Today in the legislature I tabled a private member’s bill: Bill M221 — Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016. This bill is intended to start a public dialogue about the rules we need to make ridesharing a reality for British Columbia.

Provinces and cities across Canada and throughout North America have been using ridesharing technology for years. But BC struggles to articulate a vision for promoting innovation in the tech sector. In fact, 22 CEOs and founders from Vancouver’s tech industry recently wrote an open letter to the BC government stating “we are compelled to express our concern regarding the provincial government’s long-standing inaction on ridesharing regulation in B.C. and how we now find ourselves falling behind the rest of the world.”

British Columbians have only heard mixed things from the government on the topic of ridesharing. When the cabinet minister responsible for developing regulations for ridesharing services calls these emerging companies ‘pushy’, it doesn’t set the right tone.”

The BC Green Party will be launching a public survey on their website today that will give British Columbians a chance to take part in a conversation about ridesharing and the evolving creative economy. Results will be published later this spring.

In my view, it’s time the conversation was more transparent and engaged  British Columbians  about what they want to see happen with these innovative new services. There are numerous voices calling for this government to truly support the emerging tech sector. For some reason, they are having a hard time being heard by this government.

Below are the video and text of the introduction of my bill together with our accompanying media release.

Text of Bill Introduction

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Rideshare Enabling Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Ride-Share Enabling Act, 2016. Ride-sharing is a key component of the new and emerging creative economy in British Columbia. While numerous jurisdictions around the world have passed legislation to allow for the introduction of ride-share technology in their markets, British Columbia is quickly falling behind. In fact, Vancouver is now the largest city in North America without an operating rideshare company such as Lyft or Uber.

Legislation is needed to provide provincial standards that must be followed for any for ride-sharing program to exist in our province. The Ride-Share Enabling Act, 2016, details the process by which a transport network company can operate in British Columbia.

It builds upon best practices in North America to outline the required driver and vehicle records to be provided by ride-share drivers. It further details the required ride-share driver background check and ride-share vehicle inspection and insurance requirements.

In January of this year, 22 CEOs and founders of key B.C.-based tech companies signed and released an open letter. The letter stated:

“We are compelled to express our concern regarding the provincial government’s long-standing inaction on ride-sharing regulation in B.C. and how we now find ourselves falling behind the rest of the world.“

This bill is aimed at ensuring that British Columbians remain at the forefront of innovation in the technology sector.

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

Bill M221, Ride-Share Enabling Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Video of Bill Introductions

Media Release

Media Release: April 11, 2016
Andrew Weaver – Legislation needed for rideshare technology application in BC
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – The Rideshare Enabling Act was introduced today in the BC Legislature by Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

“The sharing economy exists and it’s going to get bigger,” says Weaver. “Rideshare technology is a part of that new economy and we need to create rules so that these industries don’t operate in a vacuum.”

Ridesharing, a driver using their personal vehicle to accept a trip request from a rider using mobile technology, is an international phenomenon with dozens of technology companies participating. Governments around the world and across Canada have embraced ridesharing to increase transportation options, encourage less personal car ownership, reduce impaired driving, create more income opportunities, and facilitate more efficient transportation. To date, over 70 states and cities across the United States and many more around the world have adopted ridesharing regulations.

Today Weaver introduced his private member’s bill with the intention of starting a conversation about what legislation would best meet the needs of British Columbians. This process needs to involve intensive consultation with municipal governments, the BC Taxi Association, and British Columbians across the province.

“Public safety must be a priority as we move forward with ridesharing in this province and to do so we need to legislate certain common standards. We need to ensure that anyone participating as a driver in rideshare technology doesn’t have a criminal record or history of reckless driving. Refusing to discuss the issue is not helping.”

“I’m hopeful the government takes a look at the bill I brought forward and realizes that they need to address this situation soon and cannot continue to keep their heads in the sand. We need smart regulations that don’t create an unfair market.”

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

Today in the legislature I rose to speak to Bill 21 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016. Bill 21 is designed to provide the legal foundation for a spill preparedness and response regime in BC. The legislation requires new requirements for spill preparedness, response and recovery, and it creates new offenses and penalties. However, almost all important aspects of this bill are left up to the development of regulations. As such, it should be viewed as an enabling will with much more to come.

Below is are the text and video of my speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to speak to Bill 21, the Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016. Now, this bill is designed to provide the legal foundation for a spill preparedness and response regime in British Columbia. The legislation, as we just heard from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, puts in new requirements for spill preparedness, response and recovery, and it creates new offences and penalties. However, the problem with this bill is not so much what’s in it but what’s not in it. This bill puts much, if not most, of the items of interest into regulations.

I’d like to give just a couple of examples of this. I think it highlights what we’re debating. We’re debating an enabling legislation. It is clearly an enabling legislation, essentially enabling government to put in place regulations that will govern a spill response and regime. Before I can even get to a couple of examples of what is in regulations, I have to start with a definition. It’s a definition of what is called a responsible person. In this legislation, this amendment, a responsible person means “a person who has possession, charge or control of a substance or thing when a spill of the substance or thing occurs or is at imminent risk of occurring.” That’s what a responsible person is — rather broad.

I would like to give some examples, because I think it ultimately highlights how much we are essentially debating on here that has to be put in regulations. Section 91.11 would be added to the Environmental Management Act. Listen carefully:

“A regulated person must ensure that (a) on or before the prescribed date, the regulated person has a spill contingency plan that complies with the regulations….” What does that say? There’s a prescribed date; we leave it to government to prescribe it. The regulated person, whoever that might be, has a spill contingency plan that complies with regulations — not very specific.

So “(b) the spill contingency plan is reviewed, updated and tested in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed frequency….” Okay. That doesn’t give us an awful lot of comfort as to what that means.

Then: ” (c) the spill contingency plan is made available to employees of the regulated person in accordance with the regulations….” Essentially, it’s saying: “Trust us.”

And “(d) the spill contingency plan demonstrates that the regulated person has the capability to effectively respond to a spill, and (e) if required by the regulations, the spill contingency plan is published in accordance with the regulations.”

You can’t make this stuff up: “if required by the regulations, the spill contingency plan is published in accordance with the regulations ” Does this mean we wouldn’t actually publish the spill contingency plan if it’s not required? Does it mean that if in accordance with regulations at the end, we can just publish whatever contingency plan we want? I mean, it’s bizarre.

Further down:

“(3) A regulated person must ensure that, in accordance with the regulations, (a) records respecting investigations, tests and surveys referred to in subsection (2) are prepared and kept for the prescribed period….” Again, what does that mean? And “(b) prescribed reports are prepared and submitted to a director….” What prescribed report? Then: “(c) employees of the regulated person receive prescribed training to prescribed standards” — I’m honestly not making this up — “employees of the regulated person receive prescribed training to prescribed standards.” “Trust us,” says the government. And ” (d) employees of the regulated person engage in spill response training exercises and drills in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed frequency.”

We are being asked to certainly trust that government will have the best interests of British Columbians at heart as they develop — in their words, not in our words — a world-leading spill preparedness.

That brings me to another point. You know, in the field of science, when we hear universities describe themselves as world-class, we know right away that they’re not, because the people who describe themselves as world-class clearly are not world-class.

World-class scientists are described by others as world-class. World-class institutions are described by others as world-class. When this government stands up and says it’s building a world-class spill response, I can assure you that it will be anything but world-class, because we would be expecting others to look at it and tell us if it were indeed world-class.

Given what we’ve seen around us under the professional reliance model that this government is so proud to put forward…. We only have to look at Mount Polley. Was that a world-class response? I don’t think so. What about what’s going on in Shawnigan Lake? Is this a world-class process for a world-class land use agreement for a world-class containment facility? I don’t think so. Is our LNG “we’re going to world-class standards, cleanest in the world” rhetoric…? I don’t think so.

This government is full of rhetoric. It’s full of rhetoric that’s substanceless, and frankly, I’m tired of it. I’m tired of hearing them call themselves world-class. British Columbians are tired of hearing them call it world-class. They’re not world-class. They’re parochial and inward-looking and missing the bigger picture of what’s going on in the world around us.

With that said, I did participate as an intervener in the Trans-Mountain hearings over the last couple of years. Let me tell you, that was a lot of work — hundreds of hours, hundreds and hundreds of hours by the team, poring through papers, many unresponded-to questions.

What I learned from that is that British Columbia — in fact, Canada — has simply not the capacity to respond to any spill of any magnitude — in particular, when it comes to diluted bitumen. We have no idea, at the basic level of science, as to what would happen if diluted bitumen were to spill in, say, the Fraser River. We know there’s a lot of suspended sediment there. We know that a lot of it would sink, but we really don’t have any idea.

Frankly, it is reckless. It is reckless for this government to be talking about even entertaining the Trans-Mountain proposal and putting in place these regulations now, while still allowing one tanker a week, laden with diluted bitumen, to leave the Burnaby ports through our coastal waters when we don’t even have a response capability today.

Where is this government actually standing up and being truthful to British Columbians that we need an immediate moratorium on the transportation of diluted bitumen in our coastal waters because, as admitted in this Environmental Management Amendment Act, we don’t have any standards here in B.C.? If there were a spill, my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the riding of my friend here in Saanich North and the Islands would be devastated, yet we have no management plan in place.

The government is trying to put a management plan in place, largely for land-based spills, but we have none now. It is reckless and irresponsible for us to continue to put diluted bitumen in pipes and to have that product shipped in our coastal waters. A relatively new Trans-Mountain Pipeline proposal that was built in the U.S. is already leaking. It’s already leaking. Right now, there’s cleanup and concerns happening there.

The basis of this bill obviously comes from the pressure of the major oil pipeline proposals. I recognize it’s coming in response to the government’s willingness and desire, or condition No. 3, to have in place what they call, through the usual hyperbolic rhetoric, “world-leading spill response.”

This is their attempt, but really, it’s an attempt that we don’t know anything about, because it just enables the government — as is becoming more and more typical — in negotiation with industry, to put in place regulations as they see fit and then surround it and wrap this in rhetoric about “world-leading” and “consultation” and “listening to First Nations,” etc.

One of the things that I do appreciate in this — because it’s a fundamental principle within the Green Party of British Columbia — is that it’s based on a polluter-pay model. The person who makes the mistake pays for the mistake, not the taxpayer. So in that regard, I support this aspect.

The other principles, not the only one of which is polluter pays, that this is based on are risk-based requirements, avoiding unnecessary duplication, a fair and transparent process, opportunities for First Nations and communities in preparedness response and recovery, and strong government oversight and continuous improvement.

Now, again, the strong government oversight is something that I would love to trust. I would love to trust that we would indeed have strong government oversight. But the evidence is that we cannot trust this government to provide that strong oversight. Again, I come back to Mount Polley. Again, I come back to Shawnigan Lake, and there are other examples out there.

Let me give you probably what I perceive to be the most worrying aspect of this bill. It may not seem like much. It’s on page 15 of the legislation. We turn to page 15, and we look at (d), where it says: “by adding the following paragraph.” I’m going to read this slowly. I can’t make this stuff up: “(d) exempting a person, an organization or a thing or a class of persons, organizations or things from any provisions of Division 2.1 or the regulations under this Division, in circumstances and on conditions that the Lieutenant Governor in Council prescribes.”

Essentially, this says: “Anything we have in here we can exempt, if we want, as cabinet.” “Trust us”? I don’t think so, hon. Speaker. That clause is deeply, deeply troubling.

While I will recognize that this bill is a step in the right direction, it’s not clear to me that I can support it at this juncture. It’s not clear to me that I can support it in light of the fact that I have no idea where the regulations are going.

I look forward to exploring that further at committee stage to see what the government has in mind so that we might, as a matter of record for future occasions down the road, get a sense of what the government’s intentions are with respect to each and every one of these sections, of which there are many, where everything is prescribed by regulations.

Video of Speech

Today in the legislature I introduced Bill M214 — Local Government Amendment Act, 2016.

If passed, this Bill will ensure that municipalities in BC cannot be incorporated without first ensuring that there are residents actually living in the area at the time of incorporation. This might seem like an unnecessary bill as it would seem obvious that a municipality, governed by a Mayor and two Councillors, should actually have people and property to govern. Well that’s not the case in the wild west of British Columbia politics.

Back in 2012, the BC Liberals amended The Local Government Act to allow mountain resort municipalities to be created that have no residents. In particular, this was done in support of the proposed Jumbo Glacier Mountain resort that I have written about earlier.

Given opposition to the resort by the Ktunaxa Nation, the fact that the environmental assessment certificate has expired, and that the project has not substantially started, it seemed timely to close the loophole for good as it sets a dangerous precedence.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my introduction of the Bill. I append our media release at the end.

Text of my Introduction

A. Weaver: I move introduction of the Local Government Amendment Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I am pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Local Government Amendment Act.

In British Columbia, we have a municipality that has no houses, no infrastructure and no people. The Jumbo Glacier Resort is designated as a mountain resort municipality, and despite having neither any people nor any buildings, it is governed by a mayor and two councillors and funded by the province.

For the existence of a municipality to make any sense, it needs people. The Local Government Amendment Act would ensure that this be the case across British Columbia. This bill would close a glaring loophole created in 2012 by this government solely to support a project that has not substantially started. It’s opposed by the Ktunaxa Nation — and whose environmental assessment certificate has expired.

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

Motion approved.

Bill M214, Local Government Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Video of my Introduction

Media Release

Media Release: April 6, 2016
Andrew Weaver – Municipalities in B.C. should not be created without people.
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, today introduced a Bill that would ensure municipalities could not be created unless there were people actually living in the area first.

“Normally you might assume that you would need to have people living in an area before you could form a municipality,” says Weaver. “That was the case in B.C. until the government made an exception a few years ago. In 2012 the government introduced a loophole that allowed Mountain Resort Municipalities to exist without any residents.”

Today Andrew Weaver introduced the Local Government Amendment Act, 2016. It is a bill designed to repeal the changes made in 2012 to the Local Government Act under the B.C. Liberals.

“The whole reason this ridiculous loophole exists in the first place is because this government has a pet project that it wanted to succeed, despite huge opposition from the local community and First Nations,” says Weaver. “Now a municipality exists that has no people, and to top it off it also has a mayor and councillors and the whole system is being funded by the British Columbian taxpayer. It’s an absurd situation and the bill I introduced today would close that loophole.”

“The approach to the Jumbo fiasco reminds me of how this government approached the Petronas deal last year. Not only are they choosing winners in the economy, they’re creating laws specific to helping those projects succeed. The laws of this province should not be used to help specific projects succeed or fail.”

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

Today in the legislature I rose to speak at second reading to Bill 19: Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016. Bill 19 is 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. In addition, BC is years behind other jurisdictions which either have vastly larger reserves or infrastructure already in place. The supposed market that BC LNG is targetted, China, already has over contracted supply for the foreseeable future. China is a net seller (not buyer) of LNG.

What’s more, fully 71% of British Columbians do not support horizontal fracking, the source our our gas.

This Bill will allow new entrants in the LNG industry to have “flexible options” for their initial operations. The first 18 months of a new operations existence will “allow for time for testing and other initial activities that may affect emissions and production levels.” The bill also opens up the BC Carbon registry to non-regulated operations (companies and municipalities).

Below are the text and video of my speech.

Text of Speech

A. Weaver: Thank you for allowing me to rise and speak in opposition to Bill 19, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act. I’d like to start off, first, by acknowledging that in British Columbia there used to be a lot of leadership on the climate file. I do acknowledge what the Minister of Health said in his particular role in that leadership over the years to come.

The carbon tax is lauded internationally as one of the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, British Columbia has been singled out as a leader in that regard. Again, that is for the initiatives of the past administration, not the present administration, so it’s a bit rich for the present administration to claim credit for the introduction of measures by a previous administration that have led to British Columbia being lauded for its efforts in climate change mitigation, which have had a real effect, a measurable effect in terms of reducing per-capita emissions until very recently.

It is at that time that this government decided to switch direction, to switch priorities and to move down the direction of trying to encompass an LNG industry. At the same time, the government stopped the increase in the carbon tax, which sent a signal to the market that we’re no longer moving in that direction any longer. And at the same time again, it started to introduce loopholes to allow certain aspects of the market to no longer be subject to the carbon tax.

I do also want to recognize the issue of climate…. The present Minister of Environment put together what I will describe as a blue-ribbon panel that came out with a very, very fine set of recommendations prior to Christmas. Those are bold recommendations that, actually, I think many people would agree would be leading if this government were adopt them.

Honestly, I don’t know how they can adopt them in light of the fact that we have the former Minister of Agriculture putting out petitions, calling people to actually fight against his own government during the actual consultation period where we’re supposed to be listening to the public, not listening to rogue MLAs telling the public that they shouldn’t support the government’s efforts in terms of listening to the public on carbon pricing. I wonder whether the government can follow these recommendations, because they are so very bold and so very inconsistent with the approach the government is taking with respect to LNG.

Back when the first version of this bill, the original Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, was brought in, I suggested an unusual amendment that was amending the title to something like the greenhouse gas industrial reporting and increase act. The reason why, of course, I did that at that time was that it was a very clear movement away from a direction government had towards greenhouse gas reduction.

This included the repealing of the cap-and-trade regulation. It included a move towards emission intensity targets, as opposed to real reduction. Here, in what I’ve historically called a generational sellout to the LNG industry and then a multigenerational sellout, we see that we haven’t quite gone far enough on our sellout, so we’re going to weaken the rules still more.

Now, back in February 2008, I sat on the floor of this Legislature when the government started down the direction of actually taking climate change seriously. I watched them introduce not one, not two, but a whole pile of policies and regulations that acted like knobs, buttons and switches that would allow government to actually send a signal to the market and move a little bit here and there to start to take emissions down, and they were coming down.

Then along came 2012, when the government recognized that it was not doing so well in the eyes of the public, and it needed a different vision. Everybody thought that the government was going to fall, so they needed to offer British Columbians a vision of hope and prosperity. What was that hope and prosperity? It wasn’t continued leadership on the climate front. It was that we’ll all be wealthy, we’ll all be able to drive Maseratis in our home, because we’re all going to come and benefit from this wonderful opportunity called LNG.

Now, I’ve been saying the same thing now for not one year, not two years, not three years, but over three years. The market did not, does not and will not support an LNG industry in B.C. then, now or any time soon. The reason why is because there is a glut on the market. Right now, landed LNG in Asia in 2019-2020 is trading at $4 and change. China, whose supply gap we were building our LNG to meet, is actually a seller in the market. Why? Because they have contracted excess supply over what they need for years to come.

What do we do? We watch BP move on, and we watch Shell slow down, even though we’ve signed long-term contracts to provide them fixed-cost, cheap electrical power through the construction of Site C. Given that that’s fallen apart, we desperately seek an energy market in Alberta and a plea to the federal government that they add infrastructure funds to get our energy there. But the government said no federally, as did the Alberta government.

We continue down, and we watch so-called LNG plant after so-called LNG plant move away until now we hear only about four that may be. We’re starting to get really shaky firms involved. We’re not talking about the multinationals, the globally traded, highly responsible corporate citizens of today. Some might argue about the level of corporate citizenship. The reality is we’re talking about big players, but players based in nations like Malaysia, places like Indonesia, where the owners are mired in scandals. Yet we’re getting into business and negotiating with them in a position where we have no negotiating power, in a position of desperation. We really think that this is for the benefit of British Columbians? No.

There is no market now for our LNG. Australia already has got so much LNG that they can’t keep up. They don’t have a market for it. Australia and the United States. The first shipping of LNG out of the ports in the Gulf of Mexico has occurred.

The U.S. government recently told a proposed Oregon establishment of an LNG facility: “No, you’re not going ahead, because there’s no market for LNG, and you can’t make the economic case to build an LNG facility on the U.S. west coast.” But in B.C., what do we do? We continue on down this path, this path of folly.

India has just announced that it will look to have all cars on the road be electric within 15 years. What signal is that sending to the market? What market signal is that sending? It’s saying that the new technology of tomorrow is the clean technology that’s emerging.

The minister who spoke previously talked about the opportunity of assisting others in reducing their greenhouse gases.

I agree this is an opportunity British Columbia should be meeting, but we’re meeting it the wrong way. We cannot compete by digging gas out of the ground and trying to sell it to markets that don’t exist. What we should be doing in British Columbia is investing in our strengths that no one else has.

We have three such strengths that no one else in the world has. Without a doubt, we are the best, most beautiful place in the world to live. [Applause.] Thank you for that. That’s assuming that we don’t have too much more of that government to actually destroy it. No more claps there. We are the most beautiful place to live. The second thing we have that no one else has is: we have access to renewable water, we have access to renewable fibre, and we have access to renewable energy like nobody else in the world. The third thing we have is a highly educated, highly skilled workforce that is able to be there for business that wants to actually come to B.C.

Why do I say we should be focusing on those three things? Because we can attract and retain business here in British Columbia. Because of the quality of life we can offer the workers who are there. Highly skilled, highly mobile workers can go anywhere in the world. If you can offer them the best place in the world to live, they’ll stay here.

This is what we should be doing to help those other jurisdictions get off their dependence on fossil fuels — investing in our clean-tech sector and exporting that technology worldwide. We could be leaders there, and we used to be leaders in this area under the previous administration when that started to take off.

Now we see it collapsing. We see the Canadian Wind Energy Association pack up their bags and move to Alberta. We see the Canadian Geothermal Association throw up their hands and say: “We give up. B.C. is the only jurisdiction on the Pacific Rim with no geothermal energy. We give up.” What are we doing? We’re doubling down on natural gas.

Talk to the people around Fort Nelson. Ask them how this is playing out for them. Ask them how this double down focus on natural gas is playing out for them when all the drills shut down and move on because there’s no market for natural gas.

There are some people in the Fort St. John region still taking natural gas out of the ground and then putting some of it back in because there’s no market for it. Fortunately, there are some liquids that are still in some desire there. Instead of doubling down, we should be diversifying our economy there.

This bill is about giving any proponent, in yet another desperate attempt to land an LNG industry here, 18 months in which they can actually not really have to worry too much about their greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me talk to you a little bit about some of those emissions. In the 2014 B.C. Reporting Regulation — that’s the emissions report summary table — from fugitive emissions and venting of methane, a full 2.15 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent is released a year. That’s in the form of methane. About 0.1 billion tonnes come from fugitive methane emissions and 1.3 million tonnes from venting CH4. That 1.3 million tonnes is deliberate venting, not venting that happens through leaks. That’s the fugitive emissions.

What we’re saying here is: we’re going to continue to be climate leaders, but we have 2.1 million tonnes of CO₂ a year. That’s an underestimation, very conservative. Some of these are kind of best estimates. We’re going to say another 18 months where you don’t have to worry about it. We have legislated targets that we’re supposed to reduce emissions in B.C. by 33 percent by the year 2020. Those are legal legislated targets.

This government needs to stand up. I know it won’t do it, but it needs to stand up now, not after the next election but now, and actually repeal that legislation, repeal the legislation that says we will meet 33 percent below by 2020. Because we can’t. We simply can’t. The government has missed the boat. Even its own Climate Action Team has told them they have missed the boat.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give up, but it certainly means we shouldn’t double down on an industry that is from the 20th century and try to chase this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow by giving away as much as we can, reducing regulation after regulation, desperation after desperation. Here, just the latest one is giving business another 18 months to actually really do nothing and worry about greenhouse gases down the road.

What we should be debating here in this Legislature…. It’s not about further giveaway. It’s about repealing the Petronas development agreement. That legislation is bad legislation for British Columbia, bad legislation for this generation, bad legislation for the next generation and bad legislation overall, because it sets a maximum bar, a really bad maximum bar that we’re actually saying you can do LNG industry here in B.C. It’s a giveaway, a generational sellout to meet irresponsible promises made during this past election campaign.

We’re supposed to have a couple of LNG facilities up and running right now. What do we have? A lot of smoke, a lot of rhetoric and the Minister of Natural Gas hopefully eating humble pie, or crow, at some point, as he told me I would be doing this time, when I’m still not.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Why would I hope for him to eat…? No. The economy in B.C. will grow, but the economy in B.C. is not going to grow through natural gas. It will not grow through natural gas. We’re dreaming.

Look at Australia, which tried this kind of desperate attempt — a natural gas giveaway. It didn’t help them much. Ask the Australians what they think about the price of natural gas that they’re paying right now there today. Ask them how much it cost them in terms of the social cost, the environmental costs. I don’t think you’d find Australians rah-rahing to the same extent as this government seems to be doing here.

On October 23, 2014, when I spoke against the implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act for the first time, I argued that just one LNG plant would emit 12 million tonnes of carbon pollution into the atmosphere. I argued against the bill at that time because it would place us into the somewhat laughable category of not actually reducing our emissions but only our emissions intensity, a change that we’ve seen in other jurisdictions which actually increased the overall magnitude of emissions.

As I said at the time, essentially what we did is we took a card from the Harper playbook, and we said: “We’re going to play this emissions intensity card.” This is yet another example of why I repeatedly point out that today’s B.C. Liberals, as they like to call themselves, are nothing more than yesterday’s Harper Tories.

I argued against the bill because the climate system does not care about the intensity. It does not care about cleverly worded policies or trick loopholes. It cares about actual reductions of emissions. Now, I recognize that some over there on the other side of this are in a delusional sense that we’ll ship LNG, and the world will be saved because China will buy it and switch off coal, despite the fact that China is already contracted with oversupply for years to come and are sellers on the market.

It’s not going to happen, and just because you wish it so does not mean it will be so.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I missed that from the Minister of Health. Sorry. I love the banter back with the Minister of Health. I actually thought he did a very fine speech just before I got up to stand — and when he said that we’re going to disagree on this. Indeed, we do disagree on that. The point that we’re disagreeing upon I would say is rather fundamental in terms of disagreement.

I would argue that it is reckless economics to invest in yesterday’s technology, to double down on a stock that’s falling, to buy Nortel at $50 and say: “Look, everybody. I’ve got Nortel stock, and I only paid $50 a share.”

I would say that the proper way to approach the economy would be to view the new opportunity, that new dollar stock in a sector that’s about to go crazy — the biomedical sector — buying the stocks young and watching them grow. But we’re not. We’re buying the Nortel stock and missing out  those biomedical stocks. We’re missing out Apple at $10. Instead, we’re buying Nortel at $50 — with respect to those involved in both Apple and Nortel.

Back in October, I spoke against the bill because there was simply no way we could meet the legislated targets, our 2020 and 2050 targets, with the LNG plants that were being proposed.

I honestly believe this government should stand up and look British Columbians in the face and be truthful to them, because you cannot meet our 2020 target. You cannot meet our 2050 target with an LNG industry. It just can’t happen.

When are they going to stand up and say that it can’t happen? I would have far more respect for this government if they actually were honest with British Columbians and said: “We have decided to give up on our climate leadership, because we’re going to go all in on LNG.”

I know the former minister, or the member for Peace River North, would be happy about that. I suspect half of this end of the Legislature — the members from the Fraser Valley hither and wither — would also be very supportive of that. It’s honest. It’s truthful. But the government doesn’t do this.

The government is trying to have it both ways. We’re going to be leaders in climate, and we’re going to be leaders in LNG. I don’t know who you’re kidding, but you’re not fooling anyone outside of the British Columbia borders. You may be kidding yourselves, but nobody takes that seriously.

It does a disservice to British Columbians. It does a disservice to us in the international eye. While United Nations members might pull in the Premier to special meetings and give British Columbia praise for what it has done, let’s be very clear, that is praise for what it has done — not what it is doing, but what it has done.

There is an opportunity before this government. There is an election in 2017. There is a Climate Action Team that has made very bold recommendations. Let’s see if this government will listen to those recommendations. Let’s see if this government will tell the member for Peace River North that: “You know, we don’t like the direction.”

I mean, this petition has been going out for days. There was like 900 people. I could phone up 900 friends and get a petition signed. Clearly, not a very strong petition that this member for Peace River North was doing, despite the fact he got a fair amount of media coverage on it.

What does that tell this government? If he can only get 900 signatures in the heart of natural gas territory, it’s telling me that there is no support for the LNG industry, horizontal fracking and everything that’s going.

British Columbians want us to move to the new economy of tomorrow, not more generational sellout; not more give out a loophole here, a loophole there; not more tax breaks for the LNG industry that’s not going to happen. And not more: “Let’s find even shadier characters we can get into bed with to set up an LNG facility.”

No. British Columbians want leadership from this government in tomorrow’s economy — the economy that brings the tech sector together with the resource sector; the economy that focusses in on our strengths, not on someone else’s strengths; and the economy that builds hope for all British Columbians, not just those today, but those tomorrow and the generations after that.

I have been saddened to watch this government over the last three years on this file. I’ve watched them go from promises of wealth and prosperity, to struggling to give away a resource, to desperation to land one LNG facility, which is where we stand now. One LNG facility. Just one.

We don’t care who it is. Despot dictator in some country somewhere in the world — you want an LNG facility, we’ll roll out the red carpet for you. That’s what this government is so desperate to do, and that’s a shame, because this government was a climate leader. This government had a diversified economy building. This government is watching that diversified economy move on.

It lauds its balanced budget, but that budget is moving. It’s being balanced now not on a healthy, diversified economy, but on a Scottsdale-like, Arizona-based economy fuelled by investment by afar in a highly speculative housing market that only ends in one place, and that is an economic crash.

I do not want to say I told you so. For the last couple of years, I’ve been pointing out that this affordability crisis is not going to end well — that we should be investing in the tech sector, bringing the tech sector together with the resource sector, diversifying economy.

Now, the government lauds balanced budgets, thinks the B.C. citizens are not really looking this through carefully, but the reality is this balanced budget is very, very shaky. We have no revenues from LNG. Where are the revenues from natural gas? Ten years ago, there were healthy revenues from natural gas. Now they’re pretty dodgy. It is really dodgy, in fact.

So, what are we doing? We’re incentivising building. Can you see it happening here? Scottsdale economy. For those of you who don’t know where Scottsdale is, type in “Arizona, Scottsdale,” and you’ve got it there. Watch what happened there. This is what’s happening in B.C.

What happened there? Of course, it was a massive housing crash in Scottsdale. People lost their homes. They lost their shirts. Their mortgages were worth multiples over their housing values. That was because this was a bubble market.

It saddens me when I see the Canadian Wind Energy Association leave British Columbia. We should be, actually, using our existing dams and bringing intermittent sources of power together with these dams to actually stable the base demand.

It saddens me when a $1 billion investment of U.S. money walks from British Columbia, walks from Vancouver Island — a partnership between five First Nations, TimberWest and EDP Renewables to put wind capacity on Vancouver Island close to the requirement for electricity, reducing substantive transmission loss. It’s an intermittent source that partners First Nations with private land, TimberWest land, with EDP Renewables and brings foreign money — a $1 billion investment — into B.C. It saddens me when they walk.

Why do they walk? Because: “We don’t need you anymore because we’ve got Site C.” We’ve got Site C why? Because we irresponsibly, as part of our platform of giving away our resources, signed long-term contracts with Shell to provide them fixed power to actually liquefy their natural gas using electric compression from electricity that we did not have.

What we should be doing right now is saying, “Okay, Shell, we can’t make that because we’re not going to move forward with Site C,” not having silly announcements about turbine contracts being given. “We’re not moving forward with Site C right now because it’s killing our clean tech sector. We know you’re not going to come here anyway, so this contract really doesn’t make much sense.”

But they’re not. It’s still LNG — yet another bill to give it away. Right now we probably won’t be coming to a fall session. We have so little agenda on this session. But if we do, I’m sure it’ll be another emergency because there’s yet another giveaway.

I’d love to be sitting in the Petronas board room right now, thinking: “Heck, let’s go negotiate some more with British Columbia. They don’t know what they’re doing. Come on over here, B.C. I know you’ve got an election in May. We just need one more giveaway before the election.”

If I were in Petronas, I’d know I have you just completely. The expression I was going to say was probably not appropriate in this Legislature. But I would say: “Look, I’m not going to sign anything now. I’d be mad to sign anything now, because I know there’s an election in 2017, and you’re desperate” — the government. They’re desperate. “I’ll come back in the fall and say: ‘I’ll make a final investment decision, maybe — maybe if you do this, that and the other.'”

The government will say: “Emergency session. We need to do this, that and the other, because it’s for the best interests of British Columbians. And we’re going to put our trusted Minister of Natural Gas negotiating on behalf of all of us for future generations, in the best interests of those future generations.”

It is a sad day in British Columbia that we continue to debate this bill. With that, quite clearly, I will be voting in opposition to this bill. I certainly will be joining my colleagues on this side of the House in voting in opposition to that bill, resoundingly so, as this government has lost credibility on the natural gas front, and it continues to actually give away a resource that, frankly, is not in the best interests of British Columbians.

Video of Speech

Media Release: March 29, 2016
Andrew Weaver calls for a moratorium on horizontal fracking in B.C.
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, says that a new report linking hydraulic fracturing and increased seismic activity highlights an immediate need for the province to adopt a moratorium on horizontal hydraulic fracturing until there is a better understanding of its risks.

“I am calling on both the government and the official opposition to join me in supporting a moratorium on horizontal fracking in British Columbia,” says Weaver. “Other jurisdictions, like Quebec, New York, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, have already suspended the practice and B.C. should follow suit.”

The study, set to be published in the journal of Seismological Society of America, surveyed seismic activity in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin over the last 25 years and found a direct link between induced earthquakes and hydraulic fracturing in BC and Alberta.

“I am calling for a moratorium on horizontal fracturing in B.C. until we establish scientific certainty on the risks it poses,” says Weaver. “Earthquakes, groundwater contamination, fresh water use, sour gas leaks, environmental degradation and terrain modification, are all concerning side effects of fracking and they warrant comprehensive and cumulative scientific review.”

In the last decade drilling in B.C.’s Northeast has increased dramatically. Every year there are hundreds of new natural gas wells drilled in the province.

“Last year we saw a 4.6 quake caused by fracking in the Fort St. John area,” says Weaver. “Now we have the scientific evidence showing a clear link between fracking and earthquakes, but we really have no idea what the risks of this increased seismic activity amount to. We are flying blind.”

“The BC Green Party has consistently called for a moratorium on fracking in our province. To continue to allow horizontal fracking in B.C. is irresponsible in light of mounting evidence.”

– 30 –

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

Reference:

Atkinson, G.M., D.W. Eaton, H. Ghofrani, D. Walker, B. Cheadle, R. Schultze, R. Shcherbakov, K. Tiampo, J. Gu, R. M. Harrington, Y. Liu, M. van der Baan, and H. Kao, 2016: Hydraulic Fracturing and Seismicity in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin Seismological Research Letters, 87(3), doi: 10.1785/0220150263.