It was a very busy day for me in the Legislature today. I was one of only two opposition members who spoke at 2^nd reading to Bill 24 – 2016: Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act. I was one of only five opposition members who spoke at 2^nd reading to Bill 23: Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, 2016. And I was one of only two opposition members who spoke at 2^nd reading to Bill 25 – 2016: Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016.

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Acts are omnibus acts that propose numerous minor changes to a number of existing pieces of legislation. Bill 25 is the third such act we are debating in this session alone.

Bill 25 proposes amendments to ten existing acts: the Agricultural Land Commission Act; the Assessment Act; the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act; the Environmental Management Act, the Income Tax Act, the Insurance Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the Local Government Act, the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act.

While many of the proposed changes are minor, as you will see from the text and video of my speech that I reproduce below, I have serious reservations about two critical amendments. I also have a number of questions on other amendments that I will defer to committee stage.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 25, Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016. Like so many of these other miscellaneous statutes amendment acts, this act is a potpourri of changes to a variety of acts, with some additional transitional provisions attached to them, as need arises.

The act amends ten acts: the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which I’m sure the member for Saanich South will have some comments on; the Assessment Act; the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act; the Environmental Management Act, the Income Tax Act, the Insurance Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the Local Government Act, the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act.

Under the ALC, there are two amendments to the ALC Act. The first is an amendment that will require the ALC to obtain the owner’s consent before excluding land for the reserve. This is mostly applicable in boundary reviews.

The second, as the minister mentioned, adds a regulation-making authority so that the commission can provide clarity to farmers about agritourism activities — for example, a wedding on a farm. Regulations on these are expected this spring.

However, there is a clause that does raise some concern, and that’s clause 1.3 in this bill, which I’m sure we can explore further at committee stage. This seems to allow the commission to have a loophole so that the consent by owners is not actually required to remove land from the ALR. I’d be interested in exploring what the government has in mind with respect to the inclusion of section 1.3 further at committee stage.

In terms of the Assessment Act, the amendment for this will give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to prescribe assessed values for certain restricted use properties. The change is designed to ensure that Crown corporations, either provincial or federal, on Crown land are paying their fair share of property taxes. On this, I think there will be a broad agreement as these are fine changes.

Similar with the Local Government Act on page 5 of this bill, the amendment there fixes a mistake that was done in 2015 under the Statute Revision Act. It removes a contraction that exists presently.

Under the Environmental Management Act, there is an amendment which gives the flexibility to the minister to be able to update area-based management plans and improve permitting certainty within those areas. Specifically, a director is given the power to amend the permit after consultation with the minister. I, again, see no problems in support in this aspect.

Then we come to the Protected Areas of B.C. Act, page 7, which is troubling. The amendment here reduces the size of Finn Creek, of the park there, so that the Kinder Morgan expansion can continue planning its route. The proposed boundary adjustment will not be brought into force unless the NEB, of course, approves the project, the five conditions are met, and the province has issued an environmental assessment certificate, as the minister pointed out.

The park is reduced by a couple of hectares, but this reduction will cut a line directly through the northern section of the park. This follows Trans Mountain’s request to the province to amend various parks for its proposed route in 2014.

Obviously, I will be opposing this particular amendment. This is precluding…. Despite the fact that the minister is giving us the assurance of the government that this will not be brought into force unless the NEB and the five conditions are met, the reality is that we are putting it in place now, and frankly, that sends a signal that government is moving forwards to get to yes on a project that the majority of British Columbians realize is simply not reconcilable with their values.

To turn the port in Vancouver, through the Burnaby facility, into one of the largest shippers of heavy oil in the world. It’s simply not consistent with the values of British Columbians. This particular amendment is troubling in that it’s sending a green-light signal — that in its desperation to get to yes no matter what the question is, government is already starting to introduce legislation to amend parks.

Under the Income Tax Act, I find this very troubling as well. Here, there’s going to be provisions for a transitional period that will allow the film and television industry to adapt to the changes in tax credits recently announced. The amendments reduces the digital animation, visual effects and post production tax credit from 17 to 11 percent of the amount determined by the taxation formula.

In my view, this is troubling, because in doing this, what government is sending is a signal to an up-and-coming vibrant sector that: “You know what? You’re not as welcome as you used to be.” It’s early. It’s too early to be clawing back credits to an industry that is beginning to blossom. A 21st century economy industry in this province of British Columbia that we are known for internationally, beginning to emerge, and this government is now cutting out its heels, taking out its legs in the process.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The Minister of Health doesn’t think so, but I would like it hear the input that I’ve…. Rather, I’d be delighted to share the input I received from the industry with respect to this particular cut. It is troubling. It is troubling when we are doing whatever we can to literally give away our natural gas resources to foreign entities, who otherwise would not be here and still are probably not going to be here, even though we’ve given away the farm.

Here we have an industry — a home-grown industry, jobs in B.C. industry, distributed jobs in B.C. industry — and we’re saying: “You know what? Your time is over. We’re going to continue to double-down on the falling stock of liquefied natural gas.” Despite the fact that Australia is years ahead of us. Despite the fact that China is now a seller on the international marketplace. Despite the fact that not a single LNG facility has been approved. Despite the fact that each and every one of the promises made by this government leading to the 2013 election has been broken. Every one of them.

Instead of saying: “Plan B. We need to move towards a 21st-century economy that builds on the strength of what we are good at here in B.C. — innovation, creativity, tech, bringing tech together with resource sector….” No, no, no. What we’re going to do is actually is chop them down at the knees just as they’re getting going.

To the Insurance Act — there are some changes there as well and, also, to the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act, neither of which I found to be particularly troubling. Just a few minor amendments there.

We’ve got the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act here. The amendments clarify B.C. Housing authority to provide support services and manage multipurpose developments that include housing and non-housing components. It allows the ministry to include land development related to housing. It also expands the powers and duties of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission to include social and other housing services.

There’ll be some questions at committee stage. But because these amendments came under a natural gas development amendment section, they may be worthy of exploring in a little more detail. I’m wondering whether or not this is actually something to do with housing specifically for the natural gas industry, as part of our, frankly, continuing generational sellout as we try to do whatever we can, whatever it takes, to get to yes, no matter what the question.

Liquor Control and Licensing Act, page 15. This amendment is, again, one that I see no major concerns in. It gives the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch the ability to reconsider liquor enforcement decisions. The grounds, of course, for reconsideration are to be set out in regulations like much of what we’re debating.

This amendment means that the enforcement decisions will be reconsidered without the necessity of having to apply to the court for a judicial review. There are a number of guidelines and prescribed grounds that are to be established by the general manager for these amendments to work. Another piece of legislation there, an amendment, that I think will work well.

Taken together, there are a couple of troubling sections — notably, two in this overall bill. Obviously, I’ll be supporting the bill at second reading so that we can actually vote upon the individual sections at committee stage and vote them down accordingly.

Video of Speech

Media Statement, May 3rd, 2016
Andrew Weaver responds to Auditor General’s Report on Compliance & Enforcement of the Mining Sector
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Leader of the BC Green Party made the following statement in response to the release of the Office of the Auditor General audit report “An Audit of Compliance & Enforcement of the Mining Sector”:

Professional Reliance and Captured Regulator:

“This report provides further evidence that the government has got the balance wrong between protecting the interests of British Columbians and advancing the interests of corporations,” said Weaver. “That the Auditor General would suggest that a Ministry within the government is at risk of regulatory capture is very concerning.”

“It’s hypocritical and frankly paradoxical for the government to dismiss the Auditor General’s concerns that we have become too reliant on experts hired by companies to provide regulatory oversight. On the one hand the government says that qualified professionals have played a role in mining for decades; on the other hand the government also notes that the status quo cannot continue,” said Weaver. “Instead of trying to have it both ways they should be asking the very serious question of whether sufficiently independent reviews, with the resources to the job correctly, are actually taking place. I would suggest they are not.”

Permitting:

The report also noted issues regarding permitting and enforcement under the Ministry of Environment including lack of coordination between environment and mine compliance officials, and ‘enforceable’ language in actual permits.

“This report emphasizes the need for a review of both Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ministry of Environment permitting processes and enforcement measures.” said Weaver “There is a huge gap in public trust between government and permit holders as is highlighted now in the on-going dispute over the Shawnigan Lake contaminated soil dump site. This issue has forced residents and local governments to use the court system to get results from government. It is imperative that the Auditor General’s recommendations are adopted immediately to begin to repair this relationship.”

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

Question period in the legislature today was surreal. I left the chamber wondering whether I should quit politics altogether. I was absolutely appalled by the behaviour of official opposition and government members. It was shocking — truly shocking.

Personal attacks, vitriol, abuse, obnoxious heckling and utter disrespect was on display for all to see. This place needs to change. It needs a complete shake up.

That won’t happen, it seems, unless the general public rises up to vote out those politicians on both sides of the house who are more interested in hurling abuse than dealing with issues facing British Columbians. There was no excuse for the behaviour today. No excuse at all.

I was up on question period today and had planned to ask the relevant Minister two questions. The Minister was not at Question Period so I had to be nimble and ask a completely different question (see next post).

The question I had planned to ask is reproduced below. It was meant to coincide with an announcement on the need for widespread protection of old-growth forests on Vancouver Island.

We have lost over 90% of our biggest and most productive low-elevation old-growth forests. The government is continuing to allow the harvesting of our old-growth forests on Vancouver Island based on a plan created in the 1990s. It’s time to create a plan for this century.

The reality is, the government will say they are ‘protecting’ old-growth forests when in reality they have largely protected the steep, high mountain slopes or wet bogs. Yes it’s technically old-growth, but it’s the valley bottom, low-elevation, highly productive old-growth forests with the massive thousand-year-old trees that are at greatest risk.

In 2013 the UVic Environmental Law Centre proposed an “Old Growth Protection Act”. Part of this science-based plan was to immediately end old-growth logging in critically endangered forests and to quickly phase out old-growth logging where there is a high risk to biological diversity and ecosystem integrity. I believe the idea has merit.

Aside from ensuring habitat and biodiversity integrity, protecting our old-growth forests in British Columbia should be a part of our province’s climate plan. On Vancouver Island, apart from reducing our emissions, one of the most significant things we can do to for the climate is to leave our old-growth forests intact. It is also the responsible thing to do for our eco-tourism industry and follows the wishes of local communities across this island.

In April the Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities passed R11 – a resolution calling for increased protection of old-growth forests on Vancouver Island.

The Walbran Valley is the one of the most concerning productive old-growth forests but there are a number of old-growth areas that are or could be logged any day including: Nootka Island, East Creek, Edinburgh Grove, Tsitika Valley, Nahmint Valley, Southwest Nimpkish, Echo Valley, Maclaughlin Ridge, Horne Mountain, and the Cameron Valley Fire Break. In my view there is no compelling reason to justify the logging the last of our productive old-growth forests.

Background Facts

• On Vancouver Island 90% of the biggest and most productive low-elevation old-growth forest has been removed
• Only 13% of the land base on Vancouver Island is protected from logging, only 8% of the island’s productive forest ecosystems are protected, and just 3% of the valley-bottom rainforests are protected.
• A recent report from the Wilderness Committee calls for a conservation plan for Vancouver Island’s rainforest where ½ of Vancouver Island’s rainforest is set aside
• Old-Growth forests are substantially better carbon sinks than young forests. According to a new study in the journal Nature, a tree’s growth accelerates with age, enabling them to take up more carbon than younger trees.
• In 2013 the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre proposed an “Old Growth Protection Act” to ensure better protection for BC’s ancient forest heritage.
• They called for a science-based plan that would have immediately ended old-growth logging in critically endangered forests and phased out old-growth logging where there is a “high risk to biological diversity and ecosystem integrity”.
• Calvin Sandborn, legal director of the Uvic Environmental Law Centre, stated at the time that “there is a need for new legislation and planning that is based on science, governed by timelines, and plugs existing loopholes or inconsistencies.”
• While there is an old-growth management strategy currently in place, it is heavily skewed towards protecting areas of low productivity (e.g. mountain tops and steep slopes)
• The Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities 2016 R11 resolution stated the following:

“be it further resolved that AVICC send a letter to the provincial government—Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations—as well as relevant government organizations requesting that the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan be amended to protect all of Vancouver Island’s remaining old growth forest on provincial Crown land.”

Question

While I’m pleased with government’s announcement today that they’re going to protect 186,198 hectares of already-protected old growth forest on the mainland, on Vancouver Island, our old growth forests are in dire need of protection. The Wilderness Committee and Sierra Club have called what’s happening here an ecological emergency.

Putting this in context, over 90% of the grandest and most productive low-elevation old-growth forests on Vancouver Island have already been logged. Only about 3% of the original high productivity, valley bottom old-growth forests are protected in parks and Old Growth Management Areas on BC’s Southern Coast. Several species are also on the brink of disappearing and biodiversity is being affected.

The Walbran Valley is one of a rapidly dwindling number of contiguous prime ancient forests left on Southern Vancouver Island large enough to provide habitat for healthy populations of a number of endangered species. Yet a 486-hectare core area of the valley is unprotected — a portion of it is slated for logging right now.

Is the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations open to implementing an alternative science-based forest management system for Vancouver Island’s remaining intact old-growth forest?

Supplemental Question

Old growth forests are not only fundamental to the ecological integrity of Vancouver Island, they are also a major eco-tourism draw and many island communities have recognized this.

For example, Chambers of commerce and city councils from Tofino to Victoria have passed motions opposing the continued old-growth logging in the Walbran Valley.

Two weeks ago the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities endorsed a motion calling on the government to amend the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan to protect all of Vancouver Island’s remaining old growth forest found on provincial Crown Land. This land use plan was created in the 1990s and logging of old-growth forest has continued for the last two decades.

Will the government recognize that a plan formed in the 1990s is no longer adequate for today, listen to wishes of local communities and amend the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan to protect all remaining old-growth forests on crown land?

Today I had the distinct honour of giving the keynote address at the opening of the Endangered Wildlife — The Next Migration art exhibit at the Robert Bateman Centre.

I took the opportunity to make two announcements. The first is that the we need to form a Natural Resource Board here in British Columbia — one that mirrors the Forest Practices Board and ensures that the cumulative effects of our resource extraction do not put species and ecosystems at further risk.

The second is that I am calling for an end to all old growth logging on crown land here on Vancouver Island.

This call comes in light of the motion put forward by the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities at their AGM on April 10th, 2016, which resolved that the old-growth forests on provincial Crown Land on Vancouver Island be protected from logging.

Below is the text of my speech.

Text of Speech

Good evening. First I would like to thank the Robert Bateman Centre and the organizers of this event from the University of Victoria’s Faculty of Education for inviting me tonight. I am honoured to speak to you and to have the chance to enjoy all of the magnificent artwork on display here. It is also a privilege to meet the talented artists that created these beautiful pieces.

Everyone here tonight would agree that we are extremely lucky to live in such a beautiful place. I truly believe we live in one of the most beautiful places in the world.

We are inspired by our natural environment and it is wonderful to be able to use that inspiration in order to highlight the environmental risks we face.

Having read through many of the artist’s biographies on the event’s site, it’s clear that each of these individuals has a profound connection with, and passion for, nature and wildlife. So it makes perfect sense that this passion would inspire their work. And as is true with any discipline, when passion and work can coexist and inspire one another, the potential for success is boundless.

In fact, the ability for two things to coexist in a harmonious and beneficial manner is exactly what we are here to celebrate and promote this evening.

According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), humans have discovered an estimated 1,562,663 different lifeforms on this planet. Of these 1.5 million species – that include both animals and plants – 77,340 have been assessed by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

According to the Red List, 22,784 of these assessed species are currently threatened with extinction. The loss and degradation of natural habitat has been identified as the main threat to 85% of all species identified on the list.

While these numbers portray the problem on a global level, our local circumstances are not much better. According to the David Suzuki Foundation, over 60% of British Columbia’s ecological areas, such as grasslands, and over 40% of our species are at-risk. That’s 1900 at-risk species not to mention the hundreds of ecosystems.

Under the federal Species at Risk act, a total of 231 species are listed as at-risk in this province, yet the BC government explicitly provides protection for only 4 of them (the Sea Otter, White Pelican, Burrowing Owl and Vancouver Island Marmot).

The reason for this discrepancy in protected species is largely due to the fact that there is currently no stand-alone provincial act to protect endangered species here in BC.

Despite having the greatest biodiversity in the country and numerous calls on government to do more to protect our wildlife, BC remains one of only two provinces in Canada – the other being Alberta – that has no Endangered Wildlife Act.

Instead, we’ve been hiding behind the outdated B.C. Wildlife Act, which was neither designed for this purpose nor provides the protection that these species need.

To add to the already fragile situation, we continue to put economic interests ahead of environmental ones, without realising that one cannot flourish without the other.

Without more government regulated oversight, the cumulative effects of climate change and human development will continue to have adverse and unprecedented impacts on all aspects of our natural environment.

There are a number of steps we can and should be taking to diminish the negative impacts we are having on our natural environment. This is especially true of government.

By addressing issues relating to climate change, resource extraction, old growth logging and preservation at a provincial level, we can take major strides towards ensuring that the biodiversity of our province remains healthy.

Climate change is perhaps one of the most serious threats to our natural environment as a whole. Unfortunately, our provincial government is failing to demonstrate any leadership in addressing this issue.

Due to the choices that our government has made since 2012, there is no longer a pathway to meet our legislated 2020 GHG reduction targets. Yet in response to this realization, the BC Liberal government has simply highlighted the need for a new 2030 target, with little offered about how we can get there. Setting targets is meaningless if the policy isn’t there to go along with it.

This approach puts BC at odds with the rest of the global community, who are calling for governments to take immediate action on addressing and mitigating climate change.

At a time when it is imperative that we are making meaningful investments in low carbon technologies, our leaders are pulling out all the stops to building fossil fuel infrastructure that will commit the province to an energy-intensive non-renewable industry for the foreseeable future.

BC has all the tools it needs to tackle climate change head on; we have the renewable resources required, and the innovative, creative, and inspired population. All that is missing is the leadership required to focus these efforts.

We need to stop trying to force through projects such as LNG and Site C and start supporting clean energy development.

We need to start paying attention to the consequences of rapid and poorly thought-out resource development, and I would argue to do so we need to form a Natural Resource Board here in British Columbia.

One that mirrors the Forest Practices Board and ensures that the cumulative effects of our resource extraction do not put species and ecosystems at further risk.

Another leading threat to species at-risk is the loss and degradation of habitat. And arguably one of the biggest contributing factors to habitat loss here in British Columbia is the logging of old-growth forests.

Just this past fall I received thousands of emails from citizens across the province expressing their concerns over planned logging in the Walbran Valley and other old growth forests on Vancouver Island.

Old growth forests provide many important environmental and social functions, serving as homes to numerous species at risk and as popular recreation areas for locals and tourists alike. They are essential for both ecosystem integrity and as substantial carbon sinks. It is time they receive a level of protection that reflects their importance to both our ecosystems and our economy.

To ensure this, it is necessary that we take an ecosystem-focused and science-based assessment in decisions concerning forestry and resource management, and I am concerned that this is not what is happening in our Province today.

Instead, by playing the environmental and social concerns off against economic ones, we are merely allowing an unsustainable status quo to continue.

Protecting our remaining old-growth forests while supporting our forest industry do not have to be competing objectives. It is time we take a closer look at the status quo in forestry management in our Province, and work to ensure that we consider at all factors – social, environmental and economic – when we are making decisions.

By ensuring the protection of old-growth forests we can help to protect countless wildlife populations in our province. We can stop pitting one species against another as a means of wildlife management and instead focus on the preservation of all species and ecosystems.

Take the case of the Woodland Caribou.

Last summer, British Columbia announced a controversial wolf cull as a means to protect the South Selkirk and South Peace mountain caribou populations, which are on the brink of extirpation (or local extinction). Now when you start rationalizing the culling one species to protect another you also introduce an ethical element that needs to be considered alongside science.

If you let one of those species become threatened because of your actions the situation becomes immensely worse. Ethically, the wolf cull is a horrible response to an ecosystem out of balance.

From a management perspective, we should be focusing on endangered mountain caribou and the logging practices that got them to where they are today.

Before humans began changing the North American landscape, the woodland caribou’s range extended across Canada. While northern subpopulations of caribou once roamed in massive herds numbering in the thousands, mountain caribou have always been more sparsely distributed. Mountain caribou survive on a lichen-rich diet, especially in winter months, a food source that is intricately linked to old growth forests.

As industrial development and logging activities began to fragment their old growth forest ecosystems, mountain caribou populations began to destabilize. Not only has logging demolished much of their habitat directly, the associated road networks and areas of new growth forest have also brought an influx of moose and white-tailed deer into the ecosystem.

Populations of wolves then followed the moose and deer (their primary prey) and caribou (their secondary prey) are now being killed as bycatch. We are scrambling to save herds of mountain caribou on the brink of extirpation because we weakened their natural habitat and made them vulnerable to increased predation.

Sadly, the future for these threatened caribou is not looking promising; climate change is altering food supplies and habitat conditions, industrial activities are unbalancing ecosystem composition, and human settlement is steadily encroaching on our natural wilderness. All of which serves to highlight the need for increased wilderness protection.

As per requirements enforced under Canada’s Species at Risk Act, the province has protected 2.2 million hectares of forest from logging and road building where populations of caribou are classified as threatened.

These areas have immeasurable value for preserving British Columbia’s biodiversity, especially in light of ongoing global warming. But these areas, a substantial fraction of which are old growth, also have substantial commercial value.

However, without provincial regulations to protect old-growth forests, I am concerned that vast tracts of forests will stop being preserved the moment the threatened caribou herds go extinct. With their death, the protection of their habitat will no longer be enforceable under the Species at Risk Act.

We need to protect as much land as possible from all human activities so remaining wildlife populations have the space and resources needed to respond to predation and food supply challenges.

With that in mind, as leader of the BC Green Party I am calling for an end to all old growth logging on crown land here on Vancouver Island.

This call comes in light of the motion put forward by the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities at their AGM on April 10th, 2016, which resolved that the old-growth forests on provincial Crown Land on Vancouver Island be protected from logging.

Biodiversity is already stressed by climate change, and human interaction – at least in the heavy-handed way that it exists today – simply acts to make it worse.

We need to start taking calculated and proven steps to lessen the negative impacts of human interaction and create a world in which people and wildlife can coexist in a harmonious and complementary way.

Thank you.

Photo Credit: TJ Watt, Ancient Forest Alliance

Today in the committee stage I engaged in a series of questions and answers with the Minister of Environment during committee stage of Bill 19 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016. As I noted earlier at second reading, Bill 19 represents the latest in the ongoing litany of BC Liberal giveaways in a desperate attempt to land a single LNG final investment decision despite that fact that there is a global glut of natural gas on the market.

Below are the text and video of my exchange with the Minister of Environment.

Text of Debate

A. Weaver: I’m wondering, with respect to the implementation of this, what timeline the government is thinking that LNG facilities will start to develop and whether or not they expect any LNG facility to actually trigger a compliance period before 2020.

Hon. M. Polak: In terms of implementation, we anticipate having regulations completed and drafted late 2016, early 2017. With respect to the member’s other question around the likelihood of operations being in place, I’ll leave that for the Minister of Natural Gas Development. We’ll retain our role as the regulator.

A. Weaver: My question back to the minister is this. Legislation will be ready and regulations will be ready — 2016, 2017, say. Does the minister expect there to be an LNG facility taking up these regulations before 2020? It’s a very clear question.

These regulations would not be put in place if there was not a very specific reason to put them in place. The specific question is: why are we doing this now? Who is coming, and what is the timeline by which government thinks an LNG facility will make a final investment decision such that these regulations will be triggered?

Hon. M. Polak: As the regulator, I’m not involved in discussions with respect to final investment decisions that industry players may make.

We have seen, in terms of the realm of approvals…. We know that Tilbury is certainly on its way. We know that Woodfibre has received both a certificate from ourselves and also from the federal government. We don’t know what the federal government position is going to be with respect to PNW.

Again, we operate from the regulatory side. In terms of what decision-making is occurring around boardroom tables, that’s not in my purview.

A. Weaver: The answer was, clearly, that the senior minister within government doesn’t really know. That leads me to the next question then. If the government is putting in place regulations along this line and is expecting — perhaps maybe, but we don’t really know — some proponents to take it up, my question is this. Will the minister be introducing legislation to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act this session? If anybody takes this up, they will need to do that.

Hon. M. Polak: I apologize. I was listening, but I don’t quite understand what the member is asking about repealing.

A. Weaver: To clarify, if a proponent were to take up this new legislation and the compliance period were to be enacted or a transitional compliance period were to be entered into, then we know that the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target that is a matter of law in British Columbia — that we are to reduce emissions by 33 percent — will not be possible.

In introducing this legislation, it’s critical that the government introduce parallel legislation to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which is currently a matter of law. The question to the minister is this: when will she be introducing legislation to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act? You can’t have your cake and eat it to. You introduce this. You repeal that. When will that be occurring?

Hon. M. Polak: There’s no intention at this stage to introduce such legislation, and here’s why. Firstly, the member knows from the climate leadership team report that we’re well aware that we are not on track to meet our 2020 targets. That’s no surprise. It’s something that myself and the Premier have spoken about many times in public.

But we’ve also talked about the importance of considerations around the current climate leadership team’s recommendations. Those recommendations are modelled on the premise of having two operating LNG facilities newly operating in British Columbia. They present a very challenging set of recommendations, but those recommendations are being wrestled with.

To the question of if the answer to not meeting the 2020 target is to repeal the legislation, the best example I can provide is what happens when there are challenges faced in the world of budgeting. We have a law in British Columbia that requires us to balance the budget. When we don’t manage to do that, and occasionally, that occurs — it certainly occurred when we had the financial downturn most recently — we don’t repeal the balanced budget legislation. We have to work to get back on track.

How will we address the existing 2020 target in law? I’m not aware of any decision with respect to that having been reached. It’s something that we will have to determine as we proceed with our new climate action plan.

A. Weaver: It’s not only the 2020 target; it’s the 2050 target. And with respect, hon. Chair, through you to the minister, you cannot meet the 80 percent reduction by 2050 with two large LNG plants. Unless everybody in the province of British Columbia simply stops driving cars, it is factually incorrect to argue that you can, and the Climate Action Team did not say that you could.

The reality is that these targets need to be repealed. The reality is that this government is misleading British Columbians, inadvertently, maybe — I wonder — and this government needs to be honest. It needs to be honest with them that this legislation, continuing the generational sellout, is essentially throwing aside our plans to reduce greenhouse gases by yet another loophole, the transition period.

If any proponent were to take up this transition period and have a free rein, essentially, on greenhouse gas emissions, the 2020 target is out of the window. The government has yet to say what they are going to do with greenhouse gases to meet some other 2020 target. The government has no plan on greenhouse gas reductions. The government is full of hot air about the climate file, and the government is an embarrassment internationally in terms of what it has not done anymore on the climate action file.

My question to the minister, one last time, is: when does the government believe that proponents of LNG will actually make final investment decisions, and is the government actually stalling any climate leadership because it’s waiting to see whether an LNG facility will come or not?

Hon. M. Polak: Well — a lot to cover there. Firstly, there is no free ride. There is no free ride. They will still have to monitor and report and be responsible and pay for their emissions over that time period. The first reporting period is simply allowed to extend for a maximum of six months more. There you go. That’s all the magic in it. They don’t get a free ride.

With respect to the Climate Leadership Team’s recommendations, they’re there for all to see, and they certainly would put us on a path to meeting our 2050 targets. And they do include the operation of LNG facilities.

We also had, in terms of our climate file, some rather good news just delivered to us, and it was a little unexpected because we know that our trajectory recently has been more challenging in emissions. But on April 14, I believe, the National Inventory Report came out and actually showed that we have seen a slight decline in our emissions. So that’s a positive. But we still have an awful lot of work to do.

The fact is, though, that this change, the new entrant period, does not change the obligations that these companies have to comply with their requirements. I know that the member certainly is not supportive of the industry, and that’s fair enough, but it’s wrong to say that what this does is give companies a free ride. It does not.

A. Weaver: I’ve never said I’m not supportive of the industry. What I have said is I’m not supportive of hype and giving away a generational resource to foreign international companies at essentially no benefit to British Columbians.

My question on this topic, then, directly to the minister, is: which reporting are you talking about for fugitive emissions? The federal number or the B.C. number? They don’t match. Are you talking about the national inventory fugitive emissions or the B.C. fugitive emissions? Nobody quite knows, when the B.C. government talks about emissions reductions, which one number they are using, because the numbers don’t match up.

Hon. M. Polak: In this case, I’m not talking about simply the emissions from fugitive emissions. I’m talking about the National Inventory Report with respect to British Columbia’s overall emissions.

A. Weaver: But that number depends on an overall reduction based on a number. One of those numbers is fugitive emissions, and the fugitive emission number federally is different from the number used provincially. So my question is: which number is the right number, and which number does the province use when it’s actually doing its calculations in terms of greenhouse gas reductions?

Hon. M. Polak: The member will know that this has been a long-standing problem, not just for British Columbia but other provinces as well. There is a different set of numbers that is utilized by the federal government, by various provinces.

In fact, it is one of the important pieces of work that is being undertaken currently within the federal process, our officials meeting with federal officials — it’s happening between other provinces and the federal government as well — to arrive at a standard means by which we can measure and report emissions across all sectors.

In this case, what I was pointing to is completely the federal numbers and their report that shows we have seen a slight decrease recently in our emissions.

A. Weaver: The minister just admitted that the minister does not know which overall number should be used in discussing emissions reductions. In essence, what we’re hearing is that the ministry is essentially saying: “We don’t know what we’re reducing because we don’t know what number we should use.”

My question to the minister is: when are we going to have the answer to this?

Hon. M. Polak: The difference between the two is based on the fact that the federal government has a different threshold for reporting, for one. Theirs is 50,000; ours is 10,000. Therefore, we capture more of the data, which is likely the reason why it appears we have more accurate information with respect to our emissions from these facilities than the federal government would have. Their data set doesn’t capture those below 50,000, so they then must project what those might be.

Now, it’s a recognized problem and has been for some years. We’re hopeful that through the current process in which we are involved with the federal government that that will be resolved. I know we have made significant progress discussing this at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

A. Weaver: Just to summarize then, the minister has talked about the climate leadership team’s recommendations, and the climate leadership team’s recommendations, apparently — not what I read — will allow for two large LNG facilities to come in place. I guess we’d all have to have negative emissions — everyone else.

Let’s come to that, because the climate leadership team recommended a $10 per year increase in the carbon tax every single year. My question then is: if the minister is going to evoke the climate team’s response, is the minister here today willing to say that she accepts the $10 per tonne increase in the price of carbon, and does she not think that this will immediately preclude any LNG industry from existing in B.C.?

Can she look British Columbians in the face and say that we support a $10 per tonne increase in emissions pricing and we honestly think that an LNG facility will develop here in B.C.? Does the minister honestly think she can have her cake and eat it too?

Hon. M. Polak: No surprise to the member, I’ll save pronouncements on taxation activities related to the carbon tax for the time when we’re debating that bill in committee.

A. Weaver: Just to clear up the record for British Columbians who are riveted to their TV screens today, the answer is simple. You cannot increase carbon tax $10 per tonne per year and expect there to be an LNG industry. The reality is you can’t, unless you exclude all LNG emissions.

The reality is we are witnessing yet another emperor with no clothes. It’s about time, frankly, that British Columbians be levelled with honestly — that we cannot have climate leadership and an LNG industry, and until such time as this minister levels correctly, honestly, with British Columbians, they will continue and remain to have zero credibility on the climate file.

Video of Debate