is because of politics, not evidence.”

-30-

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

After a three week break, the 3^rd session of the 41^st parliament resumed today. In question period I quizzed the Premier as to how he could argue that British Columbia would meet its legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets while at the same time developing an LNG industry.

In late February I wrote an extended essay detailing the desperate, fiscally-irresponsible steps that the BC Liberals and subsequently the BC NDP have taken in an attempt to entice major LNG players to BC.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Government has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 2007 levels by 2030 and 80 percent from 2007 levels by 2050. This is why the government’s continued desperate push for LNG is so problematic.

LNG Canada’s proposed four-train LNG facility would add eight to ten megatonnes of carbon-dioxide-equivalent. That’s more than 50 percent of all of British Columbia’s present industrial emissions. And they’d add that to B.C.’s total emissions.

Our targets are such that by 2050, British Columbia can emit only 12.9 megatonnes of carbon-dioxide-equivalent. And at about 9.6 megatonnes, LNG Canada would yield the single largest source of those emissions. That’s three-quarters of all of British Columbia’s allowable emissions in just one LNG facility.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. How is it possible for British Columbia to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets in light of these numbers?

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for his question. I know his passion for climate action and his reason for being in this House is that very issue.

I’m committed, as I said during the election campaign and as I’ve said since forming the government…. We are going to put in place targets by 2030 to see our emissions go down by the 40 percent from what they were in 2007. I’m committed to doing that.

But at the same time, when investors come calling with proposals, it’s appropriate that we talk to them. It’s appropriate that we look at the fiscal framework and we put in place the terms of engagement.

That’s why I’ve said to the LNG community: “If you’re going to employ British Columbians, there’s going to be a fair return to B.C. for access to our resource. You’re going to work with Indigenous people in partnership” — and the member for Skeena can talk to us about that — “And if you’re going to ensure that you assist us in getting to our greenhouse gas objectives, we welcome that investment.”

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I do appreciate the response from the Premier. Nevertheless, it seems to me that rhetoric here in B.C. is not dissimilar from what we’re hearing nationally. On the one hand, Prime Minister Trudeau claims we need to build new pipelines and increase oils sands production multifold in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our government thinks we need to increase industrial emissions by 50 percent in order to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Look, LNG Canada would not build a new LNG facility today just to tear it down tomorrow. A facility will be built to be around for decades to come. That means that for all other aspects of the British Columbia economy, emissions would have to drop by 52 percent by 2030 and — get this — 95 percent by 2050. Government is essentially saying that this one LNG plant and these 200 jobs are more important than everything else in our economy.

My question to the Premier is this. Is he prepared to tell Rio Tinto Alcan, Teck, Lafarge, Canfor, Catalyst and even the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District that they all have to shut down because British Columbia’s emission budget is all but used up by that one LNG Canada facility?

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: Well we have no final investment decision by anyone when it comes to developing liquefied natural gas, and the members on that side will know that full well, because they promised dozens and dozens of them and none of them materialised.

I don’t want to be glib with the member’s question, because he’s absolutely correct. If we’re going to meet the targets that we have set as a Legislature — or will be codified by the Legislature in the days, weeks and months ahead — we’re going to have to have the hard discussion with all members of society, not just the industrial sector but our families, our communities. Everyone’s going to have to weigh in and do their part to reduce emissions.

This is the challenge of our generation. I’m not telling the member anything he doesn’t already know. I’m committed, as the leader of this government, to realize those objectives, and I’m going to continue to fight for that.

Earlier this month I was very critical, of the government’s ill thought through attempts to curb speculation in the housing market. In fact, I was entirely unsure as to what outcomes the government was seeking with the introduction of their so-called “speculation tax”. To the government’s credit, the Minister of Finance declared that she was willing to listen to British Columbians and make adjustments to her proposed policies. This was the opening that we were looking for.

Over the last few weeks we worked hard to solicit, listen to, and respond to the concerns of British Columbians about this tax. We brought these concerns directly to the table with the NDP and worked closely with them to identify and offer solutions to many of the unforeseen consequences that had arisen. In particular,

• We wanted to ensure the tax did not unfairly impact British Columbians, including people with vacation homes, who are not speculating in our market.
• We wanted to ensure the tax did not apply to rural or vacation areas, where there are many part-time residents and they are significant to the local economy.
• We wanted to ensure that this tax truly targets speculators – people who park their money in our real estate market as if it’s the stock market – and that it effectively deals with satellite families and offshore money.
• We wanted to ensure adequate flexibility for rentals, allowing people to avoid the tax by renting their home out part of the year, and stay there the other part of the year.
• We wanted to ensure that people who can’t rent their place out, through restrictive zoning or strata bylaws, aren’t hit with the tax.
• We wanted to ensure that the tax actually reduces speculation, and does not provide a revenue windfall for government.

Yesterday Carole James, the Minister of Finance, announced revisions to the proposed speculation tax that will be introduced this fall. While the BC Greens would have taken much more aggressive action focused largely on foreign capital through a New Zealand style offshore buyers ban, as well as targetting speculation through a flipping tax and closing the bare trust loophole on residential sales, the government’s proposed changes go a long way to dealing with a number of concerns with the tax.

Below I reproduce the Media Statement that we released in response to the proposed government changes.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus responds to government’s speculation tax changes
For immediate release
March 26, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, issued the following statement in response to the government’s announced changes to the speculation tax.

“It’s a positive sign that this government is willing to listen to British Columbians and to make adjustments to policies,” said Weaver.

“In a minority government, we have an opportunity to do things differently by collaborating to improve public policy. We worked hard to champion British Columbians’ concerns and bring forth evidence-based solutions to this policy’s shortcomings. We agree with the B.C. NDP that we need to take action to address speculation in our real estate market. However, we have been clear that we needed to see changes to this tax in order to support the forthcoming legislation. In particular, the government’s policy must target speculation and empty homes in our urban centres without undue adverse effects on rural areas and on British Columbians who aren’t speculators.

“These changes go a long way to dealing with our initial concerns with the tax – they make it much more targeted and limit the effects on British Columbians with vacation homes. We look forward to the full details of the legislation to ensure it truly limits unintended consequences. We will continue to advocate for bolder policies to address speculation, including a flipping tax, the closing of the bare trust loophole and a New Zealand-style ban on foreign capital.”

Adam Olsen, MLA for Saanich North and the Islands added that he was pleased that many of his constituents’ concerns were addressed.

“I heard from many concerned Gulf Islanders who were worried about how the speculation tax might impact them and we kept pressure on the government to address these issues,” said Olsen.

“I’m glad that the government has recognized that this tax doesn’t make sense for rural areas like the Gulf Islands. The diversity of concerns in my riding demonstrates the need for a nuanced approach to the housing crisis. We have serious housing challenges in the Gulf Islands that need to be addressed, while recognizing that seasonal residents are valuable members of the community who contribute to the local economy. I will continue to work closely with the communities in my riding to bring locally-appropriate solutions to the table.”

-30-

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

The BC government today outlined its proposed regulatory framework for LNG proponents such as LNG Canada. In particular, the BC government sent a letter on Monday to Mr. Andy Calitz, CEO of LNG Canada, providing specific details. While the BC Green Caucus has not seen a copy of the letter that the BC Government sent, we were consulted on the government’s high level policy objectives as outlined in their media briefing and release today.

Given that the BC Green caucus believes in the importance of giving industry certainty as to our positions and intentions, we also sent Mr. Calitz a letter that is reproduced in text form below. In our letter we are very clear that:

1. The B.C. Green Caucus does not, and will not, support exempting new LNG companies from carbon tax increases as this defeats the purpose of the carbon pricing.
2. Extending the carbon tax to fugitive emissions is a core component of our confidence and supply agreement with the BC NDP.
3. The confidence and supply agreement requires government to implement a climate action strategy to meet B.C.’s legislated emissions reduction targets of not less than 40% below 2007 levels by 2030 and 80% below 2007 level by 2050

Our firm position is that it is incumbent upon government to assess the LNG Canada project through the lens of meeting these greenhouse gas reduction targets and specifically identify a pathway to meet them. This should be done in a manner that protects existing industries that provide jobs and economic activity that British Columbians rely on.

As it stands, and despite being in office for 8 months, the BC Government still has not identified any concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As I pointed out in February, it is not possible to on the one hand claim you have a plan to meet our targets and then on the other hand start promoting the expansion of LNG.

As noted in the essay I wrote, in 2016, British Columbia actually lost $383 million from exploration and development of our resource. That’s because the tax credits earned exceeded the sum of the income received from net royalties and rights tenders combined. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017, British Columbia earned total revenue of only $3.7 million, a 99.9% drop from 2010 (BC earned 1000 times more revenue in 2010 from natural gas than we did in the last fiscal year).

It makes no sense to continue the generational sellout and further extend the government handout to a hypothetical LNG industry by offering ratepayer-subsidized electricity (read Site C) of 5.4 ¢/kWh (less than half what you or I pay and less than half of what it will cost to produce the electricity from Site C). It makes no sense to exempt LNG companies from being required to use electric drives for compression of natural gas to achieve this discounted electricity rate.

And in addition, expectations are that the federal government would further exempt LNG Canada from tariffs on fabricated steel imports. This would ensure that most of the infrastructure would be built in Asia and shipped to BC. At the same time, the BC Government will exempt LNG proponents from the Provincial Sales Tax (PST) for construction. So much for the multi-billion dollar investment, revenue and job creator for British Columbia.

Finally, it remains to be seen if LNG demand will increase in light of the fact that Japan, the world’s largest LNG importer, is restarting nuclear reactors that were shutdown following the Fukushima incident. In fact, just this week a major Japanese electric power company is putting its LNG contracts up for sale.

In the ongoing saga of British Columbia’s desperate attempt to land a positive final investment decision from a major LNG proponent, the generational sellout continues. In a typical race-for-the-bottom fashion, the BC NDP are proposing still further subsidies to LNG proponents.

While I appreciate the Premier’s commitment to putting in place a plan to reduce emissions to 40% below 2007 levels by 2030 and 80% below 2007 levels by 2050 and to put a price on fugitive emissions, I cannot see how this is possible if the LNG Canada proposal goes ahead. It would require every aspect of our BC economy (except LNG Canada) to collectively cut emissions by more than half in twelve years and by 95% by 2050.

As outlined in our media release below, there are significant opportunities to grow B.C.’s economy while meeting our climate targets that do not include LNG. For instance, the supercluster funding announced last month is expected to generate 50,000 jobs and $15 billion in economic activity in B.C. in the next 10 years.

In summary, the BC Green Caucus will not support any legislation brought forward to grant the exemptions outlined above.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus releases letter to LNG Canada clarifying position on government’s LNG approach
For immediate release
March 22, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – The B.C. Green Caucus released a letter sent to LNG Canada clarifying the Caucus’ position on the government’s proposed LNG regulations. The letter, sent on Monday March 19, came after the Caucus was was made aware of the the details of the government’s proposed LNG regime. The letter is intended to give industry maximum clarity, as the minority government requires the B.C. Green Caucus’ votes for general stability and to pass legislation.

“There are significant opportunities to grow B.C.’s economy while meeting our climate targets,” said Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party. “For instance, the supercluster funding announced last month is expected to generate 50,000 jobs and $15 billion in economic activity in B.C. in the next 10 years. Future development must fit within our climate targets, and the numbers on LNG simply don’t add up.”

The B.C. Green Caucus does not support extending the proposed measures to support existing Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed (EITE) industries as currently conceived to prospective LNG companies – a policy that would in effect freeze the carbon tax at $30/tonne for certain facilities. CASA commits government to extend the carbon tax to fugitive emissions, and the Caucus expects that this will include the natural gas industry. Further, the Caucus is concerned that increasing B.C.’s emissions through LNG developments will place an undue burden on existing industries and the public to reduce their emissions beyond what is already required.

“Not only is a plan to meet our climate commitments a core component of our Confidence and Supply Agreement (CASA) which forms the stability of this government, it is essential for ensuring we do not betray our duty to future generations.” Weaver continued. “When it became clear that the government intended to propose measures that are incompatible with B.C.’s ability to meet our climate targets, we felt it was our responsibility to communicate to LNG Canada that if these measures were to go ahead unamended, we would no longer have confidence in government.

“To be clear – our Caucus is fully committed to working in partnership with the B.C. NDP government to enact a plan to meet our climate targets and in attracting the investments we need to build a 21st century economy. We will continue to hold this government to account on all its promises, including our responsibility to the next generation and our international commitments to act on climate change.”

-30-

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

Text of BC Green Caucus Letter

Mr. Andy Calitz
CEO, LNG Canada

March 16, 2018

Dear Mr. Calitz,

We are writing regarding your ongoing discussions with the Government of British Columbia on your proposed project, LNG Canada in Kitimat, B.C.

As you know, British Columbia currently has a minority government, where the votes of our three caucus members provide confidence in Premier Horgan’s NDP government. The basis of our confidence is the Confidence and Supply Agreement (“CASA”) signed May 30, 2017 which binds our two caucuses to act on the principle of “good faith and no surprises.” As such, the government must consult with our caucus on all matters, and it must uphold the agreed-upon policies and initiatives enshrined in it. Our caucus has been consulted on the letter sent from the government to LNG Canada. We are writing to let you know our position on the government’s proposal in order to provide you with the fullest possible scope of information.

First, extending the carbon tax to fugitive emissions is a core component of CASA. We have assurances from the government that this extension is forthcoming pending a determination of the necessary technologies and regulations to measure them. To be clear, it is our expectation that the carbon tax on fugitive emissions will be extended to all sources of these emissions. This will have impacts on a number of industries and future proposed projects, including yours.

Second, CASA requires government to implement a climate action strategy to meet B.C.’s legislated emissions reduction targets. Therefore, all future development must fit within our province’s commitment to the Pan-Canadian Climate framework to meet our emissions reduction targets, as well as soon to be legislated targets for British Columbia specifically. As such, it is incumbent upon government to assess your project through this lens and to specifically identify how it will accomplish the emission reductions required to meet our targets of not less than 40% below 2007 levels by 2030 and 80% below 2007 level by 2050. This must be done in a way that limits harm to other existing industries that provide jobs and economic activity that British Columbians rely on.

Finally, CASA commits government to implement an increase of the carbon tax by $5 per tonne per year beginning April 1, 2018. Our intention was to ensure that across the entire economy a clear market signal was sent that incentivized low GHG producing activity, as well as spurred innovation and investment in the new economy. We were made aware over the course of our consultations with government that the proposed measures to support Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed (EITE) industries would be extended to LNG as well. These measures would have the effect of rebating up to 100% of the carbon tax that was paid beyond the $30 per tonne, based on how the greenhouse gas production intensity compares to the global cleanest benchmark.

While our caucus is supportive of these measures for the many existing industries in B.C. that already provide jobs and economic activity for our province – many of whom made their investment decisions in a previous regulatory environment – our caucus does not support extending the EITE as currently conceived to a proposed LNG industry.

If such a measure goes forward without amendment we do not see how a climate action plan, as agreed to in CASA, would have any legitimate pathway forward to reach our GHG reduction targets. As such, our caucus would no longer have confidence in government, as they would not be living up to their commitments laid out in CASA.

We believe that British Columbia must make its GHG reduction targets and climate action plan the centerpiece of its economic strategy. Our focus must be on prioritizing innovation within our economy and seeing new investments that ensure we are leaving the next generation with real opportunities to prosper. We are deeply encouraged that the companies engaged in your joint venture are investing heavily in renewable energy and other clean technologies. B.C. has a highly educated workforce, world-class research institutions and a wide range of innovative companies. We would welcome the opportunity to work with you in a manner that builds on these opportunities while helping us meet B.C.’s GHG reduction targets, as committed to under the Paris Climate Accord.

We would be happy to discuss our position in detail with you.

Sincerely,
Andrew Weaver
MLA, Oak Bay Gordon Head and Leader, B.C. Green Party

Sonia Furstenau
MLA, Cowichan Valley and Deputy Leader, B.C. Green Party

Adam Olsen,
MLA, Saanich North and the Islands