Today in the legislature I rose to table Private Members’ Bill entitled: Bill M229 — Energy and Water Efficiency Act, 2015. As I noted in introducing it, this Bill was originally tabled by the Liberal government in 2012 as Bill 32 — Energy and Water Efficiency Act. The Bill received support from all sides of the legislature when it was introduced in 2012. Unfortunately, it was never brought to the Committee of the whole house and subsequently third reading. We missed an opportunity in 2012 to pass this legislation. I hope that the government chooses to pick this up at this time.

Text of the Introduction of my Bill

I’m pleased to introduce a bill intituled the Energy and Water Efficiency Act. If this title sounds familiar, it’s because the act was initially introduced in 2012 and passed second reading with the support of the official opposition on April 24, 2012, but the Committee of the Whole House was never called during the fourth session of the 39th Parliament and so the bill died on the order paper.

This bill reflects the new language in the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. As noted by the Minister of Energy and Mines at the time, this bill would reduce consumers’ energy bills and lower operating costs for B.C. businesses. This legislation replaces the current Energy Efficiency Act and would enable administrative penalties to ensure manufacturers, distributors and retailers comply with energy efficiency guidelines, broaden the scope of energy efficiency requirements to include commercial energy systems, industrial reporting on water efficiency and enable the minister responsible to enact regulations for technical standards.

It was a fine, widely supported piece of legislation that was introduced after engaging more than 40 organizations and 60 individuals representing industry, utilities, governments, public interest and academia.

I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Video of the Introduction of my Bill

Yesterday in the legislature I rose to speak strongly against Bill 30 — Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. In a desperate attempt to fulfill outrageous election promises, the BC Government does what it can to give away our natural resources with little, if any, hope of receiving LNG tax revenue for many, many years to come.

Below is the text of my speech. You will see that at the end of my speech I offered a Reasoned Amendment. In speaking to the amendment I looked across the aisle to the MLAs opposite. I asked them to ask themselves one question. How do they think history will judge them? I argued that the generation of tomorrow will look back and will say: “This generation sold us out.” They will look back at this government’s decisions here to pass this bill with disdain, with shock, with disbelief and ask why?

Both the BC NDP and I stood together in support of my amendment and against passing second reading.

Second Reading Speech

A. Weaver: I rise today to take part in the debate on Bill 30, the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act, or PDA. That I’ll refer to later. This is a bill that our Premier has indicated will have historic implications.

Before I begin, I’d like to acknowledge the Minister of Finance’s efforts to ensure that my office received the necessary briefings and had an opportunity to ask questions prior to debating this bill in the Legislature. I’d also like to acknowledge that, true to the Minister of Natural Gas’s word, we are indeed debating the PDA in the Legislature, providing MLAs an opportunity to examine and debate its implications. While I may not like what I see, I do feel I need to acknowledge my gratitude for the opportunity to voice my concerns publicly.

Now I’d like it make two confessions. First, I’m surprised in how the government is choosing to frame the debate on this bill. In her introduction of the bill, our Premier noted this: “It is not every day in this House that we get the chance to really make our mark in history.”

Those words ring oddly familiar to me, having heard similar remarks from a previous Finance Minister back in 2008.

“Or we can seize the opportunity before us to be the generation of British Columbians who made the right decisions, who chose to take action and who, by doing so, showed their respect for the earth, for the atmosphere, for those who came before us and for those who will follow in the decades to come. Let’s rise to the occasion, and let’s work together to shape the next proud chapter in the history of British Columbia.”

These are, of course, the words of Finance Minister Carole Taylor as she introduced the 2008 budget in British Columbia, which laid out a path towards a sustainable and resilient future for our province with the climate action plan.

It is in this that I must admit my surprise. I’m surprised at how far this government’s ambition has fallen, from striving to achieve a place of global leadership on the most pressing issue of our time — namely, the transition to a diversified, resilient 21st-century economy — to declare that we are “building our future” on the bedrock of a fossil fuel industry. I hope the irony is not lost on the government.

The second confession I must make is that I was wrong about the government. Three years ago, when our Premier began her all-in sales pitch on LNG, I was certain that the reality of the global market conditions, the uncertainty we see in neighbouring jurisdictions like Alberta — when they have tried to build a province around a single industry — and the greenhouse gas reduction commitments the previous administration had made, that this would force the government to dial back on the rhetoric and accept that it was unlikely that we would attract an LNG investment. But the rhetoric was never dialed back.

I couldn’t possibly imagine what this government was willing to give away in order to potentially land an LNG facility: our climate leadership; the ability of future governments to re-negotiate tax rates in the interests of the province; a fair price for the resource that belongs to the people of British Columbia.

Back in the fall of 2012, the then deputy minister of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas gave a presentation at the 2012 annual Clean Energy B.C. conference, entitled Fuelling Our Economy: British Columbia’s LNG Strategies. The government’s expectations at that time were revealed, and this was in 2012. At the time, Japan LNG was trading at $16 per million Btu, and the government was promising rising global LNG prices for many years to come.

So what’s happened to the global market since 2012? Well, we all know, and it was entirely predictable, given the fact that we are not the only ones in the world who have discovered horizontal fracking technology. Our shale gas reserves pale in comparison to those of other countries. There are massive reserves in Australia, in Russia, in Iran, in Qatar, in China and in the United States. Shale gas exists all around the world, yet somehow B.C. thought that it, and only it alone, was going to fill Asian market supply gas with our natural gas.

Well, as I’ve been pointing out for almost three years now, there is a global market oversupply, and we are latecomers to the game. Today the LNG East Asia index is trading July 2016 delivery contracts at $7.35 per million Btu. August 2015 contracts are even lower — $7.25 per million Btu. It’s more than a 50 percent drop from just three years ago, but it’s not going to end there.

Sanctions are about to be lifted on Iran, and with Iran being the home of the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves that are in order of magnitude that’s more than a factor of ten, that’s larger than Canada’s reserves — let alone British Columbia’s — it’s clear that downward price pressures will continue in the natural gas and LNG markets.

As the reality of this government’s irresponsible election promises became more and more transparent, the government became more and more desperate to land one positive final investment decision. That is why this legislation and the project development agreement it is meant to enable represent, as I outline below, a generational sell-out, a public display of affection between Petronas and the B.C. Liberals.

We may eventually get an LNG facility in this province, but at what cost? As Martyn Brown, former B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell’s long-serving chief of staff and the top strategic adviser of three provincial party leaders, so aptly noted in an article published on Monday: “The fine print of that deal will commit our province to a course that is environmentally reckless, fiscally foolhardy and socially irresponsible. I say that as someone who is generally supportive of the merits of LNG development, to the extent that it is invited without giving up more than we can collectively stand to gain.”

Please let me explore this cost in some detail to illuminate what this government is asking us to give up to ensure they deliver on an over-the-top election promise. Start with the LNG tax. In the fall, we passed the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, a bill that laid out the tax regime for LNG. With its introduction, we saw the LNG income tax slashed from a proposed 7 percent to only 3½ percent.

We also learned that companies would only be paying a 1.5 percent tax while they paid off their capital investment costs and that the tax they paid in that period could be applied as a credit on future taxes at the 3.5 percent rate. The LNG income tax legislation was a clear reflection of the unrealistic economics behind the government’s hyperbolic LNG promises.

In the spring, only a few short months after we passed the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, the government introduced the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act. At 109 pages, this amendment act was longer than the original act, and the purpose of the amendment act was to close many of the massive loopholes that were left open when the original act was signed.

The key point to acknowledge here is the very fact that the government had to introduce the bill in two stages. They couldn’t introduce the complete income tax legislation all at once because it wasn’t ready, and they were in a rush. The government had to get the skeleton passed so that LNG companies would know, more or less, what they were going to have to pay, but they were operating on such a tight timeline that they didn’t have the time to have the fully finished legislation available in the fall.

I appreciate that the government is acting swiftly to try to meet what it perceives to be a limited window of opportunity before the 2017 election as Petronas tries to firm up supply for its mid-2020s supply gap. My concern is that in trying to meet that window, we may be opening ourselves up to making colossal errors.

The truth is we have no idea at this stage if we have closed all of the loopholes in the LNG Income Tax Act. Our first-rate civil servants, of course, have been doing their best to remediate the act’s shortcomings, but it’s not uncommon for tax legislation to be amended in the future to account for unforeseen loopholes, even years after it’s been introduced. In this case, of course, we won’t have years to fix it. In fact, we won’t have any time to fix it. If we pass this bill, the LNG Income Tax Act will be locked in for 25 years.

Now, I know that the government would respond by saying it has reserved the power to make amendments for administrative and technical matters for enforcement measures and to respond to tax avoidance issues, but I’m not talking about tax avoidance. I’m talking about tax planning. I’m talking about an LNG taxpayer identifying and exploiting a legitimate loophole in the legislation such that they could, for example, pay tax at the 1.5 percent rate well past the originally intended period. If it deemed that the taxpayer’s actions are legitimate and therefore do not constitute tax avoidance, then under this agreement any change you make to close that loophole could trigger the indemnity clause, requiring the province to potentially pay that producer millions in damages.

If we pass this bill, we won’t get another chance to close those loopholes, so we’d better have gotten it right the first time. Given how quickly LNG income tax bills were developed and the manner in which they were introduced, I’m deeply concerned that we didn’t get it right the first time. In fact, I raised serious issues myself during the debates about potential loopholes.

Yet it’s not just about the loopholes. It’s about the legislation itself. This is an LNG giveaway designed to attract an industry that wouldn’t otherwise come to B.C. By passing this legislation, we are locking the province into LNG income tax rates that have been widely criticized as being too low, and we won’t have another chance to reconsider those rates for 25 years. What if the government got it wrong? Twenty-five years is a long time. It’s too long for British Columbians to wait to fix the government’s error.

Let me turn to the natural gas tax credit. The same is true for this. B.C. already has the lowest corporate income tax rates in the country, but apparently that wasn’t low enough for the LNG companies, so we gave them an additional 3 percent back through the natural gas tax credit. What makes LNG companies so special that they need an additional 3 percent corporate income tax cut on their corporate income tax? What makes them so special? Do they not make enough money to pay themselves, like all other corporations do? Are their profits so low that they need government assistance in the form of tax breaks?

Consider this. Petronas by itself funds 45 percent of the Malaysian government’s revenue, so why are we giving them an additional 3 percent off of their corporate income tax? My concern is that is inconsistent and an arbitrary policy that is a result of government negotiating from a weak position to fulfil a campaign promise that never should have been made. And British Columbians today and in the future will bear the cost.

Let’s turn to the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. The day the project development agreement comes into force is the day that we officially give up on our climate targets. There’s no debate there. Government can spin this any way they want, but there is simply no debate there. It’s a simple fact. We cannot have an LNG industry and meet our climate targets.

If constructed, Pacific NorthWest LNG alone, one company, would emit nearly as much carbon as the rest of our entire province, in every single sector, would emit in 2050 — one LNG facility — if we actually take those targets seriously. When we hear the rhetoric about “we have targets, and we will meet them,” let’s be clear: those targets, if we are to meet, mean we cannot have an LNG industry. You can’t have it both ways. The facts are clear.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a surprise. When we debated the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act back in the fall, it was clear that this government was no longer serious about addressing climate change. Instead of strengthening our policies, they repealed the cap-and-trade legislation and introduced a new focus on emissions intensity, a scheme that would allow you to pollute as much as you want so as long as you did so efficiently, a scheme directly out of legislation that exists in Alberta.

On Monday the government released further details on its environmental incentive program. The sellout continues. The program essentially gives yet more tax breaks to LNG companies to pay for the costs of their emissions offset. What’s particularly noteworthy is that the government’s new “environmental incentive program” has made it even easier for LNG companies to qualify for tax breaks by making the qualifying threshold higher. Originally under the GGIRC, a company had to have an emissions intensity of 0.23 to qualify for a tax break. Now the actual emissions intensity can be substantially higher than that because the company can discount all of its “entrained” CO₂ emissions before it is assessed for the tax break.

What are entrained CO₂ emissions? In any natural gas stream, there’s unwanted carbon dioxide that can now be freely released to the atmosphere — that’s fugitive greenhouse gas emissions — at the site of the LNG facility. Fugitive greenhouse gas emissions are not covered by the carbon tax.

So this is not the cleanest LNG in the world. This is the cleanest LNG if you have a whole bunch of loopholes and don’t account greenhouse gas emissions in the world. But nobody takes that seriously. It’s a bit rich for this government to continue the rhetoric that it is dealing with the climate issue and at the same time building the cleanest LNG in the world.

Emissions from the gas stream can be very large. They’re not subject, as I mentioned, to the carbon tax. Even those LNG companies that have emissions intensities well above 0.23, far from the so-called cleanest LNG of 0.16, now can qualify for an additional tax break. What even makes this worse is that once this bill passes, we can’t change it. Should we decide that low emitters that actually hit the 0.16 intensity mark deserve any kind of bonus, we would still have to pay those other higher emitters anyway under the indemnity clause. It makes no sense.

Similarly, should we decide that 0.16 is too high an emissions intensity, we’ll have to pay the LNG companies under the indemnity clause to lower it. So there’s no real point in improving those standards.

Contrary to what’s suggested by the name LNG environmental incentive program, by signing this agreement, we are giving away any incentive for these companies to actually lower their emissions under the GGIRC for the next 25 years because we won’t have a way of steadily and predictably increasing costs of emissions. That’s hardly encouraging the development of the cleanest LNG in the world.

As I’ve mentioned earlier, the current carbon tax applies only to emissions from combustive fossil fuels. A major gap is the methane and CO₂ leakages from upstream natural gas operations and pipelines which are not taxed but now could be because of audited information from British Columbia’s greenhouse gas–reporting regulation.

While I recognize that this bill specifically states that any indemnity only applies to regulatory changes specific to the LNG facility itself, my fear is that in eventually plugging the regulatory gap on methane leakage emissions, which will increase the cost of gas at the LNG facility, Petronas would litigate. Now, government will surely claim that this was not the intent of its agreement. Petronas is a powerful resource state-owned multinational corporation, and even the threat of litigation could frighten future governments from regulating emissions.

Perhaps most worrisome of all is the framework in which all these pieces are embedded: the project development agreement. With the PDA, the government is setting a new precedent for how it will manage investments into our province. I’m concerned that this may put British Columbia in a very weak negotiating position on any future negotiations.

Please let me explain. Under this PDA, companies have the ability to negotiate for more favourable deals and piggyback on those secured by future proponents.

If the province doesn’t have this ability, in fact there are only two options for the province: maintain the relatively low standards of this PDA and hope other companies agree to them or lower them further to attract other LNG investors, in which case we have to lower the standards for everyone. These are precisely the conditions that risk exacerbating a race to the bottom. Furthermore

Furthermore, while the province will be locked in for 25 years with no exit clause, the proponent can pull out at any time with 90 days’ notice. I understand, of course, that when a company is making a large investment, they would like to have added certainty. However, if we are to provide that added certainty — and I caution that, in my view, a 25-year time frame seems a bit rich — then I would expect significant concessions in return.

In essence, we are transferring risk from the company to our province, which, in turn, is de facto transferred to the British Columbia taxpayers. If British Columbians are to take on that risk, then we should be adequately compensated for it.

Yet with this PDA, we are locking in tax rates that have been criticized as being far too low, thereby limiting the revenue we receive from the industry while also establishing no guarantees regarding jobs, training or other — for the lack of a better term — non-monetary commitments.

This, unfortunately, isn’t surprising, because the market conditions aren’t there to support these commitments, and our government was never in a strong negotiating position to demand them to begin with. I fear what we’ve done is we’ve transferred risk to the province and to British Columbians without gaining a fair return in exchange.

In addition, what is particularly concerning about this approach is that there doesn’t appear to be a clear, consistent policy on when a company can get a PDA. Businesses and our economy prosper best under a level, transparent playing field and certainty. Yet here we have a new policy tool, a project development agreement, that’s being applied to one company with no clear criteria for conditions under which another company could apply for a similar agreement.

The government likes to tout Pacific NorthWest LNG as constituting a $36 billion investment. I’ve heard it time and time again through the debates. It states that the scale of this investment is the reason that it qualifies for a PDA. The PDA only applies to the LNG facility, though. There are separate, other long-term royalty agreements that govern upstream natural gas extraction, and other measures to govern the pipeline.

Let’s break down these numbers. Let’s unpack them for all those riveted to their television screens across British Columbia. If you actually break down the numbers, the LNG facility only counts for $11 billion in investment. And guess what — $8 billion of that will be spent overseas. They’re not going to build the facility here. They’re going to build it in Asia, bring it in on tidewater and put it in British Columbia. So really, we’re actually talking about $3 billion, maybe $4 billion invested in B.C.

Let’s put that in context. While this is clearly a significant amount, the northern gateway pipeline was a $7.9 billion investment. Should we be giving them a PDA? The Trans Mountain pipeline was a $5.4 billion investment. Should they get one? EDP Renewables, TimberWest and First Nations on Vancouver Island want to invest $1 billion today, not hypothetically in the mid-2020s, yet the government has turned its nose on that, and they’re walking. Should they get a PDA?

I don’t believe we should be bringing forward a new policy tool such as PDAs without first establishing how they’re used. The last thing we want is either an unfair playing field for business or a proliferation of PDAs that facilitate the fire sale of our  resources while constricting the ability of future governments to make necessary changes.

To First Nations. I’m disconcerted about how little we have heard from this government about its negotiations with First Nations. I’m left with many unanswered questions and a concern that we may be failing our fiduciary responsibility toward aboriginal people.

Is the PDA established even constitutional? Have we got legal opinion that section 35 of the Constitution Act — which limits provincial or federal government’s ability to legislate in a way that results in a meaningful diminuation of aboriginal or treaty rights — is not being violated? Would the law that we are debating today that would tie hands of future governments also purport to limit the aboriginal groups’ ability to negotiate the revenue they will receive from a project? Is this in line with what has been established in the Tsilhqot’in decision? There are many unanswered questions that we have yet to have answers given to us by government.

Are we setting up a regime where First Nations are partners in the development? Or are we foisting the development of an LNG facility on an ecologically sensitive island that would deprive future generations of the benefit of the land and the salmon that spawn, which the eelgrass nearby is critical for?

Signing agreements while committing to further engagement is not the way to reconcile relations with First Nations. It’s not rising to the challenge before us to chart a better path. We must instead engage and partner with First Nations, proceeding to sign agreements and move development forward when we can do so together.

In conclusion, I’ve lost track of the number of times the government has stressed that LNG is a generational opportunity. Indeed, the impacts of our decisions this week will be felt for generations to come. Yet I fear those impacts will not be positive. The fact we need this PDA should underscore how much this government has had to put on the table to buy this industry.

This legislation is highly illustrative of the shaky and desperate LNG climate that currently exists in B.C. and is embedded in the larger pattern of industry giveaways. We’ve already locked ourselves into long-term royalty agreements and changed municipal tax laws to allow for the special treatment of LNG facilities. We’ve dedicated years of government resources to develop a single industry, instead of investing in a diversified, resilient economy that is based on the multitude of strong, existing and up-and-coming industries we have in B.C.

For example, government proudly proclaims that if and when it becomes operational, the Petronas facility could — not likely but could — support 500 long-term jobs. Let’s put that number in context. Hootsuite, the rapidly growing Vancouver-based social media company, already employs more than 700. So 700 jobs and growing weekly, yet government is touting 500 jobs.

In the last legislative session, I voiced my concerns about Bill 12, the Federal Port Development Act. As I previously explained, on its own, Bill 12 is not inherently problematic. But when considered in conjunction with Bill C-43 federally, issues arose, as Bill 12 did not account for any of the regulatory holes left open by the federal bill.

As I continue down this path, it’s very troubling that the recently proposed Port of Prince Rupert liquefied natural gas facilities regulations put forward by Transport Canada and recently posted in the Canada Gazette, plan to put the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission in charge of regulation of LNG terminals on federal lands. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

Especially worrisome are the broad exclusions described in section 11 of these federal regulations now in the Canada Gazette. This is what they say: “Unless otherwise provided by these regulations, a provision of an incorporated law that imposes an obligation, liability or penalty on an owner, occupier, public authority, public body or unspecified person or entity does not apply to Her Majesty in right of Canada or to the Prince Rupert Port Authority”

It’s essentially saying that laws that would generally apply to the port will only do so if expressly required by regulations — regulations set by the Oil and Gas Commission. The effect of this provision would be that laws of general application would no longer apply to the port, making it above the law. It could mean that the port could operate nearly independently of the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

Deputy Speaker: We seem to be straying from the bill at hand. If the member could draw it back.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, I’ll bring it right back. I’m trying to give an example of the desperate efforts that this government has taken to actually land this, as embodied in the PDA. This desperate measure, one of them, I raised last session and is actually coming to fruition as we speak. In fact, it just came in the Canada Gazette, and it’s very relevant, hon. Speaker. I’ll finish with one sentence.

What I wanted to say is that it means now that the port could operate nearly independently of the Oil and Gas Activities Act, the Drinking Water Protection Act, the Environmental Management Act, the Species at risk Act and any other laws that could be required to protect the environment and public health. This is the extent of the giveaway embodied in the PDA, embodied in all the other pieces of legislation that this government has brought forward. And sadly, this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as these regulations are concerned.

Now with the passing of this bill, we will be locking ourselves into an untested LNG income tax regime and signing away our ability to fix any unforeseen problems. We will be solidifying tax rates demanded by industry in negotiations with a desperate government. We’ll be throwing away our climate targets and the commitments we made to them and selling out the next generation. An LNG export industry and our climate targets never could have coexisted. You don’t have to believe me. Government can ask its own civil servants, who’ve been advising them of the same thing for several years.

An LNG export industry, as I said, cannot coexist with our climate targets. We could have done more to mitigate the increased emissions. Instead, we saw the definition of “cleanest LNG” that we were pitched two years ago gutted to remove upstream and midstream emissions.

But still, you know, I’m an optimist, and still I’m a firm believer that it’s not too late. I still believe we have the opportunity to change directions. There’s still time to redirect our efforts into building a diversified, resilient economy, one that builds on our potential in clean tech, high tech and the creative economy, that embodies our strength in tourism and small business and that is based on the sustainable and thoughtful development of our natural resources, including forestry, mining, fisheries and natural gas, to name a few.

It is with this hope in mind and with these concerns laid out that I move a reasoned amendment on Bill 30, Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. I submit to the House the following motion.

[That the motion for second reading on Bill 30, Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreement Act, be amended by deleting all the words after “That” and substitute the words “be not now read a second time as Project Development Agreements inappropriately limit the ability of future governments to use their legislative prerogative to respond to the future environmental, social and economic challenges that will face both an LNG industry and our Province.”]

Text of my Speech to the Amendment

A. Weaver: Very briefly, on the amendment all I would like to say is I’ve laid the case out there. I look across the aisle to the MLAs opposite, and I ask them to ask themselves one question. When they open a history book 20 years from now, those of them who are still around, I will ask them this: how do they think history will judge them?

I will tell you how history will judge them. The generation of tomorrow will look back and will say: “This generation sold us out.” They will look back at this government’s decisions here to pass this bill with disdain, with shock, with disbelief and ask why. That is why I’m giving government a last chance.

Some of its MLAs…. There must be truly one or two Liberals left in the Liberal Party of Canada. For them to think that this can pass and for them to think that they are Liberals — it’s just simply not possible because Liberals, true Liberals, federal Liberals, would not do this. They would recognize the importance of meeting our climate targets. They would recognize the importance of working for a sustainable economy. They would not sell out the future generation, as this government is about to do.

Video of my Speech

Vote on the Amendment

Vote on Second Reading

Today in the Legislature I rose, pursuant to a seldom used provision in the Standing Orders, to call for an emergency debate on whether or not BC is acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change on our province. Below I provide the rationale for why I believed that holding such a debate was of urgent public importance. I further reproduce the media release that accompanied my speech, a backgrounder, and details concerning the Standing Order.

What is remarkable is that both the BC Liberal and BC NDP house leaders (Mike de Jong and Mike Farnworth) spoke against having such a debate. The Speaker eventually ruled against proceeding with the debate shortly before the house adjourned. It wasn’t a surprise that the Speaker ruled this way in light of the fact that both house leaders spoke against spending a mere one hour debating British Columbia’s climate policy. If fact she specifically cited their comments as being helpful in informing her as she wrote her decision.

My Justification

Madame Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35. As advised in Standing Order 35, I gave the chair advance notice and I have provided a written statement of the matter proposed to the clerk.

By leave, I move that this House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance.

Namely, that in light of this year’s record temperatures, drought, lack of snow pack, and forest fires, and with a 90% probability that El Niño will persist into the winter exacerbating present conditions, whether we as legislators are acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change on our province.

To be clear, I am not calling for a debate on the impacts of climate change. Standing Order 35 excludes debating a matter of an ongoing nature, and there is no doubt that climate change will challenge every aspect of life in our province for decades to come.

However, as laid out in my motion, the matter of urgent public importance concerns whether we as legislators are acting with sufficient urgency and demonstrating the appropriate leadership on preparing for and mitigating the escalating impacts of climate change on our province.

I submit to you, Madame Speaker, and to the House that this session offers us no other adequate opportunity to have this debate, a debate that is urgent and in the public interest given the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change discussions that will be taking place at the 21^st Conference of Parties in Paris this December, a conference where our Premier will be speaking about B.C’s supposed climate leadership.

This debate is particularly urgent as the government plans to use carbon offsets through the protection of forests to help reach our legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets. Yet under UNFCCC rules, government cannot adopt this risky path unless it also includes emissions from forest fires in annual reporting.

As legislators, it is critical that we have the opportunity to have this debate prior to any representations being made on a global stage regarding BC’s planned response to climate change.

There will be no other opportunity to have this debate during the session. And with uncertainty as to whether we will have another legislative sitting in advance of this conference, it is critically important that this chamber turn its attention to our role as legislators in addressing climate change, providing the people of British Columbia an opportunity to hear where its government stands on whether it is acting appropriately and urgently in the face of the extreme weather-related events happening around us.

There are few debates that are more urgent or are of greater public importance.

Response from BC Liberal House Leader – Mike de Jong

Thanks to the member. I’m relatively certain of two things. One is we have certainly experienced some extreme conditions in the province these past number of weeks that have contributed to some challenging circumstances. We heard about that earlier from the minister. Nor do I doubt the member’s interest and commitment to addressing some of the underlying issues that may or may not be contributing to that.

Having said that, we are also bound and obliged to conduct proceedings in this chamber pursuant to the standing orders. The member has risen pursuant to Standing Order 35. It is very much the urgency of debate that the Chair in past rulings focussing on these matters addressed. Though I can appreciate that the member would prefer the dedicated time that Standing Order 35 would provide for addressing this matter, there are other opportunities during the time that the House is sitting to raise these matters and have them considered by members.

In my respectful submission to the House and to the member, the motion…. I listened carefully to the motion. I haven’t seen it yet, but I listened as the member read it into the record. I would suggest the motion falls short of the historic threshold for adopting and moving to a Standing Order 35 debate, but as always, I will anxiously await the Chair’s ruling on the matter.

Response from BC NDP House Leader – Mike Farnworth

I, too, have listened to the hon. member’s motion. There is much in the motion that I believe has merit.

I would also, I think, point out that at this particular time, given what the member has said about the Premier going to this conference in December, that a fall session, which we are all expecting, would be an appropriate time, with advance notice, for all members to be able to participate in such a discussion around an important issue such as this. I think it would be something that members of the House would want to do.

So I would suggest at this particular time that the Speaker might want to think about an appropriate time in a fall session for this very important debate to take place, before a Premier heads off to a major international conference. But of course, hon. Speaker, we will abide by your ruling.

Press Release

Media Release- July 13th 2015
Andrew Weaver Calls for Emergency Debate on BC’s response to Climate Change
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Today, Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, called for an emergency debate on how British Columbia is responding to climate change, arguing that the debate is “a matter of urgent public importance”.

“We are experiencing forest fires, fishing bans, water restrictions and air quality advisories all occurring at alarming rates. In the backdrop of everything that is going on right now, there are few issues more urgent or of greater public importance than the actions we need to take immediately to tackle climate change,” said Andrew Weaver.

To be debated, matters of urgent public importance must be approved by the Speaker and granted leave by the House.

Both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals spoke against having an emergency debate on climate change. The Legislature is waiting for the speaker to rule on whether the motion will be heard.

While 2015 may go down as an extreme year, these conditions will become more and more common and more and more extreme for the province as global warming worsens.

“It is sadly ironic that as our forests burn, snowpack melts, and frequency of severe summer droughts increase, the government is forcing through its generational sellout embodied in the 25-year LNG agreement with Petronas,” said Andrew Weaver. “The impacts and costs of climate change have never been clearer for British Columbians. It’s time we consider what kind of future we want.”

-30-

Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver, MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382
Email: Mat.Wright@leg.bc.ca

Backgrounder – Summer 2015 Extreme Weather Events

While climate scientists are careful to point out that individual weather events cannot be directly connected to global warming, changes in the frequency and intensity of such events can be detected and attributable to human-caused global warming.

Wildfires

• Between April 1st and July 12th, 2015 there have been 1,069 wildfires in British Columbia, with 221 fires currently active across the province.
• Over $108 million has been spent so far this year fighting forest fires.

Water

• Two areas of Vancouver Island, Parksville and The Regional District of Nanaimo, have introduced Level 4 water bans, the highest water restriction possible.
• Metro Vancouver’s reservoirs are being depleted at a far faster than normal rate in “an unprecedented dry year”.
• On June 15, Province-wide snowpack levels were only at five per cent of normal conditions for that time of the year. Other basins, including the Lower Fraser, Okanagan, South Coast and Vancouver Island saw their snowpack surveyed at zero percent of normal levels.

Fish

•Salmon thrive in water temperatures between 13 and 18 degrees Celsius, once water temperatures hit 19 degrees the fish begin to show physiological signs of stress and they slow their upstream migration. At 20 degrees, there are disease outbreaks and fish start to die.
•The Fraser River is currently around 19 degrees.
Rivers are so low and warm this summer that the province has suspended sport fishing in streams and rivers for southern Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands.

Air Quality

• Health authorities say that Metro Vancouver’s air quality dipped close to levels found in major Chinese cities, such as Beijing, because of the forest fire smoke.

July 6th, 2015:
Beijing:                  144 μg/m³
Burnaby North:   112 μg/m³

Temperature

• The weekend of June 27th, 2015 saw 64 temperature records broken across British Columbia.

Standing Order 35

Below are the details of Standing Order 35 which was last used in 2008.

Adjournment on Matter of Urgent
Public Importance

Adjournment for special purposes.

35. (1) Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House, when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (Standing Order 25) has been concluded and before Orders of the Day are entered on.

Making statement.

(2) A Member wishing to move, “That this House do now adjourn” under this Standing Order, shall rise and state the matter briefly.

Written statement to Speaker.

(3) After the Member has stated the matter, he or she shall hand a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker.

Decision.

(4) If the Speaker decides that the statement is in order and is of urgent public importance, he or she shall read the statement aloud and ask whether the Member has leave to move the motion. If objection is taken, the question of leave shall be decided on division without debate.

Speaker may defer decision.

(5) The Speaker may defer the decision upon whether or not the statement is in order and of urgent public importance. The proceedings of the House may be interrupted later for the purpose of announcing the decision.

Debate may be deferred.

(6) If leave has been obtained, the motion may stand over until 4.30 p.m. on that day, or the Speaker may direct that the motion be set down for consideration on the following sitting day at an hour specified by him or her.

[ (7) not in use as per Consequential Amendment – Motion passed February 10, 2004 ]

Motion on Friday.

(7) If leave has been obtained on any Friday, the motion shall stand over until 4.30 p.m. the next sitting day, unless the Speaker shall direct that the motion be set down for consideration later the same Friday.

Time limits.

(8) The debate on the motion shall not exceed one hour, apportioned as follows:

Mover: 15 minutes
Other Members: 10 minutes each

Debate concluded.

(9) Upon expiration of the time limited for debate, the motion lapses and the House shall proceed to Orders of the Day or the next order of business, unless the House otherwise orders.

Restrictions.

(10) The right to move the adjournment of the House under this Standing Order is subject to the following restrictions:

(a) not more than one such motion may be made at the same sitting;

(b) not more than one matter shall be discussed on the same motion;

(c) the motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same Session;

(d) the motion must not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House, or with respect to which a notice of motion has been previously given and not withdrawn;

(e) the motion must not raise a question of privilege;

(f) the discussion under the motion must not raise any question which, according to the Standing Orders of the House, can only be debated on a motion under notice.

Interview on CKNW

Media Statement – May 20, 2015
Green MLA calls Pacific NorthWest LNG-BC Government MOU “shocking and irresponsible”
For Immediate Release

Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, says that the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the B.C. Government and Pacific NorthWest LNG is a truly shocking and irresponsible act.

“This is the act of a desperate government,” says Andrew Weaver. “For over two years I’ve been saying the same thing. Oversupply in the global natural gas markets means that the economics simply do not support the Liberal’s irresponsible LNG hyperbole. Rather than acknowledging the folly of their pre-election promises, they take the reckless and desperate approach of essentially giving away a resource while simultaneously proposing to hamstring future governments from looking out for the interests of British Columbians.”

The Memorandum of Understanding, signed between Pacific NorthWest LNG and the B.C. Government is a precursor to the controversial project development agreements that are designed to give LNG producers more certainty by making it costly for future governments to change royalty and tax rates.

The project development agreements are being used to get around the fact that by law a government cannot impose limitations on the powers and actions of future governments. They can, however, make it costly, both financially and politically, for a future government to withdraw from an existing agreement.

“By signing this agreement, the government is effectively putting the interests of one corporation ahead of British Columbians. This government has already rewritten environmental laws, rewritten the way royalties are assessed on industry, and advanced a very favourable tax regime for the industry.  Now they are hamstringing future governments. British Columbians are getting a raw deal from a government that is putting politics ahead of good economics. They should be outraged.”

Ironically, this latest event in B.C.’s ongoing LNG debacle comes at a time with the Asian LNG June spot price averaging around $7.12 per million BTU. A recent Macquarie Private Wealth analysis pinned the break even price for BC LNG at between $8.37 and $9.77 per million BTU.

Media contact

Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA
1 250 216 3382
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Media Statement – May 19, 2015
Allan’s Withdrawal from Pipeline Hearings gives Urgency for Province to do the Same
For Immediate Release

Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, says that Robyn Allan’s withdrawal from the National Energy Board hearings on the Trans Mountain pipeline gives new urgency to his call that the provincial government pull out of the federal hearings and hold its own made-in-BC review.

“Robyn Allan was one of the real leaders in the Trans Mountain pipeline hearings,” says Andrew Weaver. “When someone as credible and as thoughtful as Robyn Allan writes such a scathing review of this process, we’d be wise to listen.”

Allan’s withdrawal comes just one month after the English Bay oil spill that saw several Vancouver beaches closed due to human health risks from the toxic oil slick. A recent report commissioned by the City of Vancouver emphasised the dire consequences for marine life should a larger spill occur.

An economist and former CEO of ICBC, Allan has been one of the most active intervenors in the NEB hearings. When it was discovered that oral cross-examination had been excluded from the review, Allan led intervenors in what was ultimately an unsuccessful effort to get it reinstated. The lack of oral cross-examination has been described as one of the deepest flaws in the hearing process, seriously undermining intervenors’ ability to evaluate Trans Mountain’s proposal.

Weaver is currently the only B.C. MLA with intervenor status in the hearings. He has been calling on the B.C. government to pull out and hold their own review process for more than six months.

“British Columbians have rightfully lost confidence in the Trans Mountain hearings. Our coastline is too important to leave up to such a flawed process. It’s time for the province to withdraw.”

Last week, Weaver tabled a Private Member’s Bill designed to help British Columbians regain control over the approval of oil pipelines. If passed, the bill would provide an additional tool to residences to force the B.C. government to pull out of the Federal-Provincial Environmental Assessment Equivalency Agreement and hold its own provincial review process.

-30-

Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382
Mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
Twitter: @MatVic

Parliament Buildings
Room 027C
Victoria BC V8V 1X4