Last week I had the honour of addressing the Union of B.C. Municipalities at their annual convention. This is a condensed version of my speech as published in the Saanich News. It highlights one of our most important policy announcements to date:

The last time I stood before you was in 2013, shortly after I was elected as the MLA for Oak Bay Gordon Head. Now I stand before you as the leader of the B.C. Green Party, a party that has grown dramatically over the last few years – a party that is ready and excitedly awaiting the 2017 provincial election.

Politics wasn’t originally in my career plan. I was a Canada Research Chair at the University of Victoria working in the field of climate science.

Anyone who has attended a public lecture or class that I have given on the topic of global warming will know that I boil the entire issue 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?

It’s a complex question that science cannot answer. But if we do believe that the answer is yes, then we have absolutely no choice but to take action now.

To the same classes and lectures I note that our political leaders do not have to live the long-term consequences of the decisions that they do or don’t make. Yet these very same decisions will have a profound effect on the type of world we leave behind to our children.

I tell the young adults in the audience that it is critical they participate in our democratic institutions and say, “if there are no politicians willing to tackle those problems, you should consider running yourself.”

Eventually, I knew I couldn’t keep doling out that advice if I was not willing to follow it myself.

I care deeply about my community and wanted to do what I could to better it for present and future generations.

But where do we go from here? In the shadows of the massive challenges that we face, our province needs new leadership.

Our government must start thinking about the long-term consequences of our decisions, decisions that put people, rather than vested corporate or union interests or re-election goals first and foremost.

Leaders must have the courage to be honest with British Columbians about the risks and consequences of any government decision.

We need leadership that offers a realistic and achievable vision grounded in hope and real change.

We need leadership that places the interests of the people of British Columbia – not organized union or corporate interests – first and foremost in decision-making.

As a start, political parties must stop accepting corporate and union donations.

Our political parties and their MLAs should not be reduced to puppets controlled by corporate or union masters with a firm grip on their purse strings.

The acceptance of this practice is undermining every sector in our province and I am tired of waiting for the B.C. government to do something about it.

I am tired of listening to the official opposition say they will change the system only if they form government. That’s not leadership.

Leadership means leading by example.

Effective immediately, the B.C. Green Party will no longer accept any corporate or union donations.

We are a party of the people, for the people and that will be mirrored in our funding structure.

Could this move hurt us on the eve of an election? Yes, it could. But real leadership doesn’t come from doing what is easy. It is built on doing what is right.

Last week I argued that the Leader of the Official Opposition acted in a cowardly fashion in attempting to shut down estimates of the Office of the Premier. I pointed out that it was cowardly for two reasons. First, the fact that the Leader of the Opposition would run away from an opportunity to question the Premier on a diverse array of issues is cowardly. It’s his job to do so. It certainly appears that he is afraid of challenging the Premier face to face.

If the Leader of the Opposition is afraid, that’s one thing. I was not afraid. I would have been willing to take much more than my allocated time on Thursday if extra time was available. I had prepared six longer primary questions (which would spin off into numerous smaller follow ups). I had other secondary questions that I would have loved  to raise on a diverse range of topics, from housing through social services through education and so forth. And this brings me to the second reason why I think it’s cowardly.

Just because the Leader of the Opposition no longer wants to ask questions does not give him the right to go against a long standing tradition of organized time allocation and take away my right as well. The people of British Columbia deserve better leadership and better opposition.

Today in the Legislature I rose on a point of order. As you will see from my Point of Order, it is my view that the estimates of the Office of the Premier have not yet concluded due to a procedural error. Once more, the BC NDP asked the Chair to not allow me time.

The text and video of my point of my point of order are reproduced below. At the end, I once more link the Video showing proceedings that closed Premier’s estimates.

UPDATE:

On Tuesday, May 17 the Chair provided a very thoughtful and thorough analysis in ruling against my point of order. I appreciate the work that went into it. I have reproduced the ruling at the end of this post.

Text of my Point of Order

A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order. This is the first time I have been able to rise on this point of order for two reasons. First, on Thursday of last week, I spent much of the day in communications with a variety of offices to determine what transpired with respect to the closing of debate on estimates for the Office of the Premier. I also only received the relevant Hansard clip on Friday.

As I’d mentioned to the Speaker’s office on Thursday last week, my office had coordinated through the Opposition House Leader’s office that I would be speaking to the Premier’s estimates. It was agreed that I would rise early Thursday morning.

Between 6:20 and 6:25 on Wednesday last week, at 292 minutes, 14 seconds of the online Hansard video on May 11, the Premier rose in estimates and stated the following: “With that, Mr. Chair, I rise to report progress and ask leave to sit again.” The Chair then said this: “Hon. members, you heard the motion. All in favour say aye.” The motion carried.

At this point, the committee had risen, and it was very clear that the Chair left his seat. There appeared to be some commotion in the chamber after the passing of this motion. Conversations went back and forth between the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition. The Chair remained standing during these conversations. Some notes got passed around. The Clerk also stood to speak with the Premier. The Chair returned to his seat but said nothing while the Clerk was standing and speaking to the Premier.

Eventually the Chair issued a single word. “Premier,” he said. At this point the Premier is audibly heard on Hansard saying: “It’s not mine.” She’s referring to a motion written on a piece of paper that had been passed to her. The Premier then says the following: “By agreement with the opposition, I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolution and ask leave to sit again.” After this motion passes, the Premier states this: “Are you sure that was legally done?”

In my view, there is a very clear procedural error here. The Chair at no time called the committee back to order while sitting in the chair. Since the earlier motion to rise and report progress had indeed passed, the second motion regarding completion would, in my view, be out of order, as the committee had not been called to order again. It had simply risen.

As such, it is my view that the estimates of the Office of the Premier have not yet concluded. Hon. Chair, I would kindly ask that you consider these comments and consider providing a ruling to this House at a later time. Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter.

M. Farnworth: This is not a procedural point of order. In fact, it would be classed as argument. So, hon. Chair, I respectfully ask that you rule that this is, in fact, not a point of order.

The Chair: Hon. Members, I would take the member’s point of order on advisement. Thank you.

Video of my Point of Order

Video Close of Proceedings on May 11

Point of Order — Chair’s Ruling

The Chair: Before I recognize the Minister of Finance, I have a statement to make.

On Monday, May 16, at the commencement of Committee of Supply, Section B, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head rose on a point of order regarding the conclusion of estimates of the Office of the Premier on Wednesday, May 11. I have reviewed the Votes and Proceedings, the Hansard transcript and the video of the proceedings in question.

I acknowledge the question the member raised, but I do not agree that the Committee of Supply was not properly constituted and that, therefore, it could not consider or adopt the motion regarding Vote 10, the 2016-17 estimates for the Office of the Premier.

The proceedings unfolded as follows. An initial motion was moved by the hon. Premier that the committee “rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.” The Chair put the motion to the committee, and the motion was carried. Normally, the presiding officer would leave the chair and report to the Speaker. However, that did not occur.

Although the presiding officer rose briefly, he was immediately advised that it was the will of the committee to complete consideration of the estimates of the Office of the Premier. At that point, the committee had not formally closed proceedings, nor did the Chair declare that the committee was adjourned. In addition, Office of the Premier staff remained in the Chamber, though it is required that all public servants must depart immediately upon the adjournment of Committee proceedings.

The presiding officer resumed formal proceedings and recognized the Premier, who moved the motion to report completion of the estimates for the Office of the Premier. This motion, and the motion to approve Vote 10, were duly adopted with consent of the committee had altered its original decision to report progress by unanimous agreement of all members duly present and assembled in the chamber at that time.

The Chair did not call the committee back to order, as a recess or adjournment had not been declared. There had simply been a pause in the proceedings in order to confer and clarify with committee members on the status of business. This is not an unusual practice, as presiding officers often will consult informally with members during proceedings to clarify the status of business under consideration or to coordinate matters relating to the management of parliamentary business.

While the video recording captured the informal discussions of members, pursuant to the longstanding Hansard transcript practice they were clearly not part of the formal proceedings. Further, it should be noted that during the entire proceedings, the mace remained in the lowered position, indicating that the House was in committee. In addition, the Speaker had not resumed the chair nor received a report from the committee.

In other words, at all times during the closing of the estimates of the Office of the Premier, the Committee of Supply remained constituted. The presiding officer followed the correct procedure to continue in committee and allow the will of the committee to be respected. It is immaterial that the informal discussion among members to complete the estimates occurred off the record and were recorded on video as interjections.

The Chair heard these discussions and continued to preside in Committee of Supply, rather than reporting to the Speaker. The Premier’s final motions were moved with the unanimous consent of the Members present, were deemed in order and duly passed.

Accordingly, the remainder of the proceedings and the closing of the Estimates of the Office of the Premier on May 11 were in order.

Thank you.

A. Weaver: I just wish to thank you for a very thoughtful and thorough analysis of my point of order, and I do appreciate the work that went into it.

Once more the BC NDP blocked me from participating in a debate. Today we were to debate the following resolution:

15  Mr. Heyman to move —

Be it resolved that this House recognize that Power BC is a modern strategy to build the economy, create jobs and meet B.C.’s energy needs while reducing our impact on climate change.

While I obviously had a few things I could say to this motion, I want to emphasize the highlight of the morning was Vicki Huntington, MLA for Delta South, standing up on a point of order regarding the rights of independent members to participate in these debates and not be shut down by the opposition.

Below is her must-watch video.

Video of MLA Huntington’s Point of Order

Prior to this Minister of Agriculture called for Private Member’s Motion 14 to be debated.

As noted by the Deputy Speaker, “unanimous consent is required to proceed with Motion 14 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.” Unanimous consent was given.

But here’s the problem, Motion 14 stated this:

“Be it resolved that this House recognize the accomplishments and success of B.C.’s Skills for Jobs Blueprint.”

The motion carried and then George Heyman rose and spoke to Motion 15 (which hadn’t actually been called).

After George delivered his address, the Deputy Speaker stated:

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, we have to clarify the motion. It was moved as Motion 14. It’s supposed to be Motion 15. House Leader, could you please move Motion 15?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m happy to move Motion 15.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 15 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper. Is consent granted?

I did not grant leave which meant that unanimous support was not received. After a short recess, the Deputy Speaker noted this:

Deputy Speaker: We have received unanimous consent for Motion 14, so we are going to proceed with Motion 14. The member for Vancouver-Fairview already has spoken on that.

And so the debate on Motion 14 resumed.

As noted at the top of this post and in Vicki Huntington’s video, yet again the BC NDP did not want to grant me speaking time. I had contacted the opposition house leader on Friday requesting a position in the speaking order. On Saturday evening I received an email saying this wasn’t in the cards.

While normally I would not have fought back, in this case, I felt compelled to do so. I had tried once before to enter a Monday morning debate on the Kinder Morgan pipeline and was blocked by the NDP on that too. But this latest one came right on the heels of me being shut out in Premier’s estimates.

For those interested, the BC NDP’s  PowerBC plan is hardly a modern strategy to build the economy, create jobs and meet B.C’s energy needs while reducing our impact on climate change. It is 449 words long and is supported by a 420 word backgrounder. Combined, that’s the length of an opinion piece on a newspaper editorial page. It reads more like a sequence of political talking points rather than a comprehensive plan.

Don’t get me wrong, the BC Liberals have no jobs plan to transition us to a low carbon future either. They are still doubling down on their reckless desperate venture in search of an LNG investment. It’s because of their myopic view to hit an LNG home run that the Canadian Wind Energy Association recently packed up and left British Columbia. We should be using our existing dams and bringing intermittent sources of power together with these dams to actually stablize the base demand.

It’s because of this BC Liberal myopic view that a $1 billion US investment walked from British Columbia — walked from Vancouver Island. There was to be a partnership between five First Nations, TimberWest and EDP Renewables to build wind capacity on Vancouver Island in close proximity to demand for electricity thereby reducing substantive transmission loss.

I agree wholeheartedly in the need to transition to a low carbon economy and have spent many years working towards this end. If we want to rapidly transition to a low carbon furture we only have to look at what is happening in Ontario. Yet in BC we appear to be more interested in debating NDP sound bites and BC Liberal rhetoric.

Where’s the leadership? Where’s the vision?

We should be discussing a fundamental change to 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 leveller 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. And we should be talking about the importance of government regulatory oversight, something I will do in a private member’s bill that I will introduce tomorrow.

We should be discussing the widespread electrification of our vehicular sector, including government leadership therein, expanding charging infrastructure and tweaking building codes. The potential here for the clean energy sector is profound.

We should be discussing the introduction of smart grid networks which would assist in load-levelling and high voltage point-to-point DC transmission lines.

And we should be debating exciting new opportunities for innovation and leadership in cleantech renewable energy research and development. One such exampled is the proposed Applied Engineering School in Squamish.

Finally, midway through the debate on Motion 14 I noted that a number of MLAs continued to read their prepared scripts on Motion 15. As such, I also rose on a Point of Order asking the Chair to consider urging the house to debate the motion before us. The video of that follows.

Video of My Point of Order

The Legislature runs smoothly as house leaders get together and plan out time allocation for the debates of various bills and budget estimates. Independent Member Vicki Huntington and I work with the BC NDP to ensure that we fit our speaking times in with their overall allocation.

It’s important that we do this for a number of reasons:

1. It allows the NDP in question period to run a narrative through sequential questions without us interrupting their flow;
2. It allows for overall planning of how we fit our debate contributions in with other commitments (such as meetings etc.);
3. It allows for more orderly conduct in the legislature. If everyone was standing all the time the Speaker would be put in awkward situations;
4. It allows for flexibility so that we can speak to issues (such as member statements) when our guests are in the public gallery.
5. It’s the collegial thing to do.

All of this has worked well since I got elected until yesterday.

The Office of the Premier’s budget estimates had been allocated to run the full length of both Wednesday and Thursday. As we always do, my office coordinated with the house leader’s office and we received agreement that I would be up questioning the Premier early on Thursday.  And so my office and I prepared a number of primary and secondary questions. I recognized that I would likely get 15-20 minutes total but I was prepared for much longer if needed.

But what happened at the end of the first day is unheard of. The Premier rose “to seek leave to sit again” shortly before 6:25 (meaning that she noted that it was almost 6:30 and time for us shut down and pick up where we left off the next day). The motion to resume the next day passed. Normally that would be it.

But then, a note is passed to the Chair taking everyone by surprise. The Leader of the Opposition has essentially stated that he was done and then to everyone’s (including the Chair’s) surprise, “Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $8,998,000” (Office of the Premier’s budget allocation) was called for a vote and passed. The Leader of the Official Opposition was passing up the opportunity to question the premier the next day. And in doing so he threw me under the bus.

So why is this cowardly?

It’s cowardly for two reasons. First, the fact that the Leader of the Opposition would run away from an opportunity to question the Premier on a diverse array of issues is cowardly. It’s his job to do so. To run away is not leadership and so it is clear to me,  he is not a leader of a government in waiting. He is afraid of challenging the Premier face to face.

If the Leader of the Opposition is afraid, that’s one thing. I was not afraid. I would have been willing to take much more than my allocated time on Thursday if extra time was available. I had prepared six longer primary questions (which would spin off into numerous smaller follow ups). I had other secondary questions that I would have loved  to raise on a diverse range of topics, from housing through social services through education and so forth. And this brings me to the second reason why I think it’s cowardly.

Just because the Leader of the Opposition no longer wants to ask questions does not give him the right to go against a long standing tradition of organized time allocation and take away my right as well. The people of British Columbia deserve better leadership and better opposition.

Below I reproduce the text and video of the closing words that shut down debate. In the text and the video you’ll note the statement: By agreement with the opposition. There was no such agreement as I was scheduled to speak the next day. You’ll see in the video the confusion as a note is being passed along. You’ll over hear the premier wondering whether this was being done legally.

Since I didn’t get a chance to ask my questions to the Premier directly, I am appending the six primary questions at the end of this post in the hope that I might still get a reply.

Text of Closing Words

Hon. C. Clark: With that, Mr. Chair, I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Clark: By agreement with the opposition, I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We have another motion to pass. Shall Vote 10 pass?

Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $8,998,000 — approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

Video of Closing Words

Question 1

The recent wildfire disaster in Fort McMurray highlighted for all of us the reality of what can happen with wildfires in such a short amount of time. A whole city evacuated. This has served as a big reminder of the dangers we face in this province with wildfires.

Not that we need it mind you, as many British Columbians have been evacuated from their homes already this year due to wildfire risk in the Northeast of our province. We all know, and the premier has stated, that climate change is contributing to an early wildfire season in BC.

So I am left confused when the risk is evident, the cause is known, and yet the direction this government continues to take is directly counter to dealing with the problem. Instead of preparing for the effects of climate change, and showing real climate leadership in the face of this evidence, we have your government doubling down on LNG and the extraction fossil-fuel resources.

Every projection we’ve seen comes to the same conclusion, if we create an LNG industry in this province our emissions skyrocket. We can’t be climate leaders if we promote LNG.

So my question to the Premier is this: given the risks climate change poses to our province, and the impacts it is already having, why is this government doing nothing more than paying lip service to the climate issue?

Question 2

The tech sector of this province is in my view one of our greatest opportunities to expand our economy and bring high-paying low-impact jobs to British Columbia. Partnering the tech industry with the resource industry is another big opportunity for this province. While the government has made modest investments in attracting tech businesses to the province, I was shocked at the recent TPP political stunt. Not only was I surprised at the fact that this government endorsed the trade deal before it had even seen the final text, or that many members of her government seemed to have no clear understanding of which nations were even in the deal, but I was most surprised that the government unabashedly opposed a trade deal, that many feel will actually decrease jobs in this province.

Indeed, the TPP has many in the tech industry worried, primarily about intellectual property issues, internet governance rules, and copyright. To me this looks like the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth – we support you but we will undermine you for political gain.

So my question to the Premier: Why is this Premier’s government putting political maneuvers like the TPP motion ahead of truly supporting an industry like the tech sector that is critical to BC’s prosperous future?

Question 3

Your office is tasked with guiding the province and leading the people of British Columbia. Yet there have been substantial reasons why British Columbians might be feeling distrustful of future BC Liberal promises.

For example, your government promised in 2013 that everyone who wanted a family doctor would be able to accesso one within two years. Well, we are well into 2016 now and fewer British Columbians have a regular doctor now than before the gov’t made that promise. In fact more than 200,000 British Columbians in this province are still actively looking for a family doctor.

Another example. LNG. 100,000 jobs, a debt free BC. Major promises, that have not in any way come to fruition.

It is an election year this year and I fear that the government will make some more lavish promises that are simply not based in reality.

British Columbians want to know where we really stand. They can handle it. They don’t want to be spun.

Is the Premier willing to admit that these promises did not have clear, independent evidence to support them?

Question 4

Good leadership also requires preparing for the future. While I’ve touched on the lack of climate leadership shown by this government there are other areas where I think the government is doing a pretty poor job in terms of planning for the future.

Site C is the most obvious example of this. This pet project has been pushed through, despite substantial local opposition, largely for an industry that is failing to materialize. We don’t need the power, we aren’t likely to need that sort of power any time soon. Yet the project must go ahead – so now it is being used as a bargaining chip for Alberta Pipelines. We’ll let your pipeline go through, if you buy our power. Because we need a market for this power.

Through this single-minded approach we’ve seen clean energy investment and interest leave the province, we are saddling the province with major infrastructure debt, and we are losing prime agricultural land. All for a project we don’t need, all because of the fixation on pushing this project forward past the point of no return. This is reckless planning for the future.

Another example is this government’s retooling of our trades industry. They’ve taken a large amount of money from universities and directed it towards trades training. Yet it is simply a political game to say that one type of education is more valuable than another. A humanities education is invaluable in today’s society as it teaches creativity, adaptability, problem solving, the ability to research and the ability to communicate – these 21st century skills are just as needed as more trades education. To prioritize one at the detriment of the other is in my view a lack of foresight and sets the province up for failure down the line.

A third example is that we are all aware of how great a risk Earthquakes pose to the west coast of this province. We are all nervously anticipating “the big one”. We know it’s likely to happen, and we know that when it does it could be absolutely devastating. Yet where is the government in ensuring we are doing everything we can to prepare for this disaster? Yes there is a bit of lip service being paid, some small programs that promote earthquake awareness, and a bit of disaster training for our emergency responders. Nothing on the scale of what needs to happen.

These examples highlight the need for this government to start looking at the bigger picture. The long term health and success of British Columbians needs to be a priority. Not simply focusing on the quick political wins, but ensuring that every decision is made with the view that it will have an impact decades from now.

How does supporting short term political projects ensure that we are looking our for British Columbians long term interests?

Question 5

This government seems to be in a never-ending battle with the education sector of our province. Taken to court, strikes, funding cuts, board resignations, the list goes on and on. Yet a strong education system is the foundation of a strong society. It teaches our youth the skills they need to succeed in this world. It also serves as an opportunity to level the playing field between those who come from privilege and those who do not.

The antagonistic relationship between this government and the education sector has been characteristic of this government. Although a similar antagonistic relationship has been seen with First Nations, and other more specific groups. My concern with this approach is that it works against the interests of everyone. By dividing society into “rag tag groups” and “the forces of no” it does nothing to work constructively with their legitimate concerns.

Does the Premier acknowledge that this antagonistic approach does nothing for anyone, but just entrenches the other side more firmly against the government? Does the Premier have any ideas she can bring forward to begin to repair the relationship between this government and our education sector?

Question 6

I’m sure the Premier stands with me, and most if not all members of this house, in believing in the principles of democratic governance. Yet, if that is the case, why has there been such a reluctance by this government to remove corporate and union donations from our system?

If there is one thing that is completely wrong with our electoral system it is the fact that big money is still allowed in it. The federal government banned corporate and union donations, and imposed strict limits on individual donations, a decade ago. Other provinces have followed suit and British Columbia is quickly developing a reputation, that money can buy influence in this house.

I completely understand that the current system benefits the ruling party, however, as I end my time in Premier’s Estimates I want to emphasize to the Premier that her government has the ability to do the right thing. There is no good reason why this money should be allowed into the political operations of our province. Governing parties are given a mandate by the people of British Columbia on the strengths of their ideas. The influence of money cheapens that principle significantly.

Why is the premier resisting a ban to corporate and union donations to political parties in this province?

Today in the legislature I rose to question the premier concerning the fundamental inconsistency in her attempting to claim leadership in climate change mitigation while at the same time touting the development of a hypothetical LNG industry. As you will see from the exchange below, the premier doubles down on the LNG rhetoric. The response was quite disappointing.

Question

A. Weaver: Last week the Premier commented on the wildfire situation in Fort McMurray. Remarkably, she used the disaster as an opportunity to point out the importance of investment in the oil and gas sector. A couple of weeks prior, the Premier told a group in Fort St. John:

“If there’s any argument for exporting LNG in helping fight climate change, surely it is all around us when we see these fires burning out of control.“

While the scientific community has understood the link between global warming and the increasing occurrence of large wildfires for quite some time, the Premier’s statement is utterly bizarre. It’s about time that this government level with British Columbians and point out that developing an LNG industry in B.C. is simply not compatible with climate leadership.

My question to the Premier is this. How can the Premier continue to talk about showing climate leadership while at the same time completely undermining the climate policies put in place by the previous administration and using every opportunity to promote fossil fuel development in this province?

Answer

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I’m delighted to have a chance to answer the member’s questions, given that I didn’t get that opportunity yesterday. And thanks to the member for the question. He and I, there is no doubt….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: There is no doubt that the member and I have a fundamental disagreement about this. He’s stated his case, and now I’ll state mine, and that is to say that around the world today there are 1,000 coal plants on the books, ready to be built, 150 of them in and around Beijing, in China. The only way that those coal plants will be prevented from being built is if they have an alternative source of energy. And that energy needs to be a transitional fuel that is already in production around the world, which we can get there.

But here’s the problem. We all want to move to renewable energies, and we would all, ultimately…. I know Canada has committed to the international commitment of trying to get off fossil fuels altogether. We are not there yet. And the challenge for humanity today is: how do we make sure that we prevent those coal plants from being built? How do we minimize the GHG emissions that would otherwise be produced in the processing and production of that energy?

British Columbia can play a vital part in that by producing the cleanest fossil fuel on the planet, by producing it in the cleanest method that anyone does around the globe, by shipping it to places like China, displacing much dirtier fuels with this very clean and important transitional fuel and, at the same time, create over 100,000 jobs over 30 years for British Columbians — which I know the members of the opposition, every single day, will stand up and oppose.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: This government has got its own Climate Action Team, and they noted: “New policies have not been added to the original policies, which plateaued in 2012.” In fact, we’ve weakened or repealed a number of these existing policies.

The government really can no longer claim leadership and, frankly, have lost credibility on the climate leadership file. The province has a legislated goal to reduce carbon emissions from the current 62 megatonnes to 43 megatonnes by 2020, and 13 megatonnes by 2050. One single LNG plant would add 15 megatonnes, and every British Columbian would have to provide negative emissions by 2050.

My question to the Premier is this. Will she commit today to abandon this government’s reckless and desperate attempts to land a hypothetical LNG project via a generational sellout and, instead, commit to aggressively increase the price on carbon and begin the transformation of our economy towards a low-carbon future? Or instead, will she continue to do her part to commit the youth of today to a desperate future of species extinction and geopolitical instability?

Answer

Hon. C. Clark: I have to say that was such a long question that it might have been more suited to the estimates process than question period. Unfortunately, we didn’t get a chance to do that today.

I will say this. The investment in British Columbia for LNG so far is not hypothetical. The $20 billion invested in boots on the ground in our province is not hypothetical.

We remain the only jurisdiction in Canada and in North America that has the highest and broadest carbon tax. We are well out in front of any province in this country, any state in the United States, by a long shot.

We continue to maintain the only carbon-neutral government in Canada. We are working to build Site C, which will be a source of clean, low-cost energy for generations to come, despite the opposition of the members across the way. We are poised to make the biggest contribution to fighting climate change that Canada has ever made, with the export of liquefied natural gas.

I know that the forces of no across the way, in the NDP, oppose every step of the way the creation of an LNG industry and the jobs that would come from it for all of those working people around the world. But at least they can admit that while we’re putting…. If they don’t want to put people to work, they should at least join us in wanting to fight climate change by exporting this cleanest fossil fuel on the planet and displacing those dirtier sources of fuel that will otherwise inevitably be built.

Video of the Exchange

Media Release

Media Release: May 12, 2016
Andrew Weaver – Premier using smoke and mirrors on climate file
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head suggested the Premier has not been forthright when it comes to taking action on Climate Change.

“I was shocked to hear her logic on how burning more fossil fuels is equivalent to taking strong action on climate change,” says Weaver. “The fact is that our Premier has done nothing substantial on the biggest issue facing our global civilization since she was elected.”

As fires raged in the north of the province, the Premier stated in late April that “If there’s any argument for exporting LNG and helping fight climate change, surely it is all around us when we see these fires burning out of control,” she told reporters in Fort St. John.

“Our Premier has her own Climate Leadership Team yet she fails to understand that creating an LNG industry and reducing our emissions are fundamentally incompatible,” argues Weaver. “At every opportunity her government promotes the idea that LNG will combat the climate crisis by displacing coal in Asia, while ignoring the fact that it will drastically increase our own emissions.”

“Notwithstanding the substantial evidence that, when its full life-cycle is accounted for LNG is just as bad coal, she fails to grasp that we can’t claim credit for shipping a “cleaner fuel” when we also ship millions of tonnes of coal out of B.C.,” says Weaver. “It’s just ridiculous to claim that shipping out a fossil fuel is equivalent to climate leadership or that it will do anything to address climate change.”

Today MLA Weaver asked the Premier how her argument makes sense, and if she would support the recommendations of her Climate Leadership Team and take stronger action on climate change. The Climate Leadership Team released its recommendations to government in October 2015.

“I ran for office on this issue because frankly it is the biggest issue facing our global civilization. Our province is already being ravaged by wildfires, floods, and droughts and it’s going to get worse. Yet the government is doing everything it can to exacerbate to the problem for its short-term political gain.”

-30-

Media Contact

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