Yesterday in the BC Legislature we debated Bill 2: Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018 at second reading. This bill amends 21 other pieces of legislation in order to implement a number of the tax measures proposed in the BC Government’s budget.

As you will see in the text and video of my second reading speech, I was generally supportive of the measures included in this bill. Nevertheless, I was critical (for reasons that I expand upon in detail in my speech) of the government not exempting zero-emission vehicles from the increase in PST that will now be applied to automobiles over $125,000.

I was also critical of government not closing the bare trust loophole that I’ve been pointing out for more than four years now is being used to avoid paying property transfer tax. In my speech I provide details as to how someone can simply avoid paying the proposed increase in property transfer tax on homes sold for over $3 million.

Below I reproduce the text and video of my speech.

Text Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak, join debates here at second reading discussion of Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018. As we’ve heard from members opposite and government, this bill is being brought forward to enact some of the measures that government is proposing to do.

I’ve heard a lot in the debate so far, discussions about the budget in general. We must recall that in fact, this bill is only dealing with a few aspects of what is actually contained in the budget. The speculation tax, which we’ll clearly be debating at some point, is not contained in the budget implementation act, but something that is contained that I haven’t heard a lot about is changes to the school tax, which we’ll discuss in a second.

Before I start, I think I would like to give notice to members opposite and to government that a press release was just issued by BCUC announcing that, in fact, B.C. Hydro rates will go up 3 percent this year, despite what the government claimed: that it was going to freeze B.C. Hydro rates. Why that’s important is that it makes us wonder to what extent this budget will be affected, in light of the debt that is being put on to British Columbians, despite the fact that we were told that rates were not going on.

The member for Surrey-Whalley and I did probe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on this topic, and we were assured that rates were not going to go up. In fact, they are going up. So it does not bode well for instilling confidence into the full suite of budget measure implementations that are being put forward.

The most notable changes in the act that we’re seeing here today are changes to the Income Tax Act, which I’ll come to — important changes with respect to reporting — and changes to the Land Tax Deferment Act and the Home Owner Grant Act. Again, much to do with reporting, to ensure that characters out there are not getting away with financial shenanigans in terms of  claiming things like homeowner grants or avoiding taxes that they should otherwise pay.

There are changes to the Motor Fuel Tax Act, which are allowing Victoria regional transit to get an extra 2 cents per litre in gasoline. What’s remarkable about this is that gas taxes like that are very good for raising revenue for public transportation. The issue, of course, in Victoria is that we are the capital of the electric vehicle. I suspect that the government has over budgeted its expected revenues from this as the electrification of Victoria’s vehicular sector continues to grow.

Changes to property transfer tax are an important component of the Budget Measures Implementation Act — in particular, the additional levy being applied to properties over $3 million. I’ll come to that in a second, because again, as with many of these things, there needs to be careful analysis of the details. Of course, the Provincial Sales Tax Act to levy a surcharge on vehicles over $125,000 — I will come to that again in some detail.

I’ll start by recognizing what I could not find embedded within the budget implementation act itself, but it was mentioned directly by the Finance Minister in her opening remarks. It’s a very important change that’s being implemented for cruise ships in British Columbia. We know right now that cruise ships in British Columbia are at an unfair competitive disadvantage with cruise ships that come to Seattle. The reason why is that cruise ships in British Columbia pay a carbon tax when they use marine gas. Now, marine gas is more frequently used today than the traditional bunker fuels of yesteryear, which don’t have the carbon tax applied. The reason why they’re not applied is, if you’re an international carrier and you fly from one jurisdiction to another, international reporting regulations do not require you to actually count those emissions to your jurisdiction.

So this may not seem like a big change, but it is an incredibly important change. The cruise ships, the modern cruise ships, the cleaner cruise ships using marine gas are no longer at a disadvantage if they fill up in Victoria or British Columbia or Prince Rupert. So now they can actually make, in their decisions as to where to go, a financial windfall by not being penalized by coming to B.C. Thank you to the minister, and thank you to the Finance Committee. We recommended discussions about this — and the presentation that was made to us by steamship operators. This was an important addition. It won’t get the attention I think it deserves, but it certainly will make a big deal in terms of the cruise ship industry.

Coming to the Income Tax Act. What’s happening in that, which I think, generally, we can support — and this is embedded within sections 14 to 34 of the act — are important changes that parallel that which was done federally with respect to clamping down on anti-avoidance. That is, there are new definitions and new rules that are being put in place to ensure that the misuse or abuse of provisions in other acts, which the income tax relies upon, will be subject to the same rules as embedded here.

A lot of incidental changes here. A lot of this is actually not, per se, a fundamental part of the government’s budget but rather important work that needed to be done by the civil service — legislative additions — in order to mirror or match legislations that have clearly been brought in place federally.

Coming to the Land Tax Deferment Act, which is section 88, we notice in here that it provides for information-sharing and use of information provided under the Income Tax Act, and back and forth. In particular, there are changes to the Home Owner Grant Act to provide for the same information-sharing. Why this is important is a couple of things. It’s a welcome change, in my opinion. It’s a welcome change, because it actually, again, has significant implications for tackling tax avoidance through enabling information-sharing across multiple jurisdictions.

For example, there could be people that are claiming that a home is their principal residence and claiming the home owner grant for the purposes of either not paying — getting a grant — or deferring taxes, if they’re a senior, and they wish to defer taxes against the property until such time as they sell, as that property is sold. We now are requiring information be determined for tax purposes, whether they’re a resident and, in fact, if they’re paying income taxes here and, frankly, if they’re living here in British Columbia.

Coming to the Motor Fuel Tax Act — again, sections 42 to 50 of the bill…. It’s a large bill, more than 40 pages of very dense language and multiple sections that cross-reference each other — a very complex bill. It’s a component that was asked for by the region where I live, here in the capital region, to allow additional revenue sources for the regional transit authority. I’m sure that they’ll be pleased, and this becomes effective April 1, 2018, when we get a two-cent per litre addition here in Victoria, up from 3½ cents to 5.5 cents — again, for regional transit initiatives. My only hope is that we ensure that such initiatives actually start to represent the future and get us down towards bringing our communities in the West Shore and on the Saanich Peninsula closer together with rapid forms of transportation.

The Property Transfer Tax Act. There are some very important changes here. Some that are simple, just information-exchanging. For example, currently, the anti-avoidance rule that is being fixed here, only applies to the foreign buyers tax. So now what’s happening is the definition and the language that was only applied to the foreign buyers tax, which is being increased to 20 percent, is now broader. It’s now applying throughout the act to ensure that, avoidance is being captured.

There is also the important change, which is a revenue-generator here, which is additional levees on the property transfer tax for homes that exceed $3 million. Presently it’s $2 million above $200,000 to $3 million. Now it’s going to be an additional three percent, to take it to five percent of the value of the home above $3 million.

Again, one of the things I have a problem with is that property transfer tax is a very regressive form of taxation. In general, it’s essentially penalizing home ownership and moving up and down as you age. As your family grows, you typically get larger houses, and as the family shrinks or you retire, they typically get smaller. We’re taxing all the way along the lines there. Again, this was being used….

The idea here, of course, is to put a clamp on upper-end homes. But, as with all of the government’s measures to deal with housing, I, frankly, believe that they’ve missed the boat. What I mean by that is that it appears to me that government is using our housing crisis rather than as a source of revenue to build supply, affordable housing, which is part of their plan…. Why that’s problematic and why I believe that to be the case is if you look in the budget, budget revenues are expected to either remain constant or actually grow from things like property tax transfer tax, a speculation tax, foreign buyers tax.

If these tools were actually being designed to clamp down on the speculative market, you would expect, for example, a speculation tax to go to zero. But it doesn’t. It grows and then stays flat. This is troubling to me. I think we’re missing the boat as to what the issue is.

The issue, we know, is offshore capital flowing into B.C. in a highly unregulated manner, leading to speculation. And rather than dealing with the problem, we’re in a crisis. Critical times deserve decisive measures, not tepid responses like we see here. So the property transfer tax, five percent above $3 million. Again, why $3 million? Why not $2.2 million? Why $5 million? It seems to me somewhat arbitrary and a means, a way, to actually grabbing cash.

In some sense, you could view it almost along the lines of a form of an inheritance tax. People, as they get older and sell their homes for their children, are going to have a…. It’s typically if you’re living in Point Grey and you’re either or foreign buyer, you’re a multi-millionaire, or you’ve lived there all your life and you’re going to sell your home and move out, as some people have spoken to me about. This is viewed as a form of an inheritance tax.

This change takes effect February 21, which was pretty rapid after the budget, so it’s in place now. A tax may have the effect of exerting some downward pressure, but it’s actually not dealing with the problem as I articulated it. It’s not dealing with the issue at hand, the issue being offshore money flowing into our market.

We know about the laundering issue. We know about the link to the drugs and the money coming in from the drug trade and the fentanyl crisis into the real estate market. We’ve had excellent investigative reporting in that regard, and the government’s measures are not actually targeting that. They’re targeting everyday homeowners as well as other people.

Some of the members opposite have raised the issue of speculation tax. Now, as we’ve discussed the budget in general, and I understand and recognize that, the actual measures of implementation here about the speculation tax are not embodied and embedded in Bill 2. Nevertheless, I think it’s important to put on record that I share some of the concerns that opposition members have raised on the issue of a speculation tax.

To me, it’s actually not a speculation tax. It’s a form of a vacancy tax, a provincial vacancy tax. But the concern I have, and the concern that has been expressed to me, is multifold. I don’t think government has thought this through. I don’t think government has thought what problem they’re trying to solve.

They’re looking at this issue of affordability, whether it be through — what I just discussed — the property transfer tax changes or the speculation tax, and they’re viewing this as a means and way of grabbing revenue in order to build affordable housing or build campus housing. Now, I have no problem grabbing revenue if you have an outcome from somewhere, but we’re not dealing with the problem.

Coming to the speculation tax, as mentioned multiple times by members opposite, there are multiple problems with this. Many people, for example, have a home on a ski hill, which may be part of a rental pool. Let’s suppose I have a condo at Sun Peaks that I actually use a couple of weeks a year — I don’t, but if I did — but it’s in a rental pool. Perhaps it’s zoned tourist commercial, which means you can’t actually rent it for more than six months because of the individual zoning. Perhaps it’s in a pool. Is that exempted or not? We don’t know.

There are people who plan to retire out to B.C. They may have bought a condo here to protect themselves from the market, maybe a couple of years prior to them retiring. That condo may be vacant. It may be vacant for a short term. Should they be taxed? Why is it that the government’s targeting fellow Canadians? Why is it not recognizing that the problem is not people from Prince Edward Island or Saskatchewan? The problem is offshore money, bypassing due process in normal channels, flowing into our real estate sector.

Again, I have a lot of sympathy for the arguments raised opposite on this, even though specifically, right now, we’ll have to wait until we see legislation emerging, because it’s not actually in Bill 2.

Coming, again, to some of the requirements. Some might think this is onerous — the level of information that this bill is actually asking be done, be provided, as part of the property transfer tax act changes. They’re things like the date of birth of the buyer, the buyer’s social insurance number or individual tax number, the buyer’s citizenship and residency status, the foreign country of citizenship if they’re not a Canadian or permanent resident. Clearly, these are new additional pieces of information that government is grabbing. We also know now that there’s more sharing ability between income tax, property tax acts, etc., to allow cross-checking and target those avoiders.

Similarly for corporations, we’re now requiring more information in the transfer of properties. We could argue about the issues of privacy. What has to be front and centre, of course, in all of this, is that we’re careful with the data that we’re collecting. I understand and support government’s desire to crack down on people who are cheating the system. However, we also have to recognize that we are collecting a lot of very personal data on issues, and we have to be very careful how we do that.

We know that one of the biggest ways that we’re seeing our property escalate in value artificially is through offshore companies buying British Columbia real estate. I’m not sure whether or not partnerships are covered, because that is one of the ways that people are avoiding the foreign buyers tax. I’ll ask that when we get to committee stage.

For corporations, they now must return…. I guess partnerships should be included in that. They have to give information on the total number of directors; the number of directors who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents; and each of these directors, now, has to provide their citizen status or permanent resident status information, date of birth, social insurance number and, for people who are not Canadian, similar information from where they’re from.

I just got some notes given to me here — notes about the B.C. Hydro rate freeze that didn’t happen. We’ve just issued a press release, but I reserve that for other conversations and not here on Bill 2 right now.

One of the things I do like, of course, is also that the government is targeting the beneficial owners of bare trusts. Now, as we all know, this is another means that people have used to avoid, essentially, property transfer tax, at its very fundamental level. Also, it’s a way of hiding actual ownership. If property is purchased in a trust, the trust is owned by a corporation or an individual, and when you dispense of a property, rather than selling the property, you sell ownership of the trust. So there’s no transfer of title. In British Columbia, we still tax transfer of title instead of transfer of beneficial ownership. That bare trust loophole I raised three or four years ago here in the legislature, still, government hasn’t closed it.

I don’t understand why they haven’t closed it. They’re collecting more information here. When I stood opposite, the now Attorney General railed on the government of the day — day after day — on the need to actually clamp down on the ability of people to hide and not pay property transfer tax. Yet, here, we have an opportunity to close that loophole, and what does government do? It collects more data.

I assume we’re going to get a report from this at some point down the road too. Or we’re going to send it to a committee to study it and make a decision. Government didn’t need to do that. Government could have made that decision now, which puts us, of course, in a predicament.

Obviously, we want to move forward. But obviously, we must think of the collective when we determine whether we support or don’t support a budget or its implementation act. This could have and should have been fixed now. Obviously, I support the collection of additional data — the social insurance numbers of beneficial owners, etc. — for the purpose of clamping down. But we’re not actually doing anything. We’re not actually clamping down.

Still, if I’m a wealthy individual and I want to buy a property here and I want to not pay any property transfer tax, especially if I want to buy an expensive property, I would be a mug if I were to buy an expensive property in anything other than in bare trust. Nobody in British Columbia is going to pay that 5 percent tax if they’re actually smart.

Because what they’ll do is they’ll buy properties in a trust, and everybody will be selling beneficial ownership of the trust. Nobody will be paying property transfer tax, not even the 5 percent. They’ll be paying zero percent. The reason why they’ll be paying zero percent is because there’s no change of title when you change ownership of the actual bare trust.

Again, government could have closed this. They’re going to study it. I don’t understand it. I frankly don’t think British Columbians understand it. Frankly, I don’t think anybody who wants to game our system is going to actually go and…. Anyone who want to game it has got another loophole to game it in.

The best way to do it is to work a deal with someone where you’re buying a house for, oh…. Here’s the way to gain it right now, here and now. You have a house. You know it’s below market, and it would sell. But you want to sell it for a higher amount. So you sell it to buddy over here for $2.9 million.

But it may have been registered on title, and you want to change it into a trust. Okay. You’re changing the title there. You’re putting the trust on title. You paid $2.9 million for the property, put it into a trust. But you really want to sell it to this guy over here.

So what do you do? You turn around and sell the shares in your trust for $5 million, the true value of that house, to this guy over here. So this guy has bought a $5 million home and paid only the property transfer tax on the first $2.9 million. There are so many loopholes here that this should have been closed.

Frankly, it’s frustrating to sit down here and to have listened for four years to the now Attorney General, listened for four years to member after member after member hurl abuse at government for not closing this loophole. It’s also a bit ironic to listen to opposition members suddenly claim the government is not dealing with the problem properly, but that’s another story.

But the government had the opportunity, and they failed. They failed here. They’re collecting more data. Good for them. But frankly, we need action, not more reports, committees or subcommittees.

When we come forward, one of the other good changes is that now government may say, “Okay, in Bill 2, we’re now allowing government access at no charge to MLS information,” because in MLS, there might be more information that might give more information on fair market value.

But that way of gaming the system that I just outlined won’t be reflected here because…. “Let me list the property for $2.9 million on MLS. I can list it on MLS and sell the property right away on MLS. It’s gone through MLS — information there. I buy it in a trust, and I sell my shares in the trust for $5 million. Okay, I’ll wait six months. I’ll call it my principal residence, and I’ll pay no capital gains tax either.” It’s just that the system is messed up, and government has not dealt with that.

There are penalties, though. The government is now allowing the administrator to actually put penalties in place that are equivalent to 100 percent of the tax avoided if they catch a means and ways of avoiding it. But again, it has to be pretty blatant when there are clear legal loopholes right now that the government is not closing that will allow people to avoid (a) paying any property transfer tax or (b) paying the 5 percent.

To the changes to the provincial sales tax, again, the government missed an opportunity here. I sometimes wonder if the left hand is talking to the right when decisions are made in government in general. We have government recognizing that there are luxury cars — for example, a car worth over $125,000 — are really something that, perhaps, you might want to put a little bit of a tax on. Because there are costs associated with this, and people who can afford that…. You might think, if you can afford a Rolls-Royce, you can afford a little more sales tax than, perhaps, if you have a small, secondhand beater. Okay. I get that argument.

So you make changes to the Provincial Sales Tax Act to allow a 10 percent to 15 percent increase, of PST applied to vehicles worth $125,000 to $150,000, and for vehicles worth over $150,000, the tax increases from 10 percent to 20 percent.

We’re going: “What’s the problem with this?” It may sound okay. This is good. We’re taxing the rich. We’re Robin Hooding the system — taxing the rich and giving the poor, taxing the Maserati owners and giving it to the people who can’t afford a car. Okay. I get that. But I don’t think government actually understands that there are also segments of our economy where we rely upon people — the early adopters — to actually pay more for certain things to allow us to actually get into the market.

Let me give an example. The first people who bought cell phones paid a lot for their cell phones — the big, big cell phones. They paid a lot, and those so-called early adopters are the reason why we are able to buy cell phones so cheaply, because they paid the R-and-D costs of the companies, some of which went bankrupt, that created the technology that we use today.

The first people who bought laptops paid a fortune. The first people who bought LED-screen TVs…. Can you imagine the first people who were spending thousands of dollars for a flat screen TV? They were paying the R-and-D, research and development, costs that allowed the price to come down so much that they give them away in cornflakes boxes now, pretty much.

But what the government has failed to see here is that there are some new types of vehicular transport — hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and some high-end electric vehicles — that are actually new technologies, and there are extremely high R-and-D costs associated with them.

What we’re doing is, rather than government giving a handout to these companies to keep them going, we’re letting those who can afford it pay the R-and-D costs for these companies. It’s pretty clear to me that there should be an exemption here, and that exemption should be for cars that are zero-emitting vehicles, whether they be fuel cell or electric cars.

Some Teslas are in this price range. Tesla is now only able to deliver a sedan because all of those people were able to invest in the R and D of the earlier models — the Model X and the Model S. But now they can develop the sedan.

What about hydrogen fuel cell? That may be a technological pathway. I doubt it, but it may be. We shouldn’t be taxing those early adopters and putting in barriers that way. I hope the government is open to an amendment which excludes zero-emission vehicles in this regard.

Coming down to the municipal and regional district tax and the PST, we now have legislation happening here that’s allowing the accommodation platforms, like Airbnb and, say, VRBO, vacation rental by owner. We’re allowing these organizations and municipalities, as well, to actually start to collect municipal and regional district taxes and PSTs and submit them. This is enabling legislation. It doesn’t mean that if I’m renting my house on Craigslist for a week that I’m going to do it, but it would allow me to do it if I so chose to do so.

Coming to the school tax, now we have a two-tier system, a two-tier additional school tax on high-end properties. One threshold is $3 million, and the second threshold is $4 million — again, somewhat arbitrary numbers. I guess it applies to a lot of people who live on the waterfront here on Vancouver Island or in Shaughnessy or Point Grey. I’m sure the member from Vancouver-Quilchena will have concerned citizens in his riding.

Again, we have two new property school tax rates, and what’s happening now, of course, is there’s going to be an addition of a 0.2 percent additional school tax on the residential portion assessed between $3 million and $4 million and a 0.4 percent tax on the residential portion assessed over $4 million.

This exempts things like purpose-built rental housing, etc. Now, again, I can see the problem, and I can see some of the concerns. Increasing designated….

I won’t be much longer, hon. Speaker. Although I am the designated speaker on Budget Implementation Act, Bill 2, I do see the green light coming.

For many homeowners, taxes can be deferred, as we know. So if you’re a senior citizen, you don’t actually have to pay your property tax. You might want to defer it. But there are people who want to ensure that they’re not leaving debt in that way so there is some discomfort with this. I don’t know that it’s insurmountable, but there is some discomfort within senior groups, senior citizens, about what this means.

I don’t know about the unintended consequences. Let me give a specific example, which I hope government reflects upon. I know a specific case of an individual with special needs who lived with his parents in a home. Now, that home probably could have been worth pretty close to this amount of money. When the parents tragically were deceased, the individual stayed in the home. Now the individual would be, in this case, subject to taxation.

But that individual may not be a senior. That individual, in the case I’m talking about, was not a senior. It was a 40-something-year-old gentleman. That 40-something-year-old gentleman, who’s barely making ends meet, would now be subject to a punitive, additional tax. I hope government thinks about, in fact, exempting people who perhaps have special needs or special circumstances.

Nobody’s going to stand up here and call government out for increasing the tobacco tax — minor increases. I can’t believe that people still are willing to spend 12 bucks for a pack of cigarettes, but they do, and they’re going to pay more clearly, as this goes forward. What we didn’t see, of course, is any legislation yet on what kind of tax revenue we would expect from cannabis as it comes forward. Hopefully, government will be letting us know that as we move forward.

With that, I’ll say that by and large, obviously, I will support at second reading the Budget Implementation Act. I won’t speak for my colleagues, but we have had a brief discussion, and I’m pretty sure that they’re supportive as well. Well, I know they are, in fact.

But we’re not entirely happy with the implementation act. We don’t see the details on the speculation tax. We should have seen those details. The property transfer tax issue, of course, has been left out in terms of proper enforcement, of actually ensuring that people pay it. That’s a mistake. Government should have fixed that. The issue of electric and non-emitting vehicles over $125,000 — that’s a punitive tax of early adopters. It shouldn’t be there. Hopefully, government will reflect upon this as we move forward.

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to the remaining debate

Video of Speech

In November of last year, the BC Government released a very misleading press release entitled Province delivers on commitment to freeze BC Hydro rates. The release stated:

The British Columbia government is delivering on its promise to freeze BC Hydro rates, putting an end to the years of spiralling electricity costs that have made life less affordable for B.C. homeowners and renters, Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Michelle Mungall announced today.

You would be forgiven if you thought that this announcement meant that BC Hydro rates were not going to go up this year. You were probably very upset if Fortis was your electricity provided. But it turned out that all the BC NDP had done was instruct BC Hydro to ask the independent British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) to consider overturning its already approved 3% rate increase for 2018.

As I noted back in the fall, it was entirely uncertain whether the BCUC would agree to do this given the autonomy of the organization, the very legitimate concerns about the fiscal sustainability of BC Hydro, the ability for intervenors to provide further information and so forth. I suggested that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources owed British Columbians a formal correction to the press release. She refused.

Well as expected, today the British Columbia Utilities Commission rejected BC Hydro’s request for a rate freeze.

The BC NDP responded with a hastily issued press release expressing disappointment. They further noted (with scant details) that:

“BC Hydro residential customers who find themselves in an emergency – such as loss of employment, unanticipated medical expenses or pending eviction for example – will be eligible for a grant toward their outstanding BC Hydro bill. The grant is up to $600 and does not need to be repaid.”

I reproduce our media release below.

Media Release

Weaver responds to BCUC hydro rate freeze rejection
For immediate release
March 1, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, responded to the BCUC decision to reject the government’s proposed rate freeze, as well as the government’s proposal to provide a lifeline rate program to low-income British Columbians.

“I am glad that the government is respecting BCUC’s independence,” said Weaver.

“If governments had always done this, British Columbians would not be facing the travesty of the Site C boondoggle. BCUC makes its decisions based on evidence and in what is the best interests of ratepayers. Respect for proper process is essential for public trust in government and for the integrity of our democracy.

“While it’s encouraging to see the government adopting a more evidence-based, progressive approach to support British Columbians facing income insecurity, this demonstrates the need to move past ad-hoc, boutique supports and seriously consider a basic income. As the world and our province faces challenges such as automation and the gig economy, we must proactively respond with innovative ideas. Basic income is widely lauded by economists and will help ensure that nobody falls so far behind that they can’t pick themselves back up again. When British Columbians are truly income secure, they will be able to take risks such as starting small businesses, which will help build a truly thriving, 21st century economy.”

-30-

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

Today in the BC Legislature the Premier, Leader of the Official Opposition and I paid tribute to former NDP Premier Dave Barrett who passed away on February 2, 2018.

Below I attach the video and text of my tribute.

Video of Tribute

Text of Tribute

A. Weaver: I rise to pay tribute on behalf of the B.C. Green caucus to a great British Columbian, Dave Barrett, who passed away on February 2 of this year. I also wish to extend my sincere condolences to his family gathered in the gallery today.

Dave Barrett dedicated much of his life to the service of British Columbians. He did so with passion. He did so with commitment. He did so with integrity, and he did so both here in the B.C. Legislature as well as in the Houses of Parliament in Ottawa.

Dave Barrett, without a doubt, was one of Canada’s great Premiers. During his time as Premier from 1972 to 1975, his government passed a remarkable 367 bills, averaging one every three days. Much of his legacy has stood the test of time. His government created ICBC, launched PharmaCare and passed the human rights code, to name but a few of his impressive and lasting achievements.

In 1973, British Columbia was faced with sprawling urban development that threatened to swallow up precious agricultural land, including some of the best farmland in Canada. It was a challenge with opponents down every avenue, and one that a timid political leader would likely have avoided. Premier Dave Barrett and his government rose to the challenge through principled and focused leadership.

They preserved Cypress Bowl — what he described as his greatest legacy — and they protected vast swaths of land from developing by creating the agricultural land reserve, ensuring that future generations would have access to quality farmland and locally grown food. It was an act that angered many in the development community, but it was a bold and important act that was grounded in the principle of intergenerational equity.

A great orator. A gregarious individual with a wicked sense of humour. A man of integrity and principles, and a man of the people. These are but a few of the traits for which he will be remembered.

As a junior high school student in the mid-1970s, Dave Barrett’s political leadership inspired me. His lasting legacy continues to do just that each and every day in the Legislature.

As we say goodbye to Premier Barrett, we should collectively reflect upon his great accomplishments, for it is with leadership like his that we can continue a build a province that is forward-looking, innovative and compassionate.

Thank you, Dave Barrett, for all that you did. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Over the last month there has been a flurry of media interest concerning whether or not British Columbia can meet it’s legislated and promised greenhouse gas reduction targets while simultaneously developing an LNG industry. The short answer is no, it’s impossible. In what follows I outline why this is so. I also outline why this is a defining issue for my continued support of this minority government.

1. British Columbia’s legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets

In 2007, at a time when British Columbia was emerging as an international leader in the quest to reduce greenhouse gases, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act was passed. This act committed British Columbia to:

1. reduce emissions by 2020 to at least 33% less than the level of those emissions in 2007;
2. reduce emissions by 2050 to at least 80% less than the level of those emissions in 2007;

It further tasked the government with developing interim targets for 2012 and 2016.

Later that year the government set up a Climate Action Team whose mandate included, among other things, advising what these interim targets should be. The resulting report recommended:

1. 1. By 2012, the growth in emissions must be reversed and emissions must begin to decline significantly, to between five and seven per cent below 2007 levels;
   2. By 2016, the decline in emissions needs to accelerate. In order to ensure that B.C.’s 2020 target can be reached, emissions should fall to between 15 and 18 per cent below 2007 levels by 2016.

In November 2008, upon completion of the Climate Action Team’s report, the government announced that it would establish a greenhouse gas reduction target of 16% below 2007 levels by 2012 and 18%  by 2016. And at the same time, a suite of policy measures were implemented. As can be seen in the figure below, annually-averaged British Columbia emissions began to reduce.

On November 3, 2010 Gordon Campbell resigned as premier which initiated a search for a new Leader of the BC Liberal Party. Christy Clark won the subsequent BC leadership race and was sworn in as premier on March 14, 2011. After an unsuccessful attempt to win a seat in the Point Grey riding during the May 2013 provincial election, now Premier Christy Clark was eventually elected in a July 10, 2013  Kelowna West byelection.

Why this political history is important is that the change in leadership immediately signaled a change in direction for British Columbia. Almost immediately, the new Christy Clark government started to dismantle the climate policies put in place by her predecessor. One of her very first pronouncements was that natural gas would now be defined as “clean” thereby signalling the beginning of the BC Liberals’ reckless quest to capture a pot of LNG gold at the end of an ever-moving rainbow.

This pronouncement became law on July 24, 2012 as British Columbia’s Clean Energy Act was modified to exclude natural gas used to power LNG facilities. As early as June 2012, journalists were already asking how on British Columbia could venture into the LNG export industry while at the same time meeting its legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets. The political spin began.

2. Why I agreed to run as a BC Green Party candidate in the 2013 provincial election

It was during this same post-Campbell period that I was heavily involved in the writing of Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility of the soon to be released Working Group I contribution to the 5^th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The last thing on my mind was contemplation of a possible move to BC politics.

Several times during 2012 the then Leader of the BC Green Party, Jane Sterk, approached me about running for office in the 2013 provincial election. It wasn’t until September of that year, the 4^th time I was asked, that I final agreed to do so.

Over the years I have given hundreds of public lectures on the science of global warming. I also developed a course at the University of Victoria entitled EOS 365: Climate and Society.

In my last lecture of that course, or towards the end of my public lectures, I typically provide a summary. I use the image to the right to boil the entire issue of global warming down to one question:

Do we, the present generation, owe anything to future generations in terms of the quality of the environment that we leave behind?

Science can’t answer that question. But science tell us why this is ultimately the question that needs to be asked.

The figure, taken from the 4^th Assessment report of the IPCC shows six panels with three in each column. The first column shows projected change in annually-averaged surface air temperature (as averaged over many climate models) over the decade 2020-2029 relative to the 1980-1990 average.  The second column shows the same thing over the decade 2090-2099 relative to the 1980-1990 average. The three rows show the results when the climate models are forced by human-produced greenhouse gas emissions that follow three distinct trajectories (B1, A1B, A2).

The first (B1) has carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions which peak mid century then decline to below 1990 levels by the end of the century (see figure to the left taken from the IPCC 3^rd Assessmnet Report). The CO₂ emissions used in the second row (A1B) grow significantly until mid century and then decline slightly thereafter. The third scenario (A2) reveals CO₂ emissions that grow throughout the 21^st century. Each of these scenarios were developed using assumptions of future population growth, economic growth, energy usage and numerous other socioeconomic factors.

Since 2000, after which CO₂ emissions were estimated in the figure above, humans have been following the higher trajectories. In 2017 emissions from industrial activities and changes in land use were 10.0 GtC (Gigatonnes of Carbon) and 1.1 GtC, respectively, for a total of 11.1 GtC.

The results shown in the six paneled-figure above tell us that the amount of warming over the next century is very sensitive to our future emissions of greenhouse gases. But they also tell us that policy decisions made today will have little effect on the warming over next several decades. The climate change we have in store for the next 20-30 years is pretty much in the cards  because of past policy decisions. That’s because of something I like to call socioeconomic inertia (we don’t build a coal-fired power plant today just to tear it down tomorrow — our built infrastructure has a turnover time associated with it).

It’s no wonder that our political leaders are having such a difficult time introducing the policies needed to ensure a reduction in greenhouse gases. Politicians are typically elected for short terms. Every four years or so there is a new election.

Let’s suppose that there is a health care crisis in a particular city. A politician may get elected on the grounds that he or she will deal with this crisis. A hospital might get built. During the next election campaign the politician can point to the hospital and say to his or her constituents: “Look. I listened to you. We built a hospital to deal with your local health-care problem”. That politician may get reelected. Now let’s suppose you are a politician who introduces a regulation limiting greenhouse gases. Or you might add a tax or levy to greenhouse gas emissions. The effects of this policy would not be realized during your political career. In fact, they may not be realized in your entire lifetime. They would start to have an effect in the lifetime of the next generation. That’s hardly something you can point to in the next election campaign. There is no immediate benefit.

So if indeed we believe that we have any responsibility for the well-being of future generations in terms of the quality of the environment that we leave behind, we have no choice but to immediately start to implement the policy measures required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Waiting to act will mean waiting until its too late. There’s a very simple analogy that illustrates why.

Suppose you put a pot of cold water on a stove and turn the element to high. The water won’t boil right away. It takes time for the water to heat up. If suddenly it gets too hot, and you decide to turn the element down, it also won’t cool right away. That’s because of the large heat capacity of the water. The analogy to global warming is direct. The element on the stove corresponds to the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere whereas the pot of water represents the oceans which cover 71% of the Earth’s surface.

Students and members of the public in my classes and lectures would invariably ask: “What can I do to make a difference?”. I would respond that there are three things anyone and everyone can do:

1. Use your purchasing power to send a signal to the market by buying products that when produced, delivered, or used, are low greenhouse-gas emitting.
2. Exercise your right to vote and ensure you vote for someone who is willing to put in place the policy measures required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Education: tell everyone you know to do 1) and 2).

In my 3^rd year Climate and Society class I would typically ask how many people voted in the last election. It wouldn’t be unusual to see only about 50% of the class put up their hands. I’d then ask why people chose not to vote and the answers included statements like: “my vote doesn’t matter” or “all politicians are the same, they just care about themselves and getting reelected.”

I’d show the figure to the right illustrating Canadian voter turnout as a function of time (now updated to include the 2015 general election). I’d talk about the fact that global warming is not really an issue that will affect seniors over the age of 65 (for reasons outlined above) and that 70-80% of this demographic typically vote. I’d suggest that it is important for those who will inherit the consequences of today’s decisions (or lack thereof) to participate in our democratic process to ensure that their interests (the long term consequences) are incorporated into decision-making. I’d suggest that if they didn’t like the names on the ballot then they should consider running themselves or encouraging someone to run that they can support.

Ultimately, when Jane Sterk approached me that 4^th time in September 2012, I took a look in the mirror and told myself that I would be a hypocrite if I were not willing to follow the advice I was willing to offer others. And so I agreed to run as a matter of principle and on May 14, 2013 I was elected as a BC Green Party MLA representing the riding of Oak Bay Gordon Head. My journey from scientist to politician is the focus of the Robert Alstead’s feature documentary entitled Running on Climate.

3. British Columbia’s reckless efforts to land an LNG industry

By now, the results of the 2013 general election in British Columbia are but history. Campaigning on the promise of 100,000 jobs,  a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $1 trillion increase in GDP, thriving schools and hospitals, and the potential elimination of the PST, Christy Clark and the BC Liberals won a bigger majority government than they had going into that election.

While the BC NDP were campaigning for “Change for the better, one practical step at a time” (whatever that means), I was busy calling out the BC Liberal promises as nothing more than unsubstantiated hyperbole. In one of my first blog posts as a newly elected MLA, I penned an article entitled: Living the Pipe Dream: Basing BC’s Economy on Bubble Economics. This was based on some Powerpoint presentations I had given during the election campaign. In that article I stated:

It is simply a pipe dream to believe that by the end of this decade, the same natural gas price differential will exist between North America and Asia. It is also much cheaper to pipe natural gas directly from Russia to China than it is to liquefy it and ship it from North America. And as we have seen above, there is much, much more natural gas located in Russia. British Columbians deserve better.

I pointed out that the widening of the Isthmus of Panama was about to be completed and that the southern US, a historical importer of LNG, already had the infrastructure on the coast to become an exporter. They were set to meet any upcoming supply gaps in the Asian market. I pointed out that Australia had massive LNG projects about to come online. I pointed out that Russia, with about 20 times all of Canada’s shale gas reserves, had entered into multi-decade contracts to deliver natural gas to China. And Russia’s natural gas reserves are largely conventional and so much cheaper to extract.  More recently, I pointed out that Iran, containing the world’s largest reserves of natural gas, just had sanctions lifted. But that didn’t stop the BC Liberals from desperately trying to deliver the impossible.

In the fall of 2016, the BC Liberals brought in Bill 6, the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act. I described it as a “generational sellout” that was incomplete and full of loopholes. I noted that in a desperate attempt to fulfill outrageous election promises, the BC Government did what it could to give away our natural resources with little, if any, hope of receiving LNG tax revenue for many, many years to come. Every single member of the legislature apart from me voted in support of the bill at second reading (see the image to the right).

During the committee stage for the bill after 2^nd reading, I identified a number of potential loopholes that could be exploited by LNG companies to further reduce the already meager amount of tax that they would pay to BC. And then, at third reading, I moved an amendment that would have sent Bill 6 to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, so that British Columbians could get answers to unresolved questions about the government’s LNG promises. The bill would have benefitted from a more thoughtful analysis by the Select Standing Committee. Third parties could be brought in for consultation, including the public, including First Nations and including the companies involved.

When it came to the vote, only independent MLA Vicky Huntington (Delta South) stood with me in the chamber in calling for more time. The official opposition and the government voted together. It was truly remarkable to witness the opposition collectively stand in favour of this bill. So many of them had offered scathing condemnations of it during second reading. In my view they were still gun shy as being perceived as “the party of no” and against resource development.

Clearly the LNG Income Tax Act wasn’t generous enough and the pot had to be sweetened further with the introduction of the 109 page LNG Income Tax Amendment Act (Bill 26) a few months later. While this bill closed a few glaring loopholes I had identified in Bill 6, Bill 26 introduced what I considered to be an unacceptable revision that granted the minister the power to use regulation to allow corporations involved in the LNG industry to use their natural gas tax credit to pay an 8 percent corporate tax instead of 11 percent. Back in the fall, when I put an amendment to send this to committee, I specifically stated in speaking to that amendment that one of the reasons this had to go to committee was because “I would have wished to explore, in particular the one-half percent natural gas tax credit.”

But it doesn’t end there. The BC Liberals still could not land a positive investment decision for a major LNG facility. And so, the legislature was called back for an unusual summer session to pass Bill 30: Liquified natural gas project agreements act. As I noted earlier when I addressed the bill at second reading, in a ever more desperate attempt to fulfill outrageous election promises, the BC Liberals did what they could to give away our natural resources with little, if any, hope of receiving LNG tax revenue for many, many years to come.

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

By this time the BC NDP realized just how outrageous the sellout was becoming and they joined me in supporting my amendment and voting against the bill at second reading.

What we should do: Bill 30 should be repealed.

Bill 30 set the stage for the BC Government to approve the Project Development Agreement that it had already signed with Pacific Northwest LNG on May 20, 2015. One of the key conditions of the deal, however, was that Petronas had to make a final investment decision on Pacific Northwest LNG by June 2017. Petronas decided to kill the project instead.

In light of this, I recently asked the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources if the long-term royalty agreement would be terminated as it was the government’s legal right to do so. In my view it literally gave away our resource and now it is being viewed as a starting point for negotiations with other companies who want to lower the bar still further. The Minister responded that she would have more information later. I await such information.

What we should do: This expired long term royalty agreement should be terminated.

If you thought the LNG deals couldn’t get any richer, you are in for a surprise. British Columbia has had in place a deep-well royalty program since 2003. It was designed to enable the provincial government to share the costs of drilling in B.C.’s deep gas basins. But recently it transformed into a massive subsidy to incentivize horizontal drilling, including shallow wells and hydraulic fracturing. There should be no surprise that British Columbia now earns very little in royalties from its natural gas royalties (see figure to the left taken from an article written by Marc Lee in PolicyNote.ca). Worse still is that there are more than $3.2 billion in unclaimed royalty credits than can be applied against future royalties.

What we should do: The deep-well royalty program should be terminated.

There is more. In Bill 19: Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016, the BC Liberals repealed existing Cap and Trade enabling legislation and allowed new entrants in the LNG industry to have “flexible options” for their initial operations. The first 18 months of a new operation’s existence would “allow for time for testing and other initial activities that may affect emissions and production levels.” The bill also opened up the BC Carbon registry to non-regulated operations (companies and municipalities). The BC NDP and I voted together in opposition to this Bill.

What we should do: Cap and Trade enabling legislation for heavy emitters should be reintroduced.

Unfortunately, the BC Liberals committed even more to LNG proponents. As former Premier Christy Clark stated in the November 2014 announcement of an agreement between BC Hydro and LNG Canada “This agreement is an important step forward towards getting the LNG industry up and running”. Initially the agreement promised to provide power to LNG facilities at a rate of 8.3¢ per kilowatt hour (kWh), before applicable taxes. This rate subsequently dropped to 5.4¢ per kWh (the same as the industrial rate used by other heavy consumers) in the late fall of 2016.

But here’s the problem. In order for BC Hydro to deliver into these contracts, it would need new power. This is where Site C comes in. Site C, when completed, would produce 5,100 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity per year.

If you pick up your bi-monthly BC Hydro bill you will see that residential customers presently pay a Tier 1 rate of 8.3¢ per kWh for the first 1350 kiloWatts of electricity and a Tier 2 rate of 12.9¢ per kWh for everything in excess of that. Site C, is now projected to cost $10.7 billion (and rising). With BC hydro’s growing debt, one thing we can be certain of is that these rates will increase. In essence, what the BC Liberals started (and the BC NDP continued) was a massive ratepayer electric subsidy of a nonexistent LNG industry. You and I will pay more than twice what LNG proponents have to pay while at the same time taking on billions of dollars of ratepayer supported debt. If this sounds like a bad deal, it gets worse.

As early as October 2103, I pointed out that it no longer made any fiscal sense to proceed with Site C. Not only was its cost escalating, but the cost of renewables was plummeting. In the last eight years alone, costs for wind power declined by 66 percent. And the costs are predicted to continue to fall. Bloomberg, for example, predicts that onshore wind costs will fall by 47 percent by 2040 and offshore costs will fall by 71 percent. In fact, Alberta just announced it is proceeding with the development of 4000 megawatts of wind energy at a cost of only 3.7¢ per kilowatt hour, well below what Site C will end up costing.

Solar energy tells a similar story. Costs have decreased by 68 percent since 2009, and they’re projected to decrease by a further 27 percent in the next five years. We have a window of opportunity now to harness renewables and build power that puts us on the cutting edge of innovation and provides local jobs and benefits. Furthermore, we are not using our existing dams efficiently and they could be used to level the load from these intermittent sources (and so act like rechargeable batteries).

Building Site C will cost much more than just its construction price tag. It will also cost us lost opportunities in terms of distributed, stable, high paying, long term jobs in renewable energy production.

What we should do: Site C should not proceed.

I reiterate, the reality is that there is a global glut in natural gas supply and despite what some might claim, oil and gas activities play a very minor role in BC’s economy. As I mentioned earlier, the royalties and net revenue from the natural gas sector in British Columbia have plummeted in recent years (see also figure below). In fact in 2016, British Columbia actually lost $383 million from exploration and development of our resource. That’s because the tax credits earned exceeded the sum of the income received from net royalties and rights tenders combined. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017, British Columbia earned total revenue of only $3.7 million, a 99.9% drop from 2010 (BC earned 1000 times more revenue in 2010 from natural gas than we did in the last fiscal year).

Figure: Net royalties earned (after claiming tax credits) [red]; net increase of unclaimed tax credits [orange]; net revenue from tendering the rights to natural gas [green]; the sum of these three (i.e. the net revenue to the province from our natural gas resource) [blue]. The scale is in billions of dollars. Each year represents the fiscal year ending March 31 of that year. Thanks to Norman Farrell for providing me the data that he collated from BC Public Accounts, BC Budget and Fiscal Plans, and the Auditor General’s Information Bulletin 1 (May 2011).

What we should do: Stop doubling down on the economy of yesterday and instead focus on our strategic strengths as we diversify for the economy of tomorrow (see section 5).

4. Meeting our 2030 greenhouse gas reduction targets – the line in the sand

During the 2017 election campaign the BC NDP campaigned on a promise to introduce measures to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our province. In particular, they promised:

Our plan commits to achieve BC’s legislated 2050 greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 80 percent below 2007 levels and will set a new legislated 2030 reduction target of 40 per cent below 2007 levels.

The BC Liberals had no plan. Obviously the BC Green plan for climate leadership was far reaching.

While the details of their plan were scant, there is no doubt that the BC NDP commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 2007 levels by 2030 was the defining issue for me when it came to determining who we would support in a minority government. And so, embedded within the confidence and supply agreement that we signed with the BC NDP is this:

a. Climate Action

As evidenced in the figure at the top of this post, British Columbia emitted 64.7 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent (CO2e) in 2007. By 2030, the BC NDP have committed to reducing emissions to 38.8 megatonnes CO2e and by 2050 this number drops to 12.9 megatonnes. As of today, British Columbia has no plan to reach either of these targets. So how does the addition of a major LNG facility muddy our ability to meet these targets?

Pembina Institute undertook a careful analysis of the emissions that would arise if the LNG Canada proposal in Kitimat would go ahead. Recall from the earlier discussion that in the race to the bottom, British Columbia continues to give away the farm in a desperate attempt to land this facility. Pembina conservatively calculated that when upstream (fugitive emissions from natural gas extraction) were included, the completed LNG Canada plant would add an additional 8.6 megatonnes CO2e by 2030 and 9.6 megatonnes CO2e by 2050.

Let’s look at these numbers a slightly different way. In 2015 British Columbia reported 63.3 megatonnes CO2e in emissions. If we add the emissions associated with the LNG Canada proposal, we would need to reduce emissions from 71.9 megatonnes CO2e to 38.8 megatonnes CO2e by 2030 and from 72.9 megatonnes CO2e to 12.9 megatonnes CO2e by 2050. That’s a 46% and 82% reduction, respectively.

We know that LNG Canada emissions would be in addition to existing emissions. LNG Canada would not build the new facility today just so that they can tear it down tomorrow. We can safely assume it would be producing emissions throughout the period from 2030-2050. This means that for all other aspects of the British Columbia economy, emissions would have to drop from 63.3 megatonnes CO2e in 2015 to 30.2 megatonnes CO2e in 2030 and to just 3.3 megatonnes CO2e in 2050. That’s a drop of 52% and 95%, respectively.

If the LNG Canada proposal goes ahead, then every aspect of our economy will have to collectively cut emissions by more than half in twelve years and by 95% by 2050. This is simply not feasible given socioeconomic inertia in our build infrastructure. I’ll expand on this more in a forthcoming post where i explore British Columbia’s sector specific emissions in more detail.

Some will argue that British Columbia should get credit for any potential emissions reductions that would occur if China, for example, were to use our natural gas and transition away from coal. The problem with this argument is two-fold.

1) International reporting mechanisms do not allow one nation to get credit for such fuel switching in another nation. China gets credit for their domestic emissions reductions, not British Columbia. British Columbia cannot simply rewrite international reporting rules developed through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In addition, it’s not even clear whether or not such fuel switching would occur.

2) More importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that when a lifecycle analysis is considered, replacing coal in China with LNG that originated in BC would actually reduce emissions.

Here’s why.

Methane has a global warming potential that is 84 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20 year horizon. This means that on a molecule per molecule basis, methane is 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in its warming ability. It’s 28 times more powerful over a 100 year time frame. And so, it’s important to ensure that the effects of methane are accounted for in a lifecycle analysis.

Unfortunately, it is well known that there are pervasive problems with the estimating and reporting of fugitive emissions in British Columbia. For example, a recent St. Francis Xavier study suggested that BC’s actual fugitive emissions were upwards of 2.5 times higher than what was being officially reported. A particularly policy-relevant and recently published study also highlights troubles and lack of consistency with subnational estimating and reporting of fugitive emissions. In fact, uncertainties are so high that in yet another insightful analysis, that estimated which nations it was best to ship BC LNG to in order to get the best bang for the buck in terms of GHG emissions, it specifically stated:

“It is critical to note that the significance of the results does not lie with the ultimate magnitude of the values, where uncertainties remain due to the evolving nature of upstream fugitive emissions measurements. Instead, the important conclusion is the potential for variability in carbon intensity of LNG across countries.“

That is, while the relative merits of shipping to one country over another was quantified, the authors recognized that uncertainties in fugitive emissions precluded a conclusion as to whether the lifecycle analysis led to a net greenhouse gas benefit. In particular they noted,

“Results include two Canadian studies, both of which report total life cycle greenhouse gas emissions notably lower than those reported by the others, ranking the lowest and second lowest values in the collected data.”

and

“The Canadian datasets would benefit from disaggregating emissions, such that areas in need of research and improvement can be identified.”

5. In Summary: A vision for the future

Over the course of this essay, I hope that I’ve been able to explain why my continued support of the BC NDP in this minority government is conditional on them implementing a realistic and achievable plan to meet the 2030 greenhouse gas reduction targets. I initially got into politics for the reasons articulated above. I could no longer look my family, friends, students and colleagues in the face knowing that I let future generations be sold out when I had the chance to stop it from happening. This is a principled decision for me and the reason why I refer to it as a line in the sand.

It is not possible to on the one hand claim you have a plan to meet our targets and then on the other hand start promoting the expansion of LNG. It’s a bit like Mr. Trudeau’s recent doublespeak where he says that we need to triple the capacity of the Kinder Morgan pipeline in order to meet our climate commitments. That is, we need to increase emissions to reduce emissions!

In section 3, I outlined the numerous ways the BC Government can take steps to stop the generational sellout embodied in the great LNG giveaway. I will continue to work to push them in this regard.

In the shadows of the massive challenges that we face, our province needs a new direction.

A new direction that offers a realistic and achievable vision grounded in hope and real change.

A new direction that places the interests of the people of British Columbia first and foremost in decision-making. And it’s not only today’s British Columbians that we must think about, it’s also the next generation who are not part of today’s decision-making process.

A new direction that will build our economy on the unique competitive advantages British Columbia possesses, not chase the economy of yesteryear by mirroring the failed strategies of struggling economies.

A new direction that will act boldly and deliberately to transition us to 21^st century economy that is diversified and sustainable.

A new direction that doesn’t wait for public opinion — but rather builds it.

We have a unique opportunity in British Columbia to be at the cutting edge in the development of a 21^st century economy.

Our high quality of life and beautiful natural environment attract some of the best and brightest from around the globe —we are a destination of choice. Our high school students are consistently top ranked — with the OECD specifying BC as one of the smartest academic jurisdictions in the world. And we have incredible potential to a create clean, renewable energy sector to sustain our growing economy. When we speak about developing a 21^st century economy — one that is innovative, resilient, diverse, and sustainable — these are unique strengths we should be leveraging.

A 21^st century economy is sustainable — environmentally, socially and financially. We should be investing in up-and-coming sectors like the clean tech sector, and creative economy that create well-paying, stable long-term, local jobs and that grow our economy without sacrificing our environment.

We should be using our strategic advantage as a destination of choice to attract industry to BC in highly mobile sectors that have difficulty retaining employees in a competitive marketplace. We should be using our boundless renewable energy resources to attract industry, including the manufacturing sector, that wants to brand itself as sustainable over its entire business cycle, just like Washington and Oregon have done.

We should be setting up seed funding mechanisms to allow the BC-based creative economy sector to leverage venture capital from other jurisdictions to our province. Too often the only leveraging that is done is the shutting down of BC-based offices and opening of offices in the Silicon Valley.

We should fundamentally change the mandate of BC Hydro. BC Hydro should no longer be the builder of new power capacity. Rather, it should be the broker of power deals, transmitter of electricity, and leveler of power load through improving British Columbia power storage capacity. Let industry risk their capital, not taxpayer capital, and let the market respond to demands of cheap power.

Similarly, by steadily increasing emissions pricing, we can send a signal to the market that incentivizes innovation and the transition to a low carbon economy. The funding could be transferred to municipalities across the province so that they might have the resources to deal with their aging infrastructure and growing transportation barriers.

By investing in the replacement of aging infrastructure in communities throughout the province we stimulate local economies and create jobs. By moving to this polluter-pays model of revenue generation for municipalities, we reduce the burden on regressive property taxes. Done right, this model would lead to municipalities actually reducing property taxes, thereby benefitting home owners, fixed-income seniors, landlords and their tenants.

Yes, we should be investing in trade skills, as described, for example, under the B.C. jobs plan. But we should also be investing further in education for 21^st century industries like biotech, high tech and clean tech. It’s critical that we bring the typically urban-based tech and rural-based resource sectors together. Innovation in technology will lead to more efficient and clever ways of operating in the mining and forestry industries.

Natural gas has an important role to play. But, we should use it to build our domestic market and explore options around using it to power local transport. BC businesses such as Westport Innovations and Vedder Transport have already positioned British Columbia as an innovative global leader in this area.

We should be investing in innovation in the aquaculture industry, like the land-based technologies used by the Namgis First Nation on Vancouver Island who raise Atlantic salmon without compromising wild stocks.

In forestry we send record amounts of unprocessed logs overseas. Now is the time to retool mills to foster a value-added second growth forestry industry.

These are just a few ideas that could help us move to the cutting edge in 21^st the century economy.

Fundamental to all of these ideas is the need to ensure that economic opportunities are done in partnership with First Nations. And that means working with First Nations through all stages of resource project development – from conception to completion.

I am truly excited about the prospects that lie ahead in this minority government. British Columbia has so much to offer and we can and shall be a leader in the new economy. And the recent announcement of the appointment of Dr. Alan Winter as the new Innovation Commissioner is an exciting step in this direction.

The BC Green Caucus is the midst of a series of questions prioritizing wild salmon and steelhead in BC. Today in question period I rose to ask the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development about the government’s plans to address the ongoing issue of open net fish farms in the migratory paths of west coast salmon. Mounting evidence is linking disease transmission between farmed and wild salmon which is jeopardizing the health of coastal stocks.

It’s not as if alternatives don’t already exist. Just last month a Norwegian aquaculture company announced a major investment in Ireland. Their solution involved the construction of a massive land-based salmon farm. Closer to home, the fully ‘Namgis First Nation owned company Kuterra is already farming Atlantic salmon on Vancouver Island.

This question period exchange with the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development provides one of the worst responses I’ve got in my five years in the BC Legislature. I ask a simple question about fish farm licenses. I received gobbledygook as an answer not once, but twice.

Below I reproduce both the video and text of the exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: I am so sorely tempted to ask about that dinner on Bowen Island, but I’ll digress. I’d rather ask this.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: No, I wasn’t there.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we could get to the question.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Under previous governments, open-net fish farms were approved within First Nation territories without adequate consultation or consent, yet our present government claims it’s committed to reconciliation. In Alert Bay, the ‘Namgis Nation have lost their once prolific salmon runs. They desperately want fish farms removed from their waters. They’ve been occupying Marine Harvest fish farms since August.

The Swanson fish farm is currently empty, and its tenure is up for review this spring. Yesterday we received notice from the ‘Namgis Nation that they believe that Marine Harvest has made final preparations to restock the Swanson farm. The fish food has been delivered, they say, and the bird [nets] are now in place. They believe that the restock could happen as early as today.

My question to the Minister of Agriculture is this. If Marine Harvest is pumping new smolts into those pens, how will that impact the government’s assessment of their tenure status come June?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: Wild salmon are a fundamental part of who we are in B.C., socially, economically, environmentally, First Nations and non–First Nations alike. I know that the member knows that the old government oversaw declining salmon stocks along our coast, and instead of responding to concerns about fish farms, they pushed the issue aside.

Our government is committed to protecting wild salmon and the nearly 10,000 great jobs that depend on those stocks. We’re working with First Nations, building a new relationship based on partnership and respect. And we’ve started a path forward with First Nations.

The Leader of the Third Party mentions the ‘Namgis First Nation. On January 30, four cabinet ministers had an extensive meeting with the five First Nations who have the most interest in the fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago. It was a good meeting, with good dialogue. It was based on the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples’ principles. We’re planning a follow-up meeting based on a mutually agreed-upon process in a government-to-government manner.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Now, I recognize that this is not answer period, but that was so far from the question I’d actually posed. I would have thought we’d get some semblance of a response to a very important issue.

You know, when we reviewed correspondence between DFO and the B.C. government with respect to the steelhead issue that my colleague raised yesterday and the day before, it was clear that nobody knows who’s on first base with respect to dealing with salmon in British Columbia. And that answer, hon. Speaker — we deserve much better in this House.

Alert Bay isn’t the only community where people are worried about open-net fish farms. It’s widely recognized as being a key issue within the web of threats facing our wild salmon populations. We’re beginning to see other jurisdictions, like Washington state, take steps. Legislation, unfortunately, didn’t pass but was tabled to actually ban new salmon farms and issuing of new licences in Washington state.

The B.C. NDP have explicitly said keeping farm sites out of important salmon migration routes is critical. In fact, the member for North Island made a promise to the ‘Namgis Nation where she reiterated, in the nation’s big house, that the main reasons they should vote B.C. NDP in the last election was to ensure that the fish farms got out of the wild migratory routes of sockeye salmon.

My question to the Minister of Agriculture, who actually grants the tenures, not the Minister of FLNRO….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: It is FLNRO? Okay, we’ll do FLNRO. I thank the former minister. Maybe my question should be to the former Minister of Agriculture.

The minister has the Advisory Council on Finfish Aquaculture report. When will the government remove farm sites from the wild migration routes of salmon that they promised they would do and that they told British Columbians they needed to elect them to ensure this would happen?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, I suppose, for that lengthy question. I’ll address the overall issue. The overall issue is that we’re proceeding with a shared decision-making process with the five First Nations — not just one First Nation; with the five First Nations — who are concerned about fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago. That shared decision-making process incorporates the principle of consent and a government-to-government approach. That’s the way that we’ll be proceeding.

To unilaterally make a declaration in this chamber around the concerns of one First Nation is not the way this government proceeds. We proceed in partnership with First Nations involving discussions from the start, and that’s the way that we’ll get to reconciliation in this province.

Previous Salmon and Steelhead Question

Question

Monday, February 19, 2018 – INTERIOR FRASER STEELHEAD POPULATION AND CHUM GILLNET FISHERY

A. Olsen: The Interior Fraser steelhead are in crisis. Last October I sent letters to FLNRO, the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Ministry of Environment asking for information about what was being done and how we could be of help.

Despite knowledge that the letter was circulating amongst external government contacts, I never got a response. Since then, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada initiated a seldom-used fast-track process and concluded that two populations of steelhead trout breeding in the Thompson and Chilcotin river systems in B.C. are at imminent risk of extinction.

I’m going to ask again. The Thompson should have a run of steelhead of 10,000. This year it had 177. The Chilcotin should have had a run of 5,000. Instead, there were 58. I am gravely concerned about the future of the Interior Fraser steelhead stocks. To whichever minister is going to take the lead in this emergency, can you please clarify what is being done on this urgent issue?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: I appreciate and welcome the question from the member. Any time we can talk about steelhead or wild salmon in this chamber, it’s an important day to be remembered.

Yes, the precipitous decline of the Interior Fraser steelhead populations is on record. It was as many as 2,500 spawners returned in 2007. This year, 235. There was a lack of focus by the previous government on wild salmon and steelhead and a lack of action by the previous federal government on steelhead and wild salmon in B.C. We need to maintain the distinct genetic stock and be aware of environmental impacts, concerns from First Nations and nearly 10,000 good jobs that depend on the salmon fishery.

We’re pleased to hear about the federal changes to the federal Fisheries Act and the support for habitat restoration that’s needed in B.C. We are taking the lead through my ministry in making sure that the federal government’s feet are held to the fire. The commercial bycatch in the Fraser is of utmost concern to us. I know I’ve talked to the member about this, that we’re making every representation we can to the federal government to correct that.

Again, we welcome the changes in the federal Fisheries Act that will help us address the habitat concerns as well.

Supplementary Question

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response, but two ancient steelhead runs are facing imminent extinction under the watch of this government.

As you well know, steelhead returned to the Fraser at the same time as DFO was opening gillnet fisheries for chum salmon. B.C. steelhead experts estimate that 50 percent of the Thompson and Chilcotin steelhead are accidentally caught by these nets as they try to swim upstream to spawn. We are down to dozens of steelhead, with no capacity to lose more, but our government continues to support the gillnet fishery, with the Ministry of Agriculture awarding the chum fishery a marine stewardship certification, promoting it as sustainable to the world.

My question again: will the minister initiate an immediate provincial protection and recovery action plan to save this endangered species, starting by pulling the chum gillnet fishery’s MSE sustainable listing?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: On the overall issue, I certainly don’t want to be part of a situation where we fight over the last Interior Fraser steelhead in the system. I don’t think any member in this Legislature would want to be part of that.We’re consulting on the last remaining recreational fisheries, where Interior Fraser steelhead are incidentally caught as a bycatch. As you know, there is no more recreational fishing of the steelhead and no more catch and release for that particular species.

We’re working with DFO to identify higher-risk commercial and First Nations net fisheries impacting the Interior Fraser steelhead, exactly as the member pointed out. We’re working with DFO. It’s a DFO jurisdiction on the gillnet fishery, and we’re working on that. And we’re consulting with Interior First Nations on the potential closing of Interior Fraser food and commercial fisheries in light of the conservation issue.

I met just recently with the five chiefs of the Nicola Valley bands on this issue, on Friday, as well as with the B.C. Wildlife Federation. The long-term goal is to ensure that those steelhead return in the years to come.

Question

Monday, February 26, 2018 – INTERIOR FRASER STEELHEAD POPULATION AND CHUM GILLNET FISHERY

A. Olsen: Last week I asked if government would retract the chum gillnet fisheries’ Marine Stewardship certification before the Thompson and Chilcotin River steelhead go extinct. In response, the Minister of FLNRO said: “It’s DFO’s jurisdiction on the gillnet fishery, and we’re working on that.”

The minister isn’t wrong, but he didn’t answer the question. Steelhead’s fall return coincides with the chum salmon gillnet fishery, which, as the minister pointed out, is managed by DFO. As steelhead are managed by the province and swim upstream to spawn, they are getting caught and killed by the chum fisheries’ nets. It is happening at such a significant rate that the COSEWIC extinction listing says it’s one of the greatest threats facing steelhead survival, yet it’s a practice the province is going out of its way to certify and advertise as sustainable.

The chum salmon gillnet fishery, in and of itself, may be sustainable, but the impact it is having on the endangered steelhead is not. This time I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture: will you pull the chum gillnet fishery MSC sustainability listing, given the significant impact it’s having on steelhead?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: Once again I welcome the question regarding steelhead. The Interior Fraser steelhead run is of grave concern to members on this side of the House, as I believe it is to all members in this chamber who do not want to see the extirpation, the extinction, of a couple of runs of steelhead in the Fraser system and all it means about biodiversity.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, pointed out that poor marine survival and excessive bycatch in non-target fisheries under the jurisdiction of DFO — Department of Fisheries and Oceans — is the major cause for the loss that we’re seeing and the decline in this species.

We know that the federal government has routinely ignored the bycatch issue. We know that former the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who was supported by the former Premier, Christy Clark, and many members on that side who are members and support the federal Conservatives, did nothing to represent B.C.’s interest when it comes to steelhead in the Interior Fraser system.

We are working, helping the federal….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re working with the federal government to formulate their fishing plans to mitigate the bycatch. When it comes to the Marine Stewardship Council, we are having input and working with the federal government on that. We don’t have the ability to pull Marine Stewardship Council certification. They’re an independent, non-profit society.

Supplementary Question

A. Olsen: I’m guessing that while the steelhead go to near extinction or get extirpated, we are going to be calling the chum fishery certifiably marine sustainable — while another species goes near extinction.

I did receive the letter, a response, from the Minister of FLNRO — we tracked it down; it was a constituency in-box — and in which, he said: “Accountabilities for fisheries- and ocean-related issues and initiatives are distributed across the provincial government. Several agencies play a lead role in delivering key aspects of this work, including FLNRO; Ministry of Agriculture; Ministry of Environment; Ministry of Indigenous Relations; Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.”

The list is long. Perhaps this is why while one ministry says bycatch is a leading threat, another is saying it’s sustainable.

My question to the Minister of FLNRO is how can six ministries in addition to DFO play a lead role in managing this crisis?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, yes. Many ministries under provincial jurisdiction play a role. For instance, the Ministry of Agriculture has concerns about runoff from farms that impact the waters that these steelhead spawn in. The Minister of the Environment has jurisdiction over pollutants in those waters. My ministry has many tools at their disposal when it comes to the sport fishery.

What I want the member to know: I clearly do not believe that the MSC certification should apply to the chum fishery in relation to this steelhead return. That’s the department of Fisheries and Oceans’ responsibility. We will make sure that our views are well known to the federal government — as well as taking measures on habitat conservation and restoration that are within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.