Today in the BC Legislature I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Environment how the BC NDP could possibly reconcile their years of criticism directed towards the BC Liberals concerning LNG in light of their cheer leading of the same today.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: In 2016, the B.C. NDP concluded that plans for an $11.4 billion LNG terminal on Lelu Island would generate an unacceptable increase in the province’s greenhouse gas emissions. They filed a definitive position against the project with federal environmental authorities. The NDP noted in their letter to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that the project would increase the province’s entire carbon footprint for industry, transport and residential activity combined by 8½ percent.

This is what they said in the letter:

“The proposal fails to meet the condition of air, land and water protection with respect to both the threat to marine habitat and species as well as to climate through unacceptably high and inadequately unregulated greenhouse gas emissions.“

Here’s the kicker: the unacceptably high emissions cited by the letter are, in fact, lower than the emissions anticipated from the LNG Canada project announced today.

To the Deputy Premier: how does the Deputy Premier reconcile her party’s sharp opposition to the Lelu terminal development with the present investment in LNG Canada?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question, because it gives us on this side of the House an opportunity to talk about our serious approach to climate, an approach that stands in stark contrast to that of the previous government. When I talk to British Columbians, they want to be assured….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.

Hon. G. Heyman: British Columbians want to be assured that as we develop our economy, we do it in a way that’s environmentally responsible, protects our air, land and water and has a path forward to meet clear climate targets that meet our and the Canadian government’s commitment to the Paris accord.

I will differ with the Leader of the Third Party a little bit. I will differ with him in that the announcement that was made today and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with this development, this final investment decision, are 3.4 megatonnes, far lower than that associated with the project that the member references.

But I will say that the member has been working with me, working with staff in the climate action secretariat, to design, review and to provide input into a clean growth strategy that we will release later this fall. It will outline a clear path to our legislated emission reduction targets. We are factoring in the emissions from this plant in that plan, and I look forward to continued work with the leader and his caucus.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: In 2015, the B.C. Liberals signed a development deal with Pacific Northwest LNG in an attempt to spur the Malaysian-led project to become Canada’s first major LNG exporter. The now Minister of Environment was sharply critical of this decision. He said:

“An economy that isn’t built on sound environmental protections that include a solid plan to control, limit and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions isn’t in the economy’s interest….[or] in the interest of future generations“.

The Minister of Energy took this to another level. She said:

“They put themselves in such a desperate position” — they being the Liberals — “when it comes to negotiating for LNG that they had to say yes to any single thing that walked through the door. That’s exactly what they have done. This is the big sellout of British Columbia.“

— the words of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Now the NDP want to take that sellout to a whole new level through exempting LNG Canada from increases in the carbon tax, by eliminating the LNG Income Tax Act while they’re retaining the royalty giveaway, by deferring the PST, by exempting them from the steel tariffs and by burdening ratepayers with billions of dollars of debt to build Site C to sell LNG Canada power at half the price it costs to produce it. Talk about sellout.

To the Deputy Premier: how is the development of LNG Canada any different from the B.C. Liberals’ attempt to develop Pacific Northwest LNG? Do you not see the grand hypocrisy of what is unfolding before us today?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: There could not be a more different approach to the economy or climate than this government demonstrates every single day and will make absolutely clear this fall when we release a clean growth strategy for a diversified, modern economy that meets emission reduction targets — full stop.

With respect to LNG Canada, we are applying the same conditions that will apply to any industry in British Columbia. An industry that is world-leading in its emission reduction targets, to be reviewed periodically, can get up to 100 percent rebate of the incremental carbon tax — a carbon tax, by the way, that the former government had no intention of ever applying again.

We will work with the Third Party. We’ll work with the Leader of the Third Party and the leader’s caucus. We’ll work with industry….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. G. Heyman: We’ll work with British Columbians to ensure that we meet our targets and we diversify and create a modern, sustaining economy for all British Columbians, for First Nations, for every region of this province while we protect the environment and while we meet our climate commitments.

In the 2017 election the BC NDP campaigned on using every tool in the tool box to stop the the Transmountain pipeline project. Earlier this month I noted that the Federal Court of Appeal presented them with a very powerful tool.

Given that the provincial cabinet’s approval of the Transmountain project relied on the same NEB report as the federal approval, and in light of the recent Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling that the report was “impermissibly flawed”, the BC Government has the opportunity to pull out of the Equivalency Agreement and conduct its own, independent environmental assessment.

Today in Question Period I quizzed the Minister of Environment as to whether or not he will initiate a withdrawal from the equivalency agreement. Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: On August 30, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the federal cabinet approval of the Trans Mountain project. The court cited: “The board’s process and finding were so flawed that the Governor-in-Council could not reasonably rely on the board’s report. Second, the government of Canada failed to fulfil the legal duty to consult Indigenous peoples.” In particular, the court noted: “The board unjustifiably defined the scope of the project under review not to include project-related tanker traffic.”

The B.C. NDP campaigned on using every tool in the toolbox to stop the project from going forward. My question to the Minister of Environment is this. In light of the fact that the court ruled that the NEB process was flawed, my question is: will he use his authority to pull out of the equivalency agreement with Ottawa on the environmental assessment of this project for the next 22 weeks?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question. I think this is a good opportunity to just take a brief look at history. There was a time when the official opposition, then in government, expressed concern about the impacts of diluted bitumen on our coast, expressed concern about failings that they perceived in the National Energy Board process, but as that process rolled on, the official opposition simply rolled over and accepted the conclusions of the National Energy Board.

But that wasn’t all. First Nations on the coast expressed concern as to their rights, their culture, their traditional economy. Thousands of British Columbians expressed concern about our environment, tens of thousands of jobs that were at risk, and this government stood up with them and expressed the same concerns. And what did the opposition say when we did that? They said that there was a decision, the project was going ahead, and we should simply accept it.

The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is significant and far-reaching for a number of reasons, but not the least of which is it validated the concerns of First Nations, it validated the concerns of British Columbians about our coast, and it validated the actions of our government in standing up for our coast, and that’s what we will continue to do.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I do recall, when I sat in opposition with my colleagues from the B.C. NDP — at a time when I heard them calling on the government of the day to actually withdraw from the equivalency agreement over the same concerns that I share today.

Our Prime Minister has signaled that the NEB has precisely 22 weeks on which to reassess the available information. That’s over Christmas. Interveners have to have given notice within the next couple of days if they want to participate.

It’s clear to me and those who participated as interveners in the prior assessment that the decision has already been made. How is it possible that the British Columbia government can have faith in a process where the decision is clearly made and where a prime minister has reiterated, time and time again, it will be built?

Again, to the Environment Minister: will he stand up for the interests of British Columbians and give the federal government the required 30 days’ notice to withdraw from the equivalency agreement today?

Answer

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, thank you to the Leader of the Third Party, who raises some very significant points about the process that is underway. The decision of the federal court was complex. It’s far-reaching. We are reviewing it with both internal and external legal advice.

The federal government’s announcement about how they intend to proceed with the NEB now gives us an important context within which to assess our options going forward. We are well aware of the impending deadline. We are preparing our action in response to that deadline. But more importantly, we are preparing a range of options that are thorough, they’re well considered…. But I can assure the Leader of the Third Party this: we will defend our environment. We will defend our coast. And we will defend the tens of thousands of British Columbian jobs that depend on it.

Today I had the distinct privilege and honour of speaking at the Memorial Avenue Rededication Ceremony. The ceremony commemorated the 100th Anniversary of the 1918 WW1 Armistice and the planting of London Plane-trees along Shelbourne Street in 1921 in remembrance of the sacrifices made by Greater Victoria residents during the Great War.

Below I reproduce the text of my speech.

Text of Speech

It’s a great honour for me to participate in this ceremony commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the 1918 WW1 Armistice and the Re-dedication of Memorial Avenue.

I would like to give special acknowledgement and express my sincere gratitude to the Veterans who are in attendance today.

Thank you for being here and for your service. Without you, we would not enjoy the freedoms we sometimes take for granted today.

For more than 50 years I’ve walked, biked, bused and driven under the canopy of these magnificent trees on Shelbourne Street marveling at their beauty and historic significance.

The resilient London Plane-trees we see before us were given their name because this species, formed by natural hybridization in 17^th century Europe, was able to survive and thrive in the adverse conditions of London during a time when the combustion of coal left the city black with soot and smoke.

For almost 400 years, these London Plane-trees have been planted in cities around the world. Where their hardy characteristics have allowed them to flourish.

This living memorial is a fitting tribute to those who gave their lives during the First World War. It is critical that future generations understand the history and the heroic sacrifices made for which these trees serve as a commemoration.

When the idea for Memorial Avenue was presented by H.B. Thomson in February 1921, he said in a letter to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce:

“What finer memorial could one have when we are all dead than an avenue of this kind to record to future generations British Columbia’s part in the war and the heroes who died for the empire?”

The Union of BC Municipalities endorsed the plan for this provincial Memorial to be created in Victoria to honour the estimated 600 soldiers and nurses who did not return home to Greater Victoria after the war.

On Sunday, October 2, 1921, the Province of British Columbia held the Dedication Ceremony. It was opened by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, Walter C. Nichol, with a dedicatory address, followed by an address by the Premier, the Honourable John Oliver.

The first tree was planted by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor. In the months that followed, about 75 volunteers worked tirelessly in an attempt to realize the dream of having a tree planted for every person from Victoria who gave their life in the war.

This “Road of Remembrance” was the first of its kind in Canada. Memorial Avenue on Shelbourne Street reached from Mount Douglas Park in Saanich south to Bay Street in the City of Victoria.

Saanich, Victoria and Oak Bay worked cooperatively during the planting of the Road of Remembrance. Victoria and Saanich prepared the ground for planting, Victoria donated the trees and Oak Bay undertook to do the watering. The section of Shelbourne Street from Cedar Hill Cross to North Dairy was never planted. This inspired its nickname “the Street of Unfinished Dreams”.

After centuries, these trees will stand as a lasting memorial of our collective history – a history that must never be forgotten. They will thrive here long after we are gone to honour the legacy of our ancestors and remind us of the great human cost of war.

We are in a special place when we are shaded by the canopy of these historic trees. We owe it to future generations to keep the history and memory alive as we safeguard these trees.

I would like to acknowledge the significant contribution of the Memorial Avenue Committee, together with its Chair, Ray Travers. They’ve worked hard for many years to steward this project forward and to ensure that there’s a long-term plan to care for both existing trees, as well as planting new ones in the future, as our community develops.

Volunteers play a vital role in our community. And I offer my sincere thanks to Ray Travers and the Memorial Avenue Committee for all that you have done.

The Saanich Remembers World War One project has served to help us learn more about the individuals from our community who’ve served our country and to keep their memory alive.
Thank you again for extending me the honour of being here with you today. It is a privilege for me to be able to serve the constituents of Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

The BC Government today released Dan Perrin’s Real Estate Regulatory Structure Review, which was commissioned in April of this year to:

The BC Government today announced that it was accepting the recommendations of the BC Rental Housing Task Force.

Below is the media release my colleague Adam Olsen and I issued in response to the government’s announcement.

Media Release

Weaver welcomes rental formula change
For immediate release
September 26, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, and Adam Olsen, Rental Housing Task Force (RHTF) member, welcomed the government’s announcement that it has accepted the RHTF’s recommendation to change the allowable rental increase formula from the inflation plus a guaranteed 2% to inflation only (2.5% for 2019). The RHTF made the recommendation on Monday, and Weaver urged government to accept their recommendation.

“I am delighted that B.C. renters will have some relief in 2019,” said Weaver.

“When we work together to advance evidence-based solutions there is much we can accomplish. This is a sensible change that will make life more affordable without putting a dent in the provincial budget. We were also pleased to support increased funding in the budget for targeted programs like SAFER and RAP and to build affordable housing, as well as changes to the Residential Tenancy Act. We are in continuous, active discussions with government to explore further policies that we both agree will increase affordability.”

Olsen also welcomed the government’s announcement.

“It is truly rewarding to see the efforts of our collaboration become government policy,” said Olsen.

“The lack of affordable rentals has wide-ranging impact in every corner of society, from seniors on fixed income, to young people and students, to small businesses struggling to find employees. I believe this policy strikes the right balance of encouraging affordable rents while giving landlords the ability to apply for justified higher increases. I look forward to releasing the rest of our recommendations soon so that we can continue to deliver on our shared promise to address the affordability crisis.”

-30-

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