2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 7

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2014

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 2.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — GREENHOUSE GAS INDUSTRIAL
REPORTING AND CONTROL ACT

(continued)

S. Robinson: I left off earlier talking about my concerns that Bill 2 does not really cover upstream emissions.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It doesn’t require GHG reductions. It allows for a free pass, actually permitting terminals to emit tons of pollution without any penalty.

What worries me is that with this plan there is no way that we can meet the B.C. legislated GHG reduction targets, and there’s no plan on how to reduce those targets.

It reminds me of when I was a city councillor not too long ago for the city of Coquitlam. Prior to getting elected in 2008, the city agreed to address climate change by signing the climate action charter. That was in 2007.

As a local government official, I took that signing very seriously. The signing meant that the city was committed to working toward becoming carbon-neutral by 2012 and to reduce energy emissions from city operations by 30 percent by 2015.

Over those years the city was very busy in engaging in energy conservation measures to fulfil the city’s corporate climate action commitments, because I took those commitments, along with my colleagues, very seriously. Some of the activities of the city included installation of LED lights, lighting controls, programmable thermostats, lighting retrofits, waste heat recovery systems and desktop power management software. The city initiated real-time monitoring of building energy consumption and a staff educational program to lower daily energy consumption that is within the control of staff.

Now, this wasn’t free. Our taxpayers paid for it. It was a value that we brought to the city. It was a value of the residents of the city of Coquitlam, that we all needed to work together to reduce our GHG emissions. When I was a city councillor, myself along with my colleagues, we worked together to bring that to fruition.

By the end of 2012 corporate GHG emissions were 17 percent below 2000 levels. The city is well on its way — and I’m very proud of their work — to achieving their 2015 target to reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent. Now that there’s a handle on corporate emissions, the city is focused on reducing the community’s GHG emissions.

[1335]

The city is working with senior levels of government — this level of government as well as federal level of government — to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent below 2007 levels by the year 2031.

So I have a hard time reconciling what’s in this bill before us with the work that was mandated by this government for local governments to start addressing the issue. Again, we have an example of saying one thing, “I want all of you local governments to be addressing this and spending tax dollars, because it’s important that we reduce our GHG emissions….” That was a value and a commitment made by this government a number of years ago.

Here we have a bill that actually flies in contradiction to that. It’s for that reason that I certainly can’t be supporting this bill.

M. Karagianis: I’m happy to take my place in this debate on Bill 2. First of all, I want to say that you occasionally have moments in this House where there’s such an abrupt message that you get from government that it stops you in your tracks, and you have to listen to the debates in a different way than just the normal day-to-day business here.

I think that occurred yesterday here in this House when the member for Chilliwack-Hope regaled us with his views on climate change. I think it’s particularly important, because I think it reveals something about the government, that members of this House sat and listened to what I would consider such an out-of-sync position with what’s going on in the real world around us and with public opinion and with public knowledge about climate change.

I was really quite appalled to hear the kinds of comments that we did coming from a government member, basically denying the science and the truth behind climate change, talking about things like regional climates, basically denying that there’s any human responsibility for climate change and certainly the responsibility that we as human beings on the planet play in trying to find some solutions around it. I thought the entire speech by that member was quite disturbing in the content of it.

But more surprising to me was that the government chose not to put up any following speakers to in fact soften that message or to change that message or to even in some way push back or oppose what that member had said. That, in fact, was the last message we heard from the government side of the House here on this bill, Bill 2.

The government side gave the member quite strong applause for the comments that he’d made. So I think it was very revealing. I think it was one of those little moments where you get a revealing peek into some of the
[ Page 4980 ]
background of the government and how they feel about this. They didn’t even take a moment out of their time to kind of deny or put out an opposing message for the public. So it’s surprising and disturbing. Nonetheless, the government, I guess, will take the responsibility in the long term for not pushing back on those comments.

I stand here today to talk about Bill 2, and I want to just really frame a couple of things. There’s a news article, which I’m going to refer to in a moment, that came out this morning. But I want to frame this within the larger debate that we’ve been having in the province, the larger kind of topic on everybody’s mind, which is the liquid natural gas industry and the potential of that.

Despite what the government continues to claim about this side of the House, I and my colleagues support the liquid natural gas industry. We see that it is a very exciting opportunity for British Columbians. I know we’re going to have a lot more chance to talk about that in the coming days when the specific tax regime bill around liquid natural gas comes before us. But I think it’s important to lay the framework for this in that it is a terrific opportunity for British Columbians.

I would certainly say that the more than over-the-top remarks that we heard from the Premier going into the last election around the over-promise of what liquid natural gas opportunities will be for British Columbians is something that has been frustrating. I think most British Columbians, and I know that the ones I talk to in my community every day, certainly have not believed the promises of trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

[1340]

We have seen, as we’ve moved closer to a reality around a tax regime here, that many of those things have, in fact, changed. The tone and the timbre of those have changed. The kinds of opportunities here — financial and revenue opportunities — have been scaled way back; job expectations scaled down. The government itself clawed back some of their conversation, some of their remarks, and kind of really pulled way back in from what we were hearing a year ago, a year and a half ago, leading into the election.

I think most British Columbians do understand that. Those will be, obviously, some of the opportunities we have to speak to when the bill for the tax structure for the LNG industry comes up.

I think that the reality for all of us, in laying the framework for Bill 2 and the government’s failings on this, is to look at the promises that were made and implied to British Columbians around what they could expect — the thousands of jobs they could expect and the kinds of financial opportunities that were going to be immediate to hand that the government talked about a year ago.

I think the reality is that we strongly believe on this side of the House that British Columbians have to be first and foremost to take advantage of those jobs. I think the government is doing a real ham-fisted job in how they are managing that piece. I mean, the jobs plan itself has been a bit of a catastrophic failure, and I think that the statistics have proven that out time and time again. But it does concern me greatly.

When the government — in particular, the Premier — makes all kinds of promises and then, of course, does something entirely different or can’t fulfil those promises, British Columbians are right to feel skeptical about the job opportunities in the future.

We feel very strongly on this side of the House that British Columbians need to have those jobs first and foremost. Once we have depleted any opportunity for British Columbians, then you may want to look further afield for employment opportunities for others. We will be talking in the days to come about this reliance on temporary foreign workers. The federal government has had to wrestle with this issue and the implications that it’s had in the workforce.

We know that the Premier herself has talked about this. She confuses often the issues between temporary foreign workers and real immigrants. That’s unfortunate when the Premier of your own province can’t get it straight in her mind about the difference between immigrants that come here and want to settle and stay here and the opportunities we want to offer them and the reality for temporary foreign workers who come here, work cheaply and get sent home.

When your own Premier doesn’t understand the difference there, it makes it difficult to have a cogent conversation in public about this. But we do believe that it’s important for good jobs to be given to British Columbians; that the training be there; that those good, strong, well-paying, family-supporting jobs go to British Columbians first and foremost; and that that should be an intrinsic part of any LNG agreement that we sign with any companies.

We’ve canvassed many times in here the issues around training. We had yesterday delegations here to the Legislature talking about the government’s inability to carry through on English language programs and courses for individuals who’d like to take part in the economy of today in British Columbia.

The government has failed there to fulfil some requirements to make sure that those programs are available to people in the province. That is, again, part of the whole failure of the government to see the province as a whole and all the components of what they provide as being part of a discussion on well-trained individuals for the jobs of the future.

I know that the other piece that we will talk about, before we start talking about Bill 2 in its essence and the environmental issues around this, is making sure that British Columbians have a fair and real return on the revenues that are produced out of this province. We see other provinces. We only have to look next door to Alberta to
[ Page 4981 ]
know what kind of financial security it has provided into that province to have a reasonable and fair return on revenues to the people of Alberta on their oil sands and oil exploration in that province.

I fear, in looking at what the government has foreshadowed here in their bill as being the circumstances around their LNG contracts, that we are not going to see that, that the government in its desperation to try and even remotely fulfil its promises in the last election has, in fact, cut a very poor deal for British Columbians. But we’ll have a chance to canvass that, I’m sure, when that bill comes forward.

[1345]

First Nations communities, obviously, need to be a part of this conversation as equal partners in this province. This is something, I think, that the government has only recently woken up to. I far too frequently believe that the government pays more lip service than real, genuine, substantial service to First Nations communities as partners. We’ll see, in the future, whether or not they can put some genuine and real effort into making sure that First Nations are included and have an equal share and are equal partners in exploration in the future.

I think one of the most critical responsibilities we have to British Columbians really speaks to the heart of Bill 2, and that is the protection that we responsibly, as government, need to provide around the care of our air, our land and our water, including our responsibilities around climate change. Now, government members may not believe that there is such a thing as climate change. It’s stunning in the 21st century that we would have those conversations here among a group of elected officials, but in fact, we did have that in the House yesterday. I believe that Bill 2 speaks very strongly to the issue around our responsibility on climate change.

Now, I alluded earlier to a report that’s come out just recently. In the papers today there has been the release from the Pembina Institute of a report on B.C.’s LNG strategy on global climate change. It’s a report that talks about how a strategy, in fact, is not going to help with global climate change. I just want to refer to a couple of pieces that I think are important in this report.

The Pembina Institute — a highly professional group of experts who, I think, have got all of the right credentials to wade in on this topic in a very credible way — have talked here about analyzing the current B.C. Liberal approach to LNG. They have outlined here some very clear and, I think, disturbing facts which, hopefully, the government will take into consideration. I’m sure they’ll be reading this report today, just as the rest of us have.

One of the strategies that the Premier has talked about to sort of rationalize the whole approach to liquid natural gas is that having a greener fuel resource here in British Columbia somehow changes climate change around the world and by us sending a greener fuel to places like China, we are somehow offsetting interplanetary climate change options. Nothing could be further from the truth. We really have to be responsible to ourselves first.

One of the things the Pembina Institute has said today is that British Columbia’s liquefied natural gas strategy won’t help the problem of global climate change in the absence of stronger policies internationally that limit carbon pollution. This is according to their new research.

Given the climate policies currently in place globally, the B.C. government’s claim that LNG will necessarily displace coal use is inaccurate. By considering coal and gas in isolation, the claim ignores the broader mix of competing energy sources. Without stronger policies that limit carbon, the study finds demand for coal, oil and natural gas continues to increase, pushing the world toward dangerous climate change.

The report goes on to note that policies required to give the world a reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change, commonly held as being less than 2 degrees centigrade of global warming, would cause three main shifts in the global energy mix: less demand for fossil fuels relative to business as usual, less overall energy demand because of better energy efficiency and more demand for renewable and nuclear energy.

Now, those are all things that we certainly need to be considering in the long term, but I do think that this continued reference to somehow business that we do in British Columbia is offsetting some larger climate change in the world, that it’s somehow balancing like a teeter-totter around the world, is silly talk. It’s not anything that we should be considering as a real argument around what we’re doing.

[1350]

Clearly, Bill 2 has outlined the conditions around how we are going to try and rename the LNG industry as green and clean. But in fact, we have failed to consider it in its life cycle, and we do know that 70 percent of the upstream emissions are not being included in this. You can’t, on the one hand, say, “We’re global leaders, and what we’re doing is going to offset things happening elsewhere in the world,” when we’re not even counting the totality of what we’re doing here in British Columbia.

If we’re only compensating for 30 percent of emissions in this province, then I don’t think that we’re fairly representing the entire picture. Because of that, I think that there’s a huge vulnerability in Bill 2. The way it outlines the way that we are going to address and legislate emissions is very flawed.

So if we are not going to recognize the upstream emissions and if we’re only going to recognize a very small component of this, then immediately we can see that there is a huge vulnerability here in how the government has outlined the way we will count and capture the emissions and the way we will address them.

The fact that we are not going to legislate neglects, I think, a huge part of the current situation around carbon capture and carbon recognition. In fact, the B.C. Liberals
[ Page 4982 ]
themselves have scaled back considerably on their whole carbon tax initiative that was such a huge part of the plan under their previous Premier.

I want to talk a little bit about the failings in Bill 2 and why I feel that we cannot support this, that I cannot support this bill. We talk about the fact that the government, under Bill 2, has not looked at the whole picture. They’ve only looked at a portion of it — 30 percent — and counted that and ignored 70 percent of the upstream emissions.

Because there is no actual GHG — greenhouse gas — reductions in this bill, then I don’t understand what the end goal is. Why would you have a bill, why would you put in place a regime, that does not, in fact, reduce greenhouse gas in any way at all?

There’s no cap on emissions here. Companies are not required to actually reduce their carbon footprint. Anyone who comes in here to develop liquid natural gas is not required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is not required in any way to incorporate that as part of their contract with us.

So it seems to me that there’s an immediate failing right now. If liquid natural gas, which is a great opportunity, is being touted as such a green option, why in the world would we allow companies not to be required to reduce their carbon footprint? A huge failing, I think, that’s been laid out in Bill 2.

Under this legislation the LNG terminals are allowed to basically emit 0.16 tonnes of CO₂ for every tonne of LNG exported, without any penalty. Immediately, there is no necessity to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and then there will be no penalty whatsoever on top of that. So any thinking British Columbian says: “How green is that, if you are not requiring any reduction and you’re not going to have any penalties for surpassing the limits that have been put?”

The plan for how offsets are going to play into this, again, is not clear, and frankly, the government has a terrible record on how they’ve managed offsets in the past.

Frankly, I often think that offsets are a bit of a weaselly way to get out of the responsibility of reducing greenhouse gas — if you can just go purchase them someplace else. So I don’t have to do a good job, in my corporation, of reducing greenhouse gas. I don’t have to pay in any way a penalty if I exceed the greenhouse gas emissions levels. And gosh, if I’m a really bad player in this, I can actually go purchase offsets from somebody else who’s doing a great job.

That seems to me to be…. In fact, I think it has proven to be, worldwide, not a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It has failed here in British Columbia. We have never managed to meet our greenhouse gas reduction levels.

[1355]

And if you can buy your way out of it, then what is the point of it? We know that the liquid natural gas industry, as many in the related oil and gas industry, has very deep pockets. There are billions and billions of dollars being spent in this industry, which means that the profits are much greater than that, much greater than billions and billions that can be invested. Of course you’d be able to buy your way out of this.

Why, again, has the government created a regime where they’re making claims that we’re going to have the greenest liquid natural gas? There’s no requirement to reduce, there’s no penalty if you pass the limits that have been defined, and at the end of the day the industry could buy its way out by purchasing from some other, more responsible corporation.

I think that that in itself makes you wonder: what is the end goal here? Is it, in fact, to not…. We’re only looking at judging 30 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions, not the 70 percent upstream. We’re not requiring companies to pay any penalties. We’re not requiring any significant hard reductions and caps. Not only that, but if the industry manages to find a way to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, they can then actually sell their credits to someone else who has been unable to achieve theirs.

It just seems to me that this buying and selling of offsets is a way for companies to either take much longer to be responsible about their greenhouse gas emissions or, in fact, to escape all together. That concerns me a great deal.

The government itself has been chastised by the Auditor General around the government agencies regarding offsets, that we’re buying offsets from a trust at really inflated costs, also at the expense of schools and hospitals. Ultimately, the Auditor General found that the trust that the government was purchasing credits from was, in fact, not eligible. Many of these things were not eligible as offsets. I’m not entirely sure where we’ve seen a record of the government’s performance on this that gives us any security or confidence in their ability to manage this piece of it.

It seems to me that Bill 2 is flawed from the very start. It seems to me that it has been contrived to set up a situation where the liquid natural gas industry has very few constraints, very few hard constraints on it, very few serious initiatives that are going to make it anywhere near the claims that it’s a green industry.

The plans for the incentive program that the government talks about are very unclear, very murky at this point. Again, there’s nothing there to rely on. It’s not like you can turn and point to that as being an alternative. That, I think, gives us more concern. These things just add up one after the other.

The details on the technology fund are not available right now. Again, we will have no idea what those may look like. It could mean anything. It could mean all kinds of change in the government’s position on this at some time in the future. The press release has provided no details on what this technology fund will look like, how it will be operated. There are no details. There’s nowhere
[ Page 4983 ]
to find this information. So that is a huge and significant piece of information that is missing.

Again, when you try and paint a clear picture under Bill 2 of the regime that’s going to be applied to the liquid natural gas industry, all of it seems very, very murky and hard to come to grips with.

If we are, in fact, in reality, unable to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets with this plan and there don’t seem to be plans for any other industry to have to reduce its emissions as well, then I’m not sure where we’re going in the future. I’m not entirely sure.

[1400]

There were a lot of promises made in the past about the greening of British Columbia, and we were, in fact, touted for making some advanced steps a decade ago. But I’m not sure that I see in the future that we’re going any place that is concrete, that is giving us the kind of green future that we are all entitled to and the security that government, in fact, has got a firm view and vision on what the future will look like.

It would seem to me that they’re setting in place, for the liquid natural gas industry itself, targets that are pretty easy to meet, ways to buy themselves out of a hard place — if in fact that is the end goal of it.

It seems to me that Bill 2, as a companion piece to the liquid natural gas tax regime, is a pretty poor substitute for hard targets and for the kind of hard policy that British Columbians are looking for. The legislation lacks so many important details, and it really gives the government, also, I think, the ultimate out clause here, which is that at any time they can, with the stroke of a pen, change the rules around this. They can make alterations to this, and they can weaken it at any time that they feel the pressure from the industry itself.

Now, we already know that the tax regime for liquid natural gas has been played out in public, in the headlines of the newspapers, as the industry itself has kind of put pressure on government in a very public way. They know that the government boxed themselves into a pretty sharp little corner 18 months ago by making declarations of what the industry was going to produce.

We have already seen that the industry knows how to play hardball with us. I fear that as with many things this government does, the clumsiness with which they operate has led to us negotiating in public on the revenue and resources possible for the future of British Columbia. And the fact is that with the Bill 2 companion piece on this, the government has given itself the opportunity to make changes at any time. One would expect it’s to please the corporations, not to please British Columbians.

So far, much of what I’ve seen here are ways for the corporations to weasel out of responsibilities or buy their way out of responsibilities. I hardly think that if the government has the ability to change the rules around greenhouse gas emissions at any time, they are going to do it to the benefit of British Columbians. We would have seen many more hard targets, and we would have seen a much more significant regime than what’s been laid out here.

If everything can be done by regulation in the future, even the benchmarks of 0.16 tonnes of CO₂ can be changed at any time. It’s not enshrined in any way in the legislation. All of these things are by regulation, which can be changed by the whim of government at any time. Once again, that is a failing of this piece of legislation. Overall, it just seems that piece by piece — each and every critical piece of this bill — as you read through it and as you look at it clause by clause, it fails in any way to meet the test, I think, for British Columbians to have faith in and expect a greener future out of these promises by government.

It’s interesting that the legislation also repeals the 2008 Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. Now, there was a lot of controversy around this at the time. European countries were working very hard to try and find a balance between cap and trade and find ways to really and truly cap emissions and find a way to make the whole concept of trading offsets work. That’s been going on for a decade in Europe. They have, I think, grappled with many of the issues around that.

It seems a step backward for us to now dissolve that, to repeal the greenhouse gas emission act and to replace it with Bill 2. Most observers of this, from environmental organizations to groups like Pembina to other academics, have all basically decried this bill as not having the clarity and depth that we need. That’s too bad, because this is the companion piece to the liquid natural gas tax regime. If they don’t both work hand in hand, then I think there’s going to be trouble in the future and there will continue to be skepticism.

[1405]

If we want the liquid natural gas industry to be successful — and we do — I think we have got to approach it in a much more polished and professional way than what we’ve seen this government do. They have, I think, contrived a bad contract, a bad deal in their tax regime. I’ll talk more about that when that bill comes forward to the House.

Certainly, Bill 2, in setting out the environmental package around this, is, I think, a failure from top to bottom. There are so many pieces of this that fail the test of real environmental responsibility that I certainly will not be able to support this. I will join my colleagues on this side of the House to say no, we will not support Bill 2.

S. Fraser: It’s always a pleasure and an honour to stand in this place and debate bills. I’m here today to take my part in the debate on Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

At the outset, though, I’d like to say that on this side of the House we do see potential for LNG. Natural gas, of course, is a commodity in this province, a valuable commodity, as are many other commodities in the province.
[ Page 4984 ]
Moving forward with a bill that this government has brought forward on the one commodity…. It seems to be the only focus of this government. However, it would be…. For myself, as the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, I would have a hard time voting against a bill that would bring in, for instance — the quote was from the Premier — “the cleanest natural gas in the world.” But this bill does nothing of the kind.

It is somewhat frustrating as a member in this place to be debating a bill that purports to do something but does not. I truly would like to vote for a bill that would actually provide for the cleanest natural gas in the world. I’m talking about greenhouse gas emissions, of course, primarily, but not exclusively.

We have four conditions as the official opposition. The LNG industry is too important to get wrong. There is potential there, but in order to ensure that it moves ahead, it must have four conditions, which I will refer to right now.

That includes, one, including express guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians first. Provide a fair return for our resource to the taxpayers, to the owners of the resource. Thirdly, include benefits for First Nations. I will speak at length to this a little bit later. I’m honoured also to be the spokesperson for Aboriginal Relations for the official opposition. This is an industry that is in many traditional territories.

I’ll refer to the Tsilhqot’in decision as I speak to this a little bit later. We have a new landscape in the province since the Roger William decision has come down in the province, finding title, assessing title for the first time on a large amount of land in the Chilcotin. The Tsilhqot’in people in the court system for over 20 years…. The courts found that there is title. They’ve determined title to 1,750 square kilometres in the Chilcotin for the Tsilhqot’in people. I applaud the perseverance and the patience of the Tsilhqot’in people in their bid to get justice.

As we see that unfold, which I will refer to later, with First Nations across the province recognizing the importance of that court decision and the importance of recognizing title, it will have a definite effect on all of our commodities, all of our resources on the land base, including LNG.

The fourth condition is to protect our air, land and water, including living up to our climate commitments.

Bill 2, as it’s stated, is so vague it’s hard to debate. Many of the terms and issues that we need to discuss as part of this bill are not even included in the bill. It’s a vague, duplicitous document in many ways. The legislation is very short on details.

[1410]

Approximately 25 percent of the bill allows government to change various regulations at a later date, with the stroke of a pen, through cabinet regulations. It would never come to this House.

How could anyone be expected to vote on a bill that leaves so much in question after the bill would be passed? It would be irresponsible of members of this House to vote in favour of any such bill — just because of its specific vagueness.

Furthermore, the only part of the legislation that sets or even mentions the 0.16 greenhouse gas intensity levels is the schedule at the end of the bill. The schedule can be changed or added to or subtracted from at any moment subsequent to this bill. LNG could even be exempt entirely from the legislation if this government chose to.

Now, the government would have to be at least in part going against their word to do such a thing. But we have numerous examples in this House of that happening. To win every election that I’ve been involved in, and I’ve been in three…. Promises have been made specifically to win the election that have never been kept — the polar opposite, actually.

Whether it’s “We will not sell B.C. Rail” or “We will honour negotiated contracts,” there’s a lengthy list of promises made that have never been kept. So it isn’t beyond the realm of consideration that this government could even exempt LNG entirely from the legislation, which would render the entire Bill 2 worthless and meaningless, and this debate would be worthless and meaningless. That’s a big problem. The legislation does not cover upstream emissions.

Our fourth condition from the opposition is protecting our air, land and water, including living up to our climate commitments. I’m not sure how far-ranging this goes, but yesterday I was interested in seeing my colleague from the Liberal side, the member for Chilliwack-Hope, bring into question climate change.

As legislators, I get a little scared about that from a government that’s bringing in legislation purported to address climate needs in conjunction with Bill 2, in conjunction with LNG production that they’re planning. If there isn’t a belief that climate change exists, then there is not really any incentive to make meaningful changes or bring in meaningful legislation to address climate change. That, if you were a cynic, which I try not to be, could be considered a reason for bringing in such a vague and meaningless piece of legislation.

The greenhouse gas intensity benchmark of 0.16 CO₂ per tonne of LNG produced only includes facility greenhouse gas emissions. Most people know at this point from the conversation around LNG that carbon pollution is released all along the LNG supply chain, if you will. If you are on a rig drilling for gas in the northeast of this province, there are emissions, significant emissions in some cases, right from that point of the well itself where it’s drilled.

From the point where the shale gas is extracted to the point where it is burned for…. In most cases, if there are actual LNG plants created, the production plants to liquefy the LNG, that’s the other end of the supply chain. At that point of the supply chain if we get the supposed five numbers of LNG plants in the province, most of
[ Page 4985 ]
those plants will need to burn a significant amount of their own product to produce the electricity — the vast amount of energy that’s required to liquefy this commodity.

[1415]

The liquefication is done by cooling. The cooling, to the extent that it changes the state of a normally gaseous element, at atmospheric pressure — because LNG is lighter than air — to a liquid, actually reduces its volume, if I recall, by I think 1,600 times. So liquefication is a very important part of being able to export this commodity. You can contract the volume of it 1,600 times as it changes state to liquid, but the amount of power, of electricity, required to do this liquefication is astronomical.

The cost for the industry in most cases, if not all, to be able liquefy this material for export…. The cost for the hydro — if they were to use hydro power, electrical power — would be cost prohibitive in the extreme. The alternative by industry is to burn the gas and use that gas to generate the massive power needed to liquefy the natural gas.

That is the supply chain, and this is called the greenhouse gas life cycle. In the B.C. LNG context, life cycle, greenhouse gas emissions, include every point from the wellhead, the extraction point that I cited earlier, to the waterline, which is the point where the LNG leaves the province for export onto the tanker.

This bill does not include the vast majority of that supply chain. The extraction point to the waterline, right up to the plant that liquefies it — about 70 percent of emissions happen along that chain. This bill does not even apply to that. So far, there is nothing that applies to that.

It’s one thing to be able to say you’re going to have the cleanest LNG in the world, but it’s another thing to omit 70 percent of the emissions that the legislation needs to address if it’s to be accurate to say it’s the cleanest LNG in the world. You can’t have it both ways. You have to have a system in place that addresses the greenhouse gases from extraction point to the shipping point.

The legislation offers LNG companies some flexibility to meet the greenhouse gas intensity benchmark through offsets or technology fund contributions. Companies are not required to actually reduce their carbon emissions, their carbon footprint. There is no guarantee that that will happen at all in this bill.

Now, the Liberals picked 0.16 CO₂ per tonne of LNG produced as their benchmark, because in theory, that could represent the cleanest LNG in the world. However, since it doesn’t include the vast majority of the greenhouse gas emissions, it is irrelevant. The number is actually meaningless. And worse than meaningless, it’s a misrepresentation of the truth — simply not true. We would not be the cleanest LNG in the world.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, if this government wanted to, under this legislation they could exempt LNG completely from the legislation, if they chose to do so at a later date. They’ve built it into the legislation.

How could anyone vote in favour of such a bill? If those watching were wondering which way I was going to vote on this, I’m just trying to subtly allude to that. I will be voting against this bill, and I will continue to explain why.

[1420]

Today we had an article in the Vancouver Sun. It was written by Larry Pynn. Larry has been a reporter for the Sun for a while.

As a matter of fact, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast and myself, several years ago, went on a tour of an underground limestone cave on Texada Island — a cave system, a karst system — led by Paul Griffiths, who is the pre-eminent expert on caves and karst in this province. Larry was along to document that for the press, so we got to know him pretty well — when you’re crawling around hundreds of feet underground with solid rock all around you.

I’m going to take the opportunity to read from his article today because it captures an important event that happened today, the releasing of a report by the Pembina Institute. The timeliness of this is just…. It’s too hard to not refer to this. The environmental benefits of LNG exports are being exaggerated, as we’ll see, in the absence of any strong policy — certainly, in the absence of any strong policies in Bill 2 — to combat climate change.

From Larry Pynn’s report today:

“The report seeks to put the lie to the B.C.’s government claim in the February 2014 throne speech that exporting LNG is ‘the greatest single step British Columbia can take to fight climate change.’”

Hon. Speaker, I realize I used a word I’m not supposed to use here, although it was in sort of a global sense that it was used. I apologize and withdraw that if that was inappropriate. It wasn’t aimed at anyone, and if it was perceived that way, I would apologize. I’ll continue, and if I see such a word throughout this article, I shall try to refrain from using it.

“Proponents of LNG terminals and pipelines have also used their environmental assessment applications to argue that greenhouse gas emissions from their projects are not significant, the report finds. The primary argument is that LNG exports allow reductions in coal use for electricity generation in Asia, leading to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

“The report, funded by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, generally accepts the position that liquefied natural gas results in fewer greenhouse gases than coal. But it also warns that pitting one energy source against the other in isolation provides a skewed view of LNG’s benefits.

“‘The overall mix of natural gas, coal, nuclear, renewable energy and energy efficiency determines overall greenhouse gas emissions, and considering natural gas and coal in isolation misses this bigger picture,’ it concludes.

“The report cites three main shifts in climate change policies required by nations producing and consuming natural gas to ‘give the world an acceptable chance of avoiding’ warming by 2 degrees Celsius. They include reduced demand for all fossil fuels, more demand for renewable and nuclear energy, and less overall energy demand because of increasing energy efficiency and conservation. The 2-degree avoidance target was formally adopted by the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in 2009.

“If these policies are implemented, long-term projections for natural gas demand would peak around the year 2030 and drop below
[ Page 4986 ]
current levels by mid-century, the report predicts. That would involve stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million.

“In the absence of such policies, natural gas demand continues to increase beyond 2030 — until the end of the century in some models. Under a business-as-usual scenario, concentrations could reach 650 to 850 parts per million by 2100.

“‘In this scenario, natural gas, like other fossil fuels, does not contribute to a transition to a low-carbon economy but rather reinforces the likely outcome of dangerous climate change,’ the report concluded.

[1425]

“Because the policies are not currently in place, claiming that natural gas, and specifically LNG in B.C., is a climate solution” — claiming that — “is inaccurate.”

I think Larry is being polite here, but I will continue.

“Making more natural gas available is unlikely to change that conclusion unless the current gulf in an international policy is bridged.

“Communications Officer David Karn released a statement on behalf of the Ministry of Environment, saying B.C. is an international climate action leader through initiatives, such as the carbon tax, and that ‘global energy systems are complex and large and take time to change. Preventing other countries from accessing low-cost, reliable energy as they begin to develop is not what we believe in,’ the statement said. ‘Supplying the cleanest energy products we can contributes to global development and fighting global climate change.’

“The B.C. LNG Developers Alliance did not immediately respond to the report. To increase the likelihood that LNG from the province can contribute to global efforts to avoid 2 degrees of warming, the report notes, the province should apply a consistent, evidence-based, approach in assessing energy exports; strengthen domestic efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas and LNG development; and play an increasingly proactive role on climate change and global management of methane from burning natural gas.

“The report was written by the B.C. office of the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental think tank working towards clean energy solutions in Canada.”

The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions was created in 2008 with a major endowment from the B.C. Ministry of Environment.

Thank you, Larry Pynn.

I want to touch on some of his statements. The suggestion that is being made through this bill — and by the Premier, repeatedly, and the ministers responsible — is that our liquefied natural gas will reduce the carbon footprint in other countries like China, as though China would shut down coal-fired plants or oil-fired plants or other types of more polluting, greenhouse gas–wise, energy sources — hydrocarbons.

I went to the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region conference in Whistler this year. This is a large think tank of all the western provinces from Saskatchewan west and all of the northwestern states in the United States. They meet annually at these types of conventions.

The Premier spoke at that convention this year, and I listened with interest. She referred to the cleanest LNG in the world that will reduce…. She actually stated the amount of carbon reduction that we would be seeing as China, as Asia, replaced their coal-burning energy-producing plants with British Columbia’s natural gas.

Following her comments, her speech, I went to one of the workshops held. Many workshops were held at this Pacific NorthWest Economic Region conference. They had a pre-eminent expert on Asian export. I know he was referring to the Premier’s statements when he was saying this, because it was pretty direct.

He said that while it is true that natural gas is cleaner than, say, coal…. There is half of the carbon released from natural gas than there is from coal. While that’s true, and while it’s true that China and Asian countries have an insatiable appetite for LNG as their economies grow, it is also true that they have an insatiable appetite for all hydrocarbons, including coal and oil — heavy oil — and that there is no link between them importing natural gas from B.C. or elsewhere and any reduction in coal use for energy production or in oil use for energy production. All will increase.

[1430]

I think the minister was at that conference too. I don’t know if he was at that workshop. But this is not a left-wing think tank, the Pacific Northwest Economic Region. These are industry experts who were explaining that indeed British Columbia’s role here will potentially have no impact at all on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Now, we do want to see economic development in this province, and LNG can be a part of that. I would reiterate that it’s not the only part of that. Putting all the eggs in one basket is risky, shall we say. But getting the gas out of the ground and moving it by pipelines that haven’t been developed yet, which must be developed, to production plants that liquefy the natural gas has a bunch of challenges.

As aboriginal relations spokesperson for the opposition, this whole picture needs to include respect and recognition for the territories, the many territories of many First Nations that would be affected. We support the development of LNG if it respects First Nations and includes them in the benefits in a real way, as partners, so aboriginal people can share in the opportunities for employment and revenues and more independent and thriving communities.

But there are problems here. This government has been addressing First Nations issues, in many cases, with a certain flippancy. I’m going to harken back to not too long ago. I know the minister is here, the Minister of Environment. There was an order-in-council, a flip-flop on an order-in-council, and without any consultation….

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, I’d remind the member that who is or is not in the chamber is not something that the member should be making reference to.

S. Fraser: Oh, I’m sorry, hon. Speaker. I apologize
[ Page 4987 ]
for that.

There was an order-in-council brought in by this government, and the Minister of Environment had to actually pull back from this as First Nations raised their extreme opposition to the move. Without any consultation, the government used an order-in-council exempting ski resorts, which has no real bearing here, and natural gas plants from the environmental assessment process. This is not a way to build trust and relationships with the First Nations, who must be a part of this resource — natural gas extraction, transportation and liquefication.

That is not a good way to build a partnership and build trust. Following the Tsilhqot’in decision that actually declared title, that recognized rights and title to First Nations all over this province, not just in the Chilcotin and not just for the Tsilhqot’in Nation — the six nations in the Tsilhqot’in nations…. Government needs to respect that across the province.

The First Nations leadership made it clear that the flagrant disrespect shown to them by this government in its unilateral move would not be tolerated in future proceedings specifically dealing with LNG in this province.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs stated: “In a stunningly stupid move, the province has effectively declared war on all British Columbia First Nations and jeopardized all LNG discussions throughout the entire province of British Columbia.” Grand Chief Stewart Phillip is known for his oratory skills, and we have certainly heard some of that here today.

This government needs to get that right, and they have not got it right yet. Removing protections and oversights when it comes to LNG production in this province cannot be done unilaterally. It needs to be done in consultation, real consultation, with First Nations and especially affecting those First Nations in the territories involved, whether it’s for the extraction, the transportation or the liquefication and transport of the LNG.

[1435]

I’d like to take this moment to cite that in my constituency, there is a proposal that’s gone forward and a partnership that was developed in a letter of understanding, developed between the Huu-ay-aht First Nations — who I’ll be meeting with again later this month to discuss this at their AGM — and a company called Steelhead LNG.

Now, the proposal would mean a plant being built, liquefication, and a terminal built in the Alberni Inlet, not too far from Port Alberni in Huu-ay-aht territory. There are a lot of hurdles that have to happen with that.

I see that the red light is on, hon. Speaker. I thank you very much and look forward to more of the debate.

C. Trevena: I’m very pleased to be standing here and talking again about Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. I say “talking again” because last week I had the opportunity to speak to a hoist motion that was introduced by our friend the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who suggested that this bill be hoisted for six months so that we had the time to basically get it right.

It’s very interesting that the government didn’t participate in that debate and decided that it wasn’t worthwhile, to just stand back and say: “Look, this is too important for us, as a province, to get it right, so we’re going to just steamroller ahead with it.” I think that the government still has that opportunity, although it seems to be that the concept of debate is once again becoming more limited in this chamber.

We are speaking on this side of the House with our concerns about it and exploring our concerns about it but not hearing that much from the government benches. During my remarks I hope to explore a little bit of maybe why that is the case, why it is a one-sided debate.

I think it’s partly, really, the government’s uncertainty about their own position. From proponents, we have that we need to do something to fight climate change to those who say that there is no such thing as climate change and that we do live on a flat earth and everything’s going to be just fine if we sit back and watch it all happen. I’ll explore that a little more.

First, I would like to set the record straight. When we did vote in favour of the motion to put this back for six months to give it the opportunity to have a full debate, a full provincial discussion, international discussion, about how we should go ahead with this…. We had a vote, and as I say, the government refused to stand and agree with us on the need for a bit more thoughtful consideration, and at that time and since then — and, in fact, preceding that time — has been barracking us about how we’re against LNG and how we’re not supporting the industry. You know, ministers continue to do so.

I find it very interesting that we keep having that because we’re taking a stand on a very important part of the development of the LNG industry. We are actually supportive of the industry.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the member for North Island has the floor.

C. Trevena: It’s nice that the minister does want to participate in the debate. The minister has the opportunity to participate in this debate after I’ve finished speaking. I look forward to hearing that because we have not been hearing enough from the government side.

I hope that when I sit down, take my place, that the minister will use the opportunity, that, instead of just making loud noises and heckling throughout a speech, he has the actual dignity for the people of B.C. — whom he is supposed to represent, particularly as he’s also the Deputy Premier — that he will show respect to the people
[ Page 4988 ]
of B.C. and actually address this issue on the floor of the House rather than just heckling.

Interjections.

C. Trevena: While the minister continues to heckle and refuses to participate in the debate, I would like to reiterate the fact that we are actually, as I mentioned before, in favour of the industry, but it’s got to be done right, and we have conditions.

Like the Premier has her conditions over Enbridge and the northern gateway pipeline, we have some consideration for what we want to see going forward for LNG. These are quite simple.

[1440]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. The Member for North Island currently has the floor.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

C. Trevena: While the debate continues around, I’d like to proceed with my few remarks — I don’t have that many — about this bill. I do anticipate a healthy response from the Minister of Natural Gas, from the Minister of Justice and from others on that side of the House who have been using my opportunity to interject their remarks.

As I was saying, we are, despite….

Interjection.

C. Trevena: And the Minister of Transportation, who wants to see LNG on the ferries, which is an alternative. I think it’s great to see this level of debate. I just look forward to hearing it after I have finished speaking.

Interjection.

C. Trevena: The Minister of Transportation has said he doesn’t support LNG. I’m looking forward to seeing what is going to happen with the B.C. Ferries fleet that is going to be converted to LNG.

This side of the House wants to see a healthy LNG industry. A healthy LNG industry isn’t just one where it’s a race to the bottom. “Let’s sell it out. Let’s give the lowest tax rates. Whatever.”

What we want to see is an LNG industry that includes jobs and training opportunities for all British Columbians so that British Columbians come first and foremost, that they get the opportunities for the jobs and for the training.

We want to see…. We’ll have the opportunity when we get around to debating Bill 6. I hope we actually have members from the government side standing up and participating in that debate, because they clearly really don’t care about the climate more than for a few cheap heckles on this debate.

We need to have a fair return for our resource. It is our resource, and we need to make sure that all the people of B.C. get that opportunity, get the return. As my friend from Alberni–Pacific Rim was talking about, we’ve got to make sure that this includes First Nations, that we are talking all of B.C., not just the industrial part of B.C. but the whole of B.C. We’ve really got to ensure that First Nations are fully included in this.

Our fourth condition, which is pertinent to this debate — and this is why we’re standing up and wanting to engage in debate with the government — is that we’ve got to ensure that it protects our air, land and water and lives up to our climate commitments.

That isn’t too hard, I would have thought, a condition to meet — that we protect our air, land and water and we live up to our climate commitments. It was not this side of the House that initially put down those conditions for meeting our emissions targets. It was not this side of the House that put down, back in 2007-2008, reduction levels that we had to meet to combat climate change.

At that time, I think it was a very brave move by the then Premier Gordon Campbell — and I mentioned this in my previous remarks — to have the change of heart to see that the role of climate change, and the role of a government’s involvement in fighting climate change, was going to be huge.

B.C. led the way with its stand on climate change, with its stand on the environment. Much though I found huge amounts of what the then Premier, Mr. Campbell, did absolutely objectionable — I found he’s done huge damage to this province, and his successors continue to do huge damage to this province — his climate change initiatives were bold. They put us not just in the queue but put us in front. We were actually doing something. We had a carbon tax. We had a commitment to cap-and-trade.

Okay, there was the shell game of the Pacific Carbon Trust. After the Attorney General ripped that apart, we no longer have the Pacific Carbon Trust. But there were definite moves. There were targets and timelines of how we in B.C. were going to reduce our emissions, how we were going to ensure that we were going to meet targets to improve the climate, fight against climate change here in B.C. and therefore around the world.

[1445]

We were looking at doing a partnership with California, with the western provinces. This has gone by the wayside. It’s gone by the wayside in three ways. One is the refusal to increase the carbon tax, when it’s been proven that carbon tax is — okay, on this side of the House we didn’t initially go along with it — an extremely effective way
[ Page 4989 ]
of capping emissions. Extremely effective, but we’re not going to see that anymore. This Premier — who decides that if you say it once and it sounds good, we’re going to stick with it, at least until the photos are taken — is not allowing a carbon tax increase.

The Pacific Carbon Trust. As I say, really, it was an iffy. It was a bit of a shell game, so that’s gone. Now in this bill we see the final nail in the coffin of the previous Premier’s, Gordon Campbell’s, environmental vision that he had. That’s gone. Page 38 of this bill, right when we get to the transitional, provisional, repeal and consequential amendments: repealed. Point 55: “The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, 2008…is repealed.” What are we left with? We’re not left with that much. We’re left with these targets that, with the present plans for the LNG industry, have no ability to be met.

There is absolutely no way that the government is going to meet its targets on greenhouse gas reductions with the plans that it’s got for this industry. We are supportive of the industry, but we also have to be supportive of our environment. We’ve got to make sure. We’ve got to be responsible here, not just start talking in front of the cameras about: “It’s okay. By us having an LNG industry, it’s going to make China clean.”

Really, I have worked hard at trying to make that connection. I’ve got to say that when you read the details about what our LNG industry is going to look like as a result of this bill and the Premier’s statement that this is all going to be wonderful for China, it beggars belief. It really does.

We’re moving on. We on this side of the House would like to see a healthy LNG industry, one that will actually be clean, but unfortunately, what we have in this bill does not really allow that. What we’ve seen here is a shift from the whole LNG industry and making sure that that was going to be the cleanest. These were the Premier’s words: “It’s going to be the cleanest in the world. We’re going to have the cleanest LNG in the world.” Well, now she seems to be talking just about the facilities, not the whole of the industry. If you do that, it means that we are actually missing a huge amount of greenhouse gases.

The Pembina Institute has provided a breakdown of the sources of greenhouse gases from LNG through its life cycle. That’s basically from when you are pumping out of the ground to when you’re shipping it on the vessel, getting it out to help the Chinese become clean.

Based on the numbers that the Pembina Institute have put together, 30 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions come from the terminals, and 70 percent come from what are called upstream sources. That includes pipelines and the whole process of extracting shale gas. That 70 percent of greenhouse gases that are produced in the LNG industry are not actually produced at the facilities, so this bill will only capture 30 percent of the emissions. How’s that going to create the greenest LNG industry? It does belie belief.

Going back a few years, going back to the previous Premier’s time, when we had the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which I believe was back in 2008, 2007-2008. That’s where we actually first got our legislated targets for what we wanted to get for how much greenhouse gases we could have in our environment before we were causing…. We were starting to bring it down to levels that would be acceptable in fighting climate change.

[1450]

I know many governments have decided it’s not worth fighting climate change, and I know that our federal government is backing down from fighting climate change. But it is something that we really have to show leadership on. It is not something we can deny. It’s not something we can put our heads in the sand or pretend that it doesn’t really exist or say that it’s a theistic debate, as one of the members was discussing yesterday. It’s real, and we have a responsibility as leaders to take the lead on this.

Back in 2007-2008 we got the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act. It set the levels — so it’s 2008 — compared to 2007 levels. At that time emissions had to be reduced by a minimum of 33 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 — pretty dramatic, at 2007 levels. Still people wanted to go further, but this is what we had. There were then interim reduction targets for 2012 and 2016, which were set by ministerial order.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act required that the annual carbon pollution from all activities, which includes transportation, buildings, agriculture, forestry and other industries, be below 43 million tonnes by 2020 — so that’s in another six years — and below 13 million tonnes by 2050.

Based on the 2012 greenhouse gas inventory report, the total greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. were 61½ million tonnes. At the moment B.C. has achieved a 4.4 percent reduction from 2007 emissions. We’re not doing very well.

Look at the LNG industry. Assuming that, with standard practice, one typical LNG terminal and the associated shale gas development…. I think we’ve got to look at the whole package. The government doesn’t want to look at the whole package, but we have to look at the whole package, literally, from the well to the plant to the shipping. That would result, in a typical one, in 12 to 13 million tonnes of carbon pollution per year.

Now, we all know that the government is anticipating…. We all want to see a healthy industry. The government is estimating there are going to be five LNG terminals, LNG plants. My colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim mentioned the one in his constituency. We have Discovery LNG in Campbell River, and people are looking at that with anticipation. So we have five LNG terminals, perhaps two on the Island — who knows? — that they’ll move ahead. If that development were to occur, the resulting carbon emissions would be up to 75 million tonnes per year.
[ Page 4990 ]

Now, that’s more than B.C.’s current emissions totally — transportation, forestry, agriculture, housing, heating, automotive sector, everything. That’s with five. If only one plant goes forward — so estimating that 13 million tonnes of greenhouse gases every year — even that’s going to impact our ability to meet any targets that have been set for climate change.

One LNG plant would represent 20 percent of our current emissions, 30 percent of our 2020 greenhouse gas target and 100 percent of our 2050 greenhouse gas target. That means we can’t do anything else. Don’t think about turning on your heat. Don’t think about driving your car. Don’t think about somebody working in a mill. That’s it. We’ve done it — one LNG facility.

That’s why I would hope that we actually had a serious debate about this bill. If we’re to live up to these targets that are legislated, that are important…. If we are to fight climate change, as we have a responsibility to do, we have to get it right. At the moment Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, is hugely defective. It’s missing…. There’s no way we can do it.

[1455]

What I would hope is that the government gets serious — this is why I supported the hoist motion — and starts dealing with it now so that by 2050 we actually have an LNG industry that isn’t busting all targets and that is responsible.

But maybe this was always going to be the case. What we found back in 2012, through a freedom-of-information request…. The then Minister of Environment, now our Minister of Health, got a briefing note entitled “Advance Drafts of the Progress to Greenhouse Gas Targets Report and Provincial Inventory Report,” and that briefing note actually agreed with the Centre for Policy Alternatives report which stated, at the time, that fracking and LNG exports would make it virtually impossible for the province to reach its legislated greenhouse gas targets.

Back in October 2012, well before this legislation was even envisioned and well before the last election, the government knew that they would not be able to meet their targets — back in 2012. I mean, how disingenuous can you be? We’re going to have the “cleanest LNG in the world”, and yet they knew in 2012 that that was not possible.

There was another freedom-of-information request in which it was revealed that the current Environment Minister had briefing materials which indicated that the LNG sector emissions could be “comparable to those from Alberta’s oil sands” and result in “a doubling of B.C.’s total emissions.” Again the present minister knew very clearly the impact of LNG emissions and the problems it could cause.

The fact that it’s compared to the tar sands is extraordinary. We know how much greenhouse gases that puts out. And yet they’re still pushing ahead. I’ve got to say there is an element…. My colleague from Nanaimo–North Cowichan often talks about doublespeak, the whole Orwellian use of language. There is something very Orwellian sometimes about the way that this government approaches its use of language.

There is also the fact that they do…. We say it frequently because it is so true: that they say one thing, the Premier says one thing…. You know, she’ll say one thing and then do something else. She’ll say we’re going to have the cleanest LNG. But now it’s no longer the cleanest LNG in the world; it’s actually the cleanest LNG facility.

I didn’t mean to say “LNG”; it’s just a facility. Soon — I can see within a few years — it’s going to be the cleanest LNG workers…. You know, what are we going to have? How low are we going to go in that definition of “cleanest LNG” descriptor?

The Premier promised that we were going to be the “cleanest LNG in the world,” and that’s when she was speaking in China in 2012. As I say, in 2012 the government amended the 2010 Clean Energy Act to exclude natural gas from the requirement that at least 93 percent of electricity generated in B.C. comes from clean or renewable sources.

They excluded natural gas from this requirement if it was used to power LNG plants. The Minister of Natural Gas Development, who I’m sure is going to stand up shortly and explain all of this to us, why he said that, justified the changes by saying that we “changed the Clean Energy Act to accept natural gas for the purpose of making LNG in British Columbia under the Clean Energy Act. That’s in the law. We’re working to ensure that LNG operations in B.C. are the cleanest in the world.”

But the Premier then went a step further in October of last year when she claimed her commitment for clean LNG was only intended to apply to the liquefication of natural gas. So that’s those big plants — what they call the trains and the big plants that are going to be taking it. So it’s not the extraction and not the wellhead and nothing to do with the pipeline — in fact, nothing to do with the shipping of it, just purely the plants. That’s what it was going to be.

Even that, as we have seen through the statistics and through examples here, would never be able to create that level of clean emissions.

So we have the Premier saying now, or early in October, that it’s just going to be the just the liquefication plants.

[1500]

Tides Canada estimates — and, as I mentioned before, the Pembina Institute also estimates — that 70 percent of the emissions come from the upstream rather than the plants.

But at that time the Premier had said: “My commitment is to have the cleanest LNG facilities in the world.” We don’t produce LNG in the northeast; we produce natural gas. There is no L in LNG until it gets to Kitimat or Prince Rupert. Again saying: “Oops, sorry. I’m not going to say I made a mistake, but believe me now. I’m going to
[ Page 4991 ]
do something different. Believe me now. I’m going to get my photo taken just in front of the plants when the first shovel goes in.” I mean, great photo op, but absolutely untrustworthy. It really is astounding. The act has come out.

Again in May of this year we had the government moving even further from their promise when the Minister of Natural Gas — who I’m sure is going to stand shortly and participate in this debate — said that B.C.’s cleanest LNG plants were only going to be measured against other LNG plants fired by natural gas.

Well, seeing as the government first said that they were going to commit to LNG plants that were going to rely on renewable electricity, this is a stunning shift, because that would have an impact of about 80 percent. Using renewable electricity, B.C. Hydro — what comes from our reservoirs and actually is very clean energy — could lower emissions by a further 80 percent.

The Minister of Environment, again, has had her position, and there’s been more backtracking on what clean LNG means. The Minister of Environment, in her first mandate letter under this new iteration of the government with the present Premier…. Her mandate letter read at the time: “Working with the Minister of Natural Gas Development, ensure that LNG operations in British Columbia are the cleanest in the world.” There we are: cleanest in the world. Fantastic. Let’s step forward, like we’re going to have the best way of fighting climate change.

This year’s version of her mandate letter reads: “Work with the Ministry of Natural Gas Development” — same person — “to develop criteria and standards for emissions for liquefied natural gas projects in British Columbia.”

I think that pretty well says it, doesn’t it? Within a year the Ministry of Environment has gone in writing…. These mandate letters come from the Premier’s office. These are not drawn up by the minister; they come from the Premier’s office.

We have gone from 2013-14, when we’d just come off the back of the election. We had the shiny new government, full of election promises that people are still hopeful that they would fulfil. I mean, I think an educated guess was that they were never going to fulfil them. But they were of full of the election promises of “Debt-free B.C.” — how’s that one going, government? — and ones like the “cleanest LNG.” Within a year, we have gone from “cleanest LNG” to “develop criteria and standards for emissions.”

Criteria and standards for emissions. I’ve got to say that’s really going down several levels of what was anticipated and what was sold.

Interjection.

C. Trevena: What was sold, I think. My colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast says: “What was promised.” I think that this government throws away promises like Santa Claus in the parade throws away candies. “It’s out there. Just take it, take it.” It means nothing. This shows the doublespeak, the absolute hypocrisy on, first, the fight against climate change and now the whole aspect of clean LNG. It’s really astounding. It’s absolutely not surprising that the government is not taken seriously.

As we go through it, I’ve got a number of people who are very concerned — Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada. We have a number of organizations — Tides Canada — standing up. Anybody with any ounce of environmental awareness is standing up and saying the government’s got it wrong. Bill 2 is not going to be good. It’s not going to be good — not just for our environment but for our economy, because the two go hand in hand. You can’t just say: “Oh well, we’ll undercut it. It’s going to be fine.”

I’ve got to say that perhaps the reason I mentioned about debate — I hope the Minister of Natural Gas will stand up and participate in a debate. If he doesn’t, and no other member from the government side does, perhaps it was very appropriate that the last member from the government side who spoke was the member for Chilliwack-Hope — who in this House basically said that he didn’t want to admit to being a climate change denier, but he spent half an hour denying there is such a thing as climate change.

[1505]

I think maybe that epitomizes what this government is about. It will not accept that we have a serious problem.

We have an opportunity to do something about it and invest in our economy — to ensure we get B.C. jobs, to ensure we get the benefits here in B.C., that all people of B.C., First Nations, get the benefits too — by doing this right, by ensuring that when we’re talking about LNG and we’re talking about this very fundamental thing, it isn’t handed over just to cabinet to make the decisions but that we have serious targets, serious emissions levels and ensure that we get this right on real industrial reporting and real controls.

We haven’t got that at the moment, and I, along with every member on this side of the House, will continue to support LNG as an industry but oppose this bill.

D. Routley: It’s an honour to speak in the House on any issue, on any piece of legislation. It’s not exactly a pleasure some of the time, because of course, some of what we’re having to address is rather disheartening. We are rising to speak in opposition to Bill 2, and for very good reasons.

I think, first, I’d like to address why it would ever be disheartening to have the privilege of standing in this House and speaking, being one of 916-odd — I think somewhere in that neighbourhood — people who have been elected to serve in this House. It should never be anything but an absolute pleasure and a distinguished privilege to speak in the House. Unfortunately, this gov-
[ Page 4992 ]
ernment has so reduced the credibility of what it means to stand in the House of the British Columbia Parliament and speak to legislation that it has become just a little bit depressing.

You know, the issues that face our province are complex and complicated. They are difficult and vexing questions that require deep consideration, long thought, deep consultation with the people, the citizens of British Columbia. Those of us, the 85 of us privileged to be elected to speak in the House, are tasked with deciding these issues purely in the public interest. But in my nine years in this House I have rarely seen legislation that has been written to serve the public interest. This is no exception.

It is so sad that on an issue as essential to this province, to the planet, as the control of greenhouse gas emissions and the production of energy to power an economy, it is absolutely a tragedy that this subject is dealt with, with such simplicity, such duplicity and such failure to act in the public interest. I am absolutely dismayed by this.

When we stand in the House and speak about the complexities that face the people of the province, we’re met with the ridiculous and simplistic heckles of someone who is tasked with being the Minister of Natural Gas in this province. “You don’t believe in LNG.” I mean, what a ridiculous statement. It is just absolutely pathetic.

We have a minister who sits and simplistically bleats out that we don’t believe in something when we have nuanced concerns about the quality of the legislation that’s being brought forward, about the ability of the government to manage such an essential industry, such an essential component of the economy, in the public interest. We’re met with that kind of simplistic jeering.

[1510]

The real question is: who will manage this industry, this energy source and this contribution to global warming in the most responsible way in the public interest? That would be the side of the House that wants to take a considered and careful examination of the facts and all of the factors that influence our economy, our use of energy, our production of energy, our role in the global scheme of economy, energy production and the fight against global warming. That would be responsible.

What is irresponsible is for the minister who’s responsible for managing that to sit and simplistically bleat to the other side: “You don’t believe in butterflies. You don’t believe in the liquefied natural gas industry.” I mean, it is a pathetic insult to the people of B.C.

It is coming from a government that has contributed, perhaps irrevocably, to the overriding cynicism that is developing in our communities when it comes to the democratic process. We have a people who are failing to turn out to vote because they say it doesn’t matter.

Why do they say it doesn’t matter? Well, primarily, in my opinion, they say it doesn’t matter because they’re told one thing by a government in campaign mode and then they see that government do quite the opposite, or nothing at all. That is where the cynicism in our communities is coming from, and unfortunately, the whole democratic process is tarred by that brush.

This bill contributes to that growing cynicism. We had a government that said before the election that we would have 100,000 jobs and a $100 billion prosperity fund and maybe even no sales tax and a debt-free B.C. if only the people of B.C. would write them a blank cheque on managing this industry in particular. This is what they hinge their entire political future and the economy and future of this province on.

What they’ve delivered, when it came to the throne speech, is a step back that said: “Well, maybe there’s an industry here. Maybe there’ll be some jobs. Maybe what we said might come true. But probably not.” This bill, Bill 2, is a prime indicator that they’re going to do exactly what they’ve done before, and that is to simply make promises, break them, contribute to the cynicism that is plaguing and vexing democracy in British Columbia and elsewhere, and that is a tragedy.

What this province needs is people who will manage all of our resources in the public interest. When someone puts up an objection to a component of their plan, they say: “You’re simply against everything.” If you’re against contributing wildly to the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, you must be against LNG. If you are against a pipeline, you must be against jobs.

Well, all German shepherds are dogs, but not all dogs are German shepherds. It is possible for people, for human beings, for responsible people, to distinguish and to discriminate between what is good and what is bad in what they’re offered. What we are being offered by this government in developing this industry is simply bad for the public interest.

What we need is an industry that will contribute to the development of this province economically, socially and environmentally. We need an industry that will contribute to creating communities, not camps. We need an industry that will contribute to building communities with immigrants, not temporary foreign workers. We need an industry that will truly put British Columbians first in the jobs that are available.

This government has failed on all of those scores. Now we’re faced with Bill 2, in which they absolutely fail to live up to another promise, which is to make B.C.’s LNG industry the cleanest on the planet. This bill confirms their abandonment of that promise.

This bill essentially commits the B.C. taxpayer to subsidizing this industry. Far from getting the massive benefits that were promised during an election campaign, this bill confirms that the benefits will flow the other way, from the people to the industry.

[1515]

This bill betrays the four conditions that the official opposition, the NDP, placed on our support for the LNG industry as envisioned by this incompetent government.
[ Page 4993 ]
It fails to produce the jobs that were promised. It fails to put British Columbians first in line for jobs. It fails to provide the training that would be required to put British Columbians first in line for the jobs offered by this industry.

It fails to get a fair return on the resource that is owned by British Columbians. It fails to get the return that was broadcast and advertised by every member who stood for election behind the Premier and her wild promises. It fails on that score.

It fails to build the benefits necessary for First Nations to endorse the plan and to benefit from the plan, which we all know is essential to the success of any resource industry in this province. It fails.

It fails to protect our air, land and water and to live up to our climate change commitments that are legislated. But that’s no news to this government. Failure to live up to legislated commitments is nothing new. In fact, what would be new would be for the government to actually live up to legislated commitments.

As an example of what happens when this government fails to live up to legislated commitments, let’s take a look at balanced-budget legislation. It’s funny, isn’t it? If it weren’t such tragedy, it would be comedy. But it is tragedy.

What have we done? For the nine years I’ve been in this Legislature, every time the government, at its whim, wants to run a deficit, what does it do? It trots the 85 members — or 79 before, in their earlier days — into this House to simply set aside the legislation. It’s in law that we must have a balanced budget. But when we don’t: “We’ll just change the law.”

What will happen when companies are unable to fulfil the mandate of this legislation? I wonder what the government will do. Will it just trot us in to change the legislation? Well, perhaps we’ll be spared that misery, because fully one-quarter of this legislation is devoted to flexibility — flexible standards in regulations. So the government can not only simply offset its commitments and change the regulations and allow any level of pollution whatsoever; they could actually exempt the entire industry from this act, if they so chose, without debate in this House.

That’s the level of deceit that is now represented commonly by B.C. Liberal legislation. That’s the potential they’ve brought to this House. They can make a law, and when they want to disregard it, they don’t even have to change it. They simply have to completely rewrite its regulations and make it meaningless. That’s what this bill sets up.

How could any responsible member of this House support such an act? This is the level of cynicism that British Columbians have become used to in the behaviour of their government. This is absolutely tragic. It’s almost as though we could simply repeat our speeches and insert any subject on the legislative title. Absolutely every element of B.C. Liberal policy, from forestry to LNG to budgeting, has been subject to the same level of deceit and broken promise.

Deputy Speaker: Member, that’s very close to the line.

D. Routley: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that I’m close to the line in terms of parliamentary language. Description and debate of a B.C. Liberal act like this requires that one walk very close to the line of acceptable parliamentary discourse. Absolutely, this legislation betrays responsible parliamentary behaviour, so we must come close to that line. Mr. Speaker, I trust that you’ll correct me if I stray across it.

[1520]

Certainly, the members on the other side must recognize that it is a deceitful act to promise to a person, or to a people, an outcome, and then just blatantly disregard that commitment. That’s what this act amounts to — a blatant disregard of a promise made to British Columbians.

Again, I could simply…. That phrase in my speeches in this House has been recycled over and over again. It’s probably the most environmental thing that’s been done in this House, the recycling of these phrases. This is the only way to describe the behaviour of this government. They make promises, and then they absolutely disregard them.

Let’s look back on the Pacific Carbon Trust, where they promised that they would make schools and hospitals carbon-neutral. If they didn’t, even though those schools and hospitals had nowhere near the capital required to retrofit their buildings and actually achieve that goal, they would be forced to use public money to buy credits — public money meant for the education of children and the care of patients in the health system to buy carbon credits from the Pacific Carbon Trust.

That was their scheme. They transferred public money in the many millions to huge corporations in B.C., and the Auditor General tore it apart as completely lacking credibility. The credits that were being bought were not viable, they had no integrity, and so it had to be abandoned.

Now, the same government, in the same fashion, is asking us for our trust that the companies who build these LNG plants and go over the greenhouse gas emission intensities described in this act will pay penalties for carbon credits to a technological fund for investments here in B.C., and it will be the same thing — the same damn thing.

That will be the outcome, because not only will these companies have to contribute and pay that penalty, but the public will subsidize the penalty. Can you imagine? We have gone from the sparkle-pony huge election promise of 100,000 jobs and $100 billion in a prosperity fund and debt-free B.C. and sales tax–free B.C.…. We’ve gone from that to “We’re going to pay half their penalties” if they fail to meet the targets put out by this government.”
[ Page 4994 ]
Pathetic.

Unbelievable. Unbelievable that we could end up in this place. Unbelievable to me even after nine years here, but I suspect not unbelievable to those people who fail to vote and say: “I never vote, because it doesn’t matter; because whatever they say, they won’t do; because they don’t really mean it; because they can’t be trusted.” That’s what this bill is doing. It’s contributing again to that cynicism. It’s really pathetic.

Here’s an example. If we are aiming to ignore the upstream contributions of greenhouse gas emissions of the production of natural gas, which this bill does…. It ignores 70 percent of the source of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s in the extraction of the gas, the flaring, the pipelining. We’ll only consider the emissions once the gas reaches the door of the plant. That’s what the bill says. Okay, so give them that. We’re going to ignore 70 percent of the production of greenhouse gases from this industry and still pretend, somehow, that we’re going to meet our legislated targets.

We’re going to ignore that. Then it gets to the plant, and the plant is told, “If you want to operate without penalty, your greenhouse gas emission intensities must be no greater than 0.16 tonnes per tonne of production” — 0.16, an important number.

[1525]

Now, if the plant operates above that level, up to 0.23 tonnes of emissions per tonne produced, then there will be a penalty. There will be a penalty, and as much as 100 percent of that penalty will be paid for by us. The people of B.C. will pay their penalty. That is the unbelievable outcome of this legislation — that we will pay. The taxpayers of British Columbia will pay yet again for promises that this government made and can’t keep. It’s beyond belief.

If a plant, for example, a ten-million-tonne LNG plant, operated at 0.23 tonnes per tonne produced, it would have to pay a penalty of $17.5 million. Half of that penalty would be paid by the public. The remaining company share of that penalty would be paid against $2 billion in profit. The penalty they would pay amounts to half of 1 percent of their profits. This is obviously simply a cost of doing business.

If we look at what is the easiest plant to produce, to build and to operate, it will be far cheaper simply to operate in the red of the penalty structure — have the public pay up to 100 percent of your penalties, or half or whatever the mix might be, and simply write it off as a cost of doing business. It’s truly unbelievable.

Even if they get closer to 0.16 intensity of emissions against production…. If they are at 0.19, for example, the subsidy ramps up a bit from the public. Imagine that. The company would end up paying 1/10 of 1 percent of its profit to the penalty structure.

Who really believes in this House or anyone paying attention to what’s going on in this province — not that the rightfully cynical population should bother anymore…. Who, who is really paying attention to this, believes that any plant is going to operate at 0.16 intensity? No one believes it. This bill confirms it. This bill structures the exit door. Exit stage right — B.C. Liberal promise. Exit stage right — B.C. Liberal campaign commitment. It just doesn’t matter.

What will be next? Blood alcohol trading? You know, you can have a higher blood alcohol level if you just trade with a guy who hasn’t been drinking. It’s just absolutely ridiculous. It contributes to this massive cynicism.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yeah. I might have something, the member says. I might have something.

This is the level of ridiculousness that we’ve arrived at, where the government is rightfully famous for absolutely disregarding its own legislation, for writing penalties into legislation and simply writing the legislation off when it breaks the rules. From this government, we have an election won on a promise that turns out to be a deceit.

I know I’m close to the line again, but describing the B.C. Liberal election campaign, this one or the one before with the HST or the one before that with the $495 million deficit — not a penny more — or the one before that with the “We won’t sell B.C. Rail” or “We won’t tear up contracts….” These outcomes and these promises require a Legislature to skate as Elizabeth Manley, on an edge, along the line of parliamentary acceptability. It is impossible to say the words in this House that this government should be hearing. They didn’t tell the truth. You know what that means, right?

[1530]

I mean, I can’t say it, but they committed an act of failing to tell the people the truth, telling them something that wasn’t true, telling them that if they wrote a blank cheque on their environment, on their economy, on their society, they would have a debt-free B.C., 100,000 jobs, $100 billion in a prosperity fund.

How do we make a statement that jars this place enough to have a notice made of a promise broken? It would be to say the word that the Speaker is afraid I might be about to say, but I won’t say it, to save him the trouble of having to correct me and to save me the trouble of having to apologize for something that I can’t possibly, really, authentically apologize for. I would, in fact, be doing exactly that if I were to say I was sorry for saying the word that the Speaker knows I’d like to say.

It would be disingenuous to the level of a B.C. Liberal promise for me to say that I’m sorry for saying the word I can’t say.

Deputy Speaker: The Speaker would like you to move on now. I think it would be best.

D. Routley: Thank you, yes, Mr. Speaker. It’s probably
[ Page 4995 ]
a good idea for me, and you.

We have come to a sad and sorry place where our government, who was entrusted with a faith, a faith that is exercised, and we pay…. I think legislators and politicians around the world pander to these notions — honesty and integrity and commitment and patriotism. We celebrate the victories, historical and current, of our country. We lament the losses.

Just this week we had the lamenting of the loss of a serviceman simply because he wore his uniform. We stand as legislators and say how terrible it is that people who defend our democracy, who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend these institutions have been lost without purpose.

Then we turn around and trample on what it means to be subjects of these institutions. We take what is fought for — we take what was won for us by generations before us and is defended now by brave souls and should be served with the absolute, absolute limit of integrity — and we trample it.

We trample it with legislation like Bill 2. We trample it with election campaigns that make promises that no one ever really believed would be realized. We trample it by contributing to a cynicism. We trample it with an arrogance that dismisses criticism, that simplifies the complex and vexing problems that face our communities. We simplify it. We have ministers who heckle and ridiculously insult the people of the province.

I have to say, for those who might watch debate in this House now or at another time…. They might wonder why we don’t call each other by name. When we have school kids here, I always tell them that there is a very good reason for that. It’s because we don’t stand here as individuals. We stand here representing, in my case, 41,000 voters, over 50,000 citizens of British Columbia. So when I speak to a member of the House, I am speaking to someone who equally represents such a number of citizens of this fair and wonderful province.

It requires respect, which is exactly the reason why I didn’t use the word that the Speaker was afraid I would use and that I’m not permitted to use, even though it is so obviously necessary to describe what has been happening in this House. We do that because we respect the people we represent.

[1535]

When the minister heckles those who are elected to oppose his government, to criticize their plans, to take the nuanced, complex and vexing problems of this province and discuss them in order to reach solutions in the public interest…. When he does that, he betrays the trust that we are given, just as this government did so in the election and the actions that have followed.

I will proudly vote against this legislation. That is not because, as the minister so simplistically heckled, I oppose an LNG industry but because I oppose a government that fails to act in the public interest, and I oppose a bill that fails to defend the public interest and answer the complexities of this vexing question of climate change, energy management, economic development and social well-being in a way that defends the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity.

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: I have had the privilege of spending time with two young women from Semiahmoo high school in South Surrey who are here with Democracy in Action. They are both interested and interesting young women. Their names are Suyoung Anh and Nicola Menzel. Would the House please make them most welcome.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Prior to moving on, I’d remind all members that it’s the nuance and not necessarily the words themselves that are unparliamentary from time to time.

K. Conroy: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to nuance my words too much here.

I, too, rise to take my place to debate Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. I must say that we have all been waiting for the legislation that would, in fact, regulate the LNG industry. We have been waiting for over a year now. So we expected some significant regulations that would ensure the Premier’s promise of the cleanest LNG facilities in the world would, in fact, be kept. But what we see with Bill 2 is another broken promise from this Premier and the Liberal government, who have a habit of saying one thing and doing quite another.

In fact, it’s exactly what was said by the Minister of Environment on the tabling of the bill, and I quote: “Our government promised the cleanest LNG facilities in the world, and that is exactly what we are delivering today.” Not only did she say it with a straight face; she went on to deliver a bill that didn’t even come close to achieving that.

I think Clean Energy Canada agrees. I want to quote from Clean Energy Canada, where they say:

“It’s a good start, but on its own, it won’t result in the cleanest LNG in the world.

“LNG production releases carbon pollution all the way down the chain of production, from wellhead to waterline. Today’s legislation only addresses the last link in that chain, the port facilities, where companies would chill the gas to load it aboard ships. It also allows companies to buy credits rather than actually build cleaner terminals.

“It will take continued and strengthened leadership from both government and the industry before government can credibly tout the cleanest LNG in the world. And even if B.C. does ensure
[ Page 4996 ]
that this industry is built to world-leading standards, it would still sharply increase the province’s greenhouse gas emissions.”

How can you say you will deliver the cleanest LNG in the world when you bring in legislation which allows a number of regulations that allow LNG producers and the government to do as they please?

Bill 2 legislates a greenhouse gas intensity benchmark for LNG facilities. How does the intensity benchmark work? The benchmark would be 0.16 carbon dioxide equivalent — CO₂ equivalent — per tonne of LNG produced.

However, the benchmark applies only to LNG facility emissions. Just as Clean Energy Canada says, it doesn’t apply to any upstream GHG emissions. For instance, extractions, upstream combustion, flaring — we all know how much flaring is an issue up north, in the northeast — fugitives and pipelines. That means that 70 percent of GHG emissions in the LNG life cycle are not even covered by this legislation — 70 percent.

[1540]

Then the bill provides LNG providers with flexibility, and I use that term loosely. What does flexibility really mean in this bill? It means that LNG facilities can reduce their on-site emissions — actually reduce it at their site — or if they can’t reach that intensity benchmark, they can purchase offsets or contribute to a technology fund to reach the benchmark.

For me, that sounded like the Pacific Carbon Trust scheme all over again, that scheme that required public institutions, such as schools and hospitals, to pay offsets into a trust that seemed to be then used for businesses to reduce their own emissions. Our schools and hospitals were using taxpayers’ dollars to offset emissions, instead of investing in our children’s and grandchildren’s education as well as in the health care of people in this province — like paying for colorectal cancer screening instead of telling people to go to a private clinic and pay $2,000 to get it done. But I digress.

Private companies getting subsidized to make their own businesses more energy-efficient — businesses that I think could well afford to do that themselves, not on the backs of taxpayers. Are we going to end up with another Pacific Carbon Trust situation in this province?

There are some guidelines: guidelines that the offsets have to be purchased at market prices; they have to be B.C.-based; the offset companies must register with the government and receive certification; the offsets must receive third-party validation. Now, hopefully these guidelines will actually be implemented — that they don’t ensure another Pacific Carbon Trust fiasco on our hands. We all know that that was thrown out and cut after a scathing report by the Auditor General. We don’t want that to happen again, to the LNG industry, so I’m hoping that these regulations and guidelines are actually adhered to.

The bottom line is what the legislation does do. It doesn’t actually require LNG operators to reduce their GHG emissions. It sets the benchmark standard, a standard that’s not even enshrined in the legislation. Why would you bring in legislation and not enshrine the basic benchmark into it? It doesn’t make sense. It gives operators a variety of options to get around the standards, with the offsets or technology fund contributions.

I don’t quote reporters in the House very often, but I think Les Leyne actually put it quite succinctly when he said the legislation “will allow the B.C. Liberals to continue to claim that any B.C. LNG will be the cleanest in the world, but there’s a lot of flexibility and plenty of government help available to make the target achievable…. The common perception holds that it’s a means of buying a way past a problem.”

“Buying a way past a problem.” How does that work to produce the cleanest LNG in the world? And at what cost? What is this going to cost the people of B.C.? What’s it going to cost when the bill brings in an incentive program? How does that incentive program actually work?

Well, the government will enable an LNG environmental incentive program, which provides further subsidies to this industry and proposes a market system for tradable performance credits for facilities that perform below the 0.16 CO₂ equivalency benchmark.

Facilities that have achieved an annual performance below 0.23 tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of LNG produced are eligible to participate in this LNG environmental incentive program. Those below the 0.23 and above 0.16 will receive a prorated incentive based on their actual compliance costs. The performance below 0.16 will earn the facility a performance credit that can be sold to other LNG facilities. However, there are no further details. How does this work? It’s not even clear how big the subsidy will be or how the performance credit market will be regulated.

The government does admit a few things. It does admit that these programs will require government funding and administration, that they will need to commit new spending dollars to offer the incentive program. But they believe the program will help ensure that B.C. will have the cleanest LNG facilities in the world.

Now, wouldn’t legislation help to ensure the cleanest LNG facilities in the world? Wouldn’t regulations that LNG companies have to abide by help to ensure the cleanest facilities in the world? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

[1545]

I think: “Why would the province have to pay companies not to pollute?” That’s what I’m reading in this bill. I mean, it’s a novel concept, one that I think hasn’t been used before and one that maybe some other companies in this province are thinking. “Gee, I wish they’d pay me not to pollute.” I can think of some mining companies that would have been there with their hands out. I can think of a number of places that would say: “Gee, why not? If LNG gets paid not to pollute, why shouldn’t we get some
[ Page 4997 ]
incentives not to pollute?”

It just doesn’t make sense when you think that you’re using taxpayers’ dollars, taxpayers’ dollars that could be providing things like health care, education, trades training. I mean, we have these much-needed services in our province, and yet the government is introducing an incentive so that the LNG companies don’t pollute.

Now, am I understanding this right? Forgive me if I am wrong. Maybe during committee stage or something the minister will stand up and say: “Of course, you’re wrong. Of course, we’re not paying companies to not pollute.” It just doesn’t make sense. Are the Liberals actually saying: “Please lower your emissions, and if you’re good companies, we’re going to reward you”? I think they really should try this with other companies in this province. I think it’s an incentive that people would just love.

You know, the bill says that the Ministry of Environment will administer the incentive program and that they’ll also administer the benchmark program, the offset program, the technology fund. It’s interesting. They’re going to bring in all this new bureaucracy to administer these brand-new programs, and they can’t even take care of existing issues in this province.

The Minister of Environment is not dealing with issues in this province as they stand today. And now they’re going to bring in a whole new bureaucracy to deal with this? It just doesn’t give somebody a good sense of comfort, thinking that we’re going to do this even though we can’t even manage to do the things we should be doing to regulate the environmental issues in this province as it stands today.

Where are the programs? Where are the people, the boots on the ground to get out there and monitor tailings ponds or ensure a vibrant forest industry to invest in or actually invest in agriculture? That’s not happening, but we’re going to invest in this industry, which is an industry that’s needed in the province and an industry where I think the companies that are coming to invest are going to do just fine, thank you.

Do they really need taxpayers’ dollars? Do they really need taxpayers’ dollars invested in them to ensure that they don’t pollute, for instance? It defines a question.

The legislation is really short on detail. Approximately 25 percent of the bill allows the government to change various regulations at a later date with the stroke of a pen, through cabinet regulation. So incredibly important decisions don’t need to be brought to the Legislature, don’t need to be brought here to be debated by all of us legislators who were elected by the people of our constituencies, who expect us to come here day in and day out and debate the issues that are going to affect them in this province. That’s not going to happen.

It’s going to be done by a stroke of a pen at cabinet, where they say: “Okay. These guys want this. I guess we better do this, or who knows what’s going to happen.” Who’s going to be giving the advice to cabinet? Is it going to be the industry consultant of the month or whoever is providing whatever information the Premier is accepting this month? Who is going to make these regulations?

Certainly not the Legislature. We’re not going to have input to it. It bothers me that we had all those young people here from Democracy in Action watching us and listening to this and looking and saying: “Okay. We, too, want to be involved in democracy in action someday.” Then they hear what Bill 2 is all about. Is that really democracy in action? I’m sure they must be shaking their heads, thinking: “What kind of a world is this going to be giving us in the near future?”

Furthermore, the only part of the legislation that sets or even mentions the intensity level, the 0.16 GHG intensity level, is the actual schedule. That’s right at the end of the bill. We know full well that a schedule can be managed and changed, added to or subtracted as the ministers see fit, as the cabinet sees fit. Again, not something that’s going to be debated here on the floor of the Legislature.

[1550]

That’s not going to be part of the discussion that we all thought we would be part of. Who knows? LNG could even be exempt entirely from the legislation if the cabinet sees fit, if the minister sees fit, if someone in the industry sees fit.

I mean, you have to wonder. The government has already succumbed to a lower level of taxation. Is this going to be next on the list? Are we going to succumb to lower levels of environmental regulations? Are we going to allow greater pollution? What does it mean? My gosh, I hope the minister comes up with the answers during committee stage.

It’s concerning that when the bill says, when the government says, that it’s going to be the cleanest LNG in the world…. I mean, there are all these great promises that come out from the mouth of our Premier, and there’s just never any way of delivering on them. They’re never delivered on. And here’s another one.

I’m honoured to be one of our members who can stand in this House and proudly talk about what my kids are doing and my grandkids. I think all of us are. We don’t enter into politics just because we think we’re going to benefit ourselves. I think the majority of us do it because we think it’s the right thing to do, that we can do things for future generations.

I wonder how many of the Liberals can actually look at their kids and grandkids and say to them: “Bill 2 is going to be good for you. Bill 2 is going to ensure an environment that’s clean. It’s going to ensure an environmentally sustainable LNG industry for you. Not only are you going to have an LNG industry in this province that’s going to provide for you; it’s going to be environmentally sustainable.” How many people, once you read this bill, can actually look our kids in the face, can look our grandkids in the face, and say to them: this bill will
[ Page 4998 ]
guarantee it? It doesn’t.

This bill comes nowhere near guaranteeing that we will have an environmentally sustainable LNG operation done in this province. I think it’s just, once again, a promise that was made. It’s going to be broken. It’s all pure hearsay, I guess, is what is happening. The benchmarks aren’t there.

When you look at what “cleanest” really means…. What does it really mean in this legislation? It means the 0.16 benchmark? That’s really cleanest in theory only. It means that the legislation doesn’t require any actual GHG reductions, because we know that the companies can buy their way out of it. It doesn’t really need to happen.

We know that the legislation doesn’t cover 70 percent of the emissions in the LNG industry. It only covers 30 percent. How does that work? It doesn’t plan to reduce GHGs in other sectors. It’s a very, very special deal for the LNG industry.

It’s a special deal that other industries have been asking for ever since the carbon tax legislation was introduced by Premier Campbell. I think a number of industries have asked for exemptions — the cement industry comes to mind — and how are they going to feel about this one special deal being given to one sector in our province?

You look at the cement industry. It’s well established in this province. It provides jobs, great jobs in Kamloops. It supports the economy of the province, and they give the darn nicest little chocolate cement trucks every year when we meet with them. How do they feel about this bill? You wonder about it — if they’re sitting there looking at how they have been lobbying the government since 2007. Every time we meet with them, they lobby again. Are their concerns heard? No.

What is this setting up? It’s setting up have and have-not companies in this province. You wonder how the former Premier feels over there in England, all his hard work, all the hard work to establish a carbon tax — and a carbon tax that is recognized. I was just at a conference in Spokane. They recognized the carbon tax in B.C. and expressed concern about this bill that was being implemented — legislators from all over the Pacific Northwest expressing concerns. It didn’t seem to jibe with the carbon tax that was presented. You’ve kind of got to wonder: where is the mindset at?

[1555]

When you look at what that legislation would do back in 2007, it would reduce greenhouse gases by 33 percent from the 2007 levels by 2020. The current B.C. total is 58 million tonnes, which is 6 percent below the 2007 levels, which is pretty good. It’s not bad. I think it’s a good thing that that’s actually happening in this province, and I’ll give kudos due where they are due.

But one typical LNG terminal plus all the associated upstream emissions — because we shouldn’t forget about the 70 percent that really is part of it; we want 100 percent of emissions — would add up to 12 million to 13 million tonnes a year. So five plants in the province…. I know that the minister has talked about — what has he talked about? — 25 or 29 or something. I mean, there are oodles of them.

The reality. I know I’ve talked to some bureaucrats, who’ve said, “The reality is that we could end up with five plants,” which is great. It could add up to 75 million tonnes per year. That’s much more than B.C.’s current total. And 75 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions is an incredible number. It doesn’t even come close to reducing to the standard by 2020. It’s not going to happen.

I think it’s really important to recognize that we need good, environmentally sustainable economic opportunities in this province. I think we’re the first ones to say that. I think everybody in this House agrees with that. We need to ensure, though, that parts of the province aren’t left behind. LNG isn’t really a big mover and shaker in the southern interior of the province. I think anybody that represents that area would agree. The direct benefits to those of us that are living in that part of the province are through a tax system that works and ensuring a clean environment — not further pollution.

Now, I know we’re going to talk about a tax system that works in future legislation. There are some concerns around that, I understand. But we need to ensure that people across the province get the benefits of a proposed LNG industry in this province. I think that we need to look at not only a clean industry with regulations and legislation that actually regulates a clean industry, that doesn’t give companies an opt-out option; I think we need to guarantee jobs and training opportunities for B.C.

The government only needs to look at the excellent examples of the Allied Hydro agreements utilized in the Kootenays for the expansion of the three dams under the Columbia Power Corporation and the Columbia Basin Trust partnership — now Fortis is part of that partnership — and how they brought in local hires.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

It’s to ensure that not only do we see local hires in this province and ensure that British Columbians get the jobs they need but that they get the apprenticeship programs as well. That’s another thing that the three organizations working together have done an excellent job of — ensuring that the people that are working in the region get the apprenticeships that need to go with those jobs, as well as working with First Nations people.

I know that at the latest jobsite at Waneta, I think 15 percent are actually First Nations people that have come and are working on the site and getting apprenticeship training. It’s excellent. It can happen. I think we need to ensure that. Along with ensuring a clean industry, along with ensuring an environmentally sustainable industry, we need to ensure these other things so that the province can benefit.
[ Page 4999 ]

We need to ensure that we get a fair return on our resources. I mean, these are our natural resources that companies are going to come in and utilize. You can’t tell me that the LNG companies that are coming aren’t going to make a significant return on their investment in B.C.

I wish that we had the courage here in B.C. to do what Norway did with their tax that they put on companies. When they put that tax on, the oil companies didn’t run screaming, saying: “Oh, that’s too expensive. We’re not going to stay here. You’re crazy people.” They actually have stayed and invested in Norway and created an incredible legacy fund for the people of Norway that’s going to sustain them for years to come. They’re getting a good, fair return on their natural resources — something that our kids and grandkids should also be getting.

I want to make sure that the legislation does that, but I don’t see it. It worries me that we would be giving away our children’s and grandchildren’s legacy, that we would be giving those resources that should be there for them, that should be there for their future to ensure a future for this province. What’s happening to it?

[1600]

Are we going to just say: “Here you go, folks. You get it all. You can take what you want. In fact, we’ll even pay you so you don’t pollute. We’re going to give you an incentive”? It’s a real concern for me that the legislation that’s brought in is not going to live up to the standards that it needs to live up to.

Now, I know that the minister sighs. I’m sure he’s tired of hearing things over and over again. But it’s really important, I think, that he hears it from each one of us. We each have a different perspective. We come from different parts of the province. The folks in West Kootenay are just as concerned about LNG and greenhouse gas emissions as folks in Langley are and as folks up in the Peace country or over in the northwest.

I mean, people in the province are concerned about this. I think what you’re seeing from all of us is the concern expressed about what’s happening to this province and what’s happening to the democracy when you bring in legislation like this and it doesn’t give the facts. It doesn’t give the regulations. It doesn’t ensure companies have to abide by the rules. I don’t see it in this legislation, in Bill 2.

I want to make sure that there’s legislation that protects our land, protects our air, protects our water, and make sure that we’re living up to our climate commitments — our commitments we’ve made to other provinces, to other countries, to other states. We have states across the line that are looking at our climate commitments and thinking: “We should be doing the same thing.”

Why aren’t we doing it? Why is Bill 2 not addressing the needs of people in this province? Why does Bill 2 not say to the companies, “You need to ensure that this is done, this is done, and this is done,” to in fact create the cleanest LNG in the world? That’s not what this bill says.

This bill says: “Okay, we’ll negotiate. You could do this, this and this. You don’t have to meet the guidelines. These are benchmarks and benchmarks only.” It says that you can pay your way out of it or, if you do make those benchmarks, you can make money from other companies that haven’t made the benchmarks.

I mean, it’s hypocrisy to stand there and tell the province that we’re going to bring the cleanest LNG in the world and then bring in legislation that doesn’t even come close to ensuring that those guidelines are met.

You know, I think about it, what the province has been through since August around environmental issues. We can’t even guarantee right now that the standards are maintained in the province.

We can’t guarantee we’ll have boots on the ground, to make sure that we’ve got people that will go out and work in this province to ensure regulations are being kept, and suddenly we’re going to have legislation that doesn’t ensure that there is environmental protection — doesn’t ensure that there are actually regulations that are there that are going to ensure that companies are going to abide by just basic regulations.

I’m tired about the attitude of “Oh, don’t worry your little head about it” — or whatever they want to say. “Just don’t worry. We’re going to take care of everything.” That is just such….

I have to be careful what I say. I’m going to be like my colleague. It is just so not very genuine to be making statements about legislation when it’s not in the legislation, to be saying that this is going to do this, this and this when it is not here — to say that this is a democracy when we do not have the opportunity to discuss it.

Issues are going to be brought into the House that are going to be just tabled, saying: “This is it.” In fact, it’s going to be tabled in the cabinet meeting. It’s going to be done with a stroke of a pen. We will have no say in how things are done. We will not get to debate it. We will not get to talk about it. We will not get to discuss it with our constituents, to say: “These are issues coming up. What do you think about it?” We will not get to talk about it with the people who are going to be affected by this bill.

I mean, we all agree we would like to see an environmentally sustainable, healthy LNG economy production in this province. But at what cost? I think we have to ask: at what cost?

[1605]

Because this legislation has just so little teeth, it doesn’t give me the comfort to know that this government will be making decisions about this industry in the back rooms, that we won’t have the opportunity to talk about it.

It does not give me comfort when I read this legislation and see that, once again, things are being promised that will not be delivered on, that once again, we are going to see that the government is saying one thing, and we know darn well in the back room something else is happening.

For that reason and for the many reasons I’ve spoken
[ Page 5000 ]
about, I cannot support this legislation. In good conscience, I can’t go back and face my constituents. I can’t face my kids and grandkids and say: “I did the best thing for you today. I supported Bill 2.” I cannot do that because it’s not the best thing for them. It’s not the best thing for the kids of this province and the grandkids of this province. It doesn’t do anything to help what we need in this province, and that’s a real concern. For that reason, I’m voting against this legislation.

R. Fleming: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 2 this afternoon, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. A lot of points have been very well made by members on this side of the House. I will try and add my own perspective to it.

I had thought, of all the places, that this chamber would probably be the last one where we’d need to have a debate on whether climate change, in fact, existed, whether it was a problem for humankind, whether it was something that policy-makers and lawmakers here and elsewhere had to account for in running a government or sitting here as a legislator. I would have thought that British Columbia was probably well, well past the point of having that debate.

I’m not going to use the balance of my remarks to even get into the overwhelming scientific evidence that says, in fact, that global rising temperatures that are human-induced are creating the most significant challenge to our existence as a species on this planet. But the fact that we even have to do that, I think, was made apparent by the member for Chilliwack-Hope’s remarks earlier in this stage of debate.

I was absolutely gobsmacked, if I can use that word — the Clerk says it’s okay — that those statements would be uttered in this place. I hope that that member’s constituents, including the scientific community that must reside in his constituency, will take him to task for his words. We’ve done that in this debate, but it’s absolutely shocking. It makes one wonder, given that that side of the House is no longer participating in this debate, how many others agree with the member for Chilliwack-Hope on what I would characterize as despicable points that were made in the debate around this legislation.

I think that what would benefit British Columbians most around supporting the development of an LNG industry in the province of British Columbia would be to have credible, verifiable, measurable climate science–based policies that guide and oversee the development of that industry. That is what one would expect based on the title of this bill. That is what British Columbians deserve. But when one looks at the contents of this legislation, it has failed in all of those regards. That’s why the legislation is unsupportable.

I’m sure members will try and make amendments at a later stage of debate on this bill to improve upon the glaring omissions in this legislation, but we’ll see at that stage of debate whether it can save any credibility and any usefulness of the bill that is before us today. I have a feeling, based on watching past movies play out in this Legislature, that that won’t happen.

Therefore, British Columbians will be stuck with the contents of Bill 2 to live with — the insufficiencies around how greenhouse gas emissions are accounted for, with the growth and development of this industry, and where they are not accounted for, most importantly, but also around some of the misguided, so-called incentive-based policies here that in reality wind up being perverse subsidies for the polluters themselves.

[1610]

It’s really interesting that government members on that side of the House are prepared to look at ways where the industry can, for example, pay into funds for emitting very intense carbon emissions, to create an industry that does have significant associated pollution with it, take those monies, put them in a fund that is handled by the taxpayer and give it back to that very same polluter, when not that long ago we heard from that side of the House that clean, renewable energy industries in British Columbia simply could not be supported because they would require a subsidy.

Isn’t it interesting that having rejected, for example, the potential development of British Columbia as a wind energy turbine producer…? I’ll use a real-life example.

In 2006, the largest turbine manufacturer in the world at that time, a Danish firm called Vestas, was looking at the deep-sea port of Squamish, looking at the skilled labour pool in that facility and looking to locate a turbine manufacturer. They had meetings with government that were extensive. They were enthusiastic about doing business in this place.

They looked at the province of British Columbia, which is a clean energy jurisdiction that is noted around the world because we have developed hydroelectricity for five decades and more, and they thought it was a perfect alignment and a perfect mix to look at the stable hydroelectric facilities that we have in B.C. and twin it with the intermittent power needs in places of British Columbia where the wind blows strong.

The business case was exceptional, but what government had to commit to was a partnership where they would agree that B.C. Hydro or some other entity — perhaps a subsidiary or a partly owned company of B.C. Hydro — would commit to a certain amount of domestic installations for a new turbine industry. Vestas said: “For our business plan to work, we have to have some customers in B.C. Then we can sell to the Colorados and the Oregons and the Washington states and anywhere beyond that.”

In 2006 we would have been on the leading edge of developing a turbine manufacturing industry in B.C., but it was rejected by this government. The business case did not make sense because the commitments could not be made.
[ Page 5001 ]

The government said it required subsidies for this new, renewable, clean energy source, which would have created so many skilled jobs. In terms of the steel fabrication, there’s something like 8,000 to 16,000 parts involved in a turbine. All of the suppliers in the supply chain would have benefited from that industry, and it was rejected because of subsidy.

Now we have a bill based on a fossil fuel industry. If you read between the lines, and you look at those emitters between a certain carbon intensity, they will pay into a fund and get the money back for themselves. That’s a subsidy, right? So the logic that was used to defeat an industry — that actually did go to Colorado, by the way — is now being used to support an LNG industry here in British Columbia.

I find that very interesting, especially when I imagine how I will see government hands go up in the vote that we will have at the end of this stage of this debate.

The problem with this bill is the semantics of it — of the title and of the contents of the bill. The main item of semantics, and I think people have covered this well, is that it does differently what every other jurisdiction does in the world around measuring emissions related to an industry source.

In measuring only facility greenhouse gas emissions from the liquefaction plants, and excluding it from all of the other emissions associated with getting the gas to that plant and actually measuring truthfully, transparently and honestly all of the emissions that go into the life cycle of that product before it goes off our shore, it makes a mockery of British Columbians’ intelligence. It’s designed to fool them.

[1615]

I’ll tell you who it won’t fool. And I don’t think it will fool most British Columbians. It especially will not fool international oversight of treaties that Canada is a signatory to. I know that the Kyoto climate has expired. This government federally — we don’t have time to deal with it — outrageously opted out of the Kyoto accord.

They did sign on to something called the Copenhagen accord, which did commit Canada to reducing greenhouse gas emissions as part of a precursor climate agreement that will, hopefully, be achieved in the next year or two. That will finally get both western countries and newly industrializing countries to have an international agreement to fight climate change and commit each state to play a part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Now, the rules and the type of treaty may change. It may not look exactly like the Kyoto accord previously, but I think we can be sure that how greenhouse gases are measured in each jurisdiction is not likely to change. In other words, member states in the United Nations are not likely to embrace the coconut shell game that we’re seeing here just on the LNG industry from this government as a new set of rules and regulations for treaties that they’re signing on to. It’s not going to happen.

What is going to continue is that places like British Columbia, as part of Canada, and other countries are going to be judged on how many tonnes or millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases they produce annually within their jurisdiction. For the Premier to say, “Oh, we’re going to get fantastic credits by having LNG burned in China, and we’ll get all of the credit that they have for displacing their coal” — that’s not going to happen. There is no way it will happen, because of the risk of double counting and all of the other absurdities that would go along with that.

I’ll tell you what else isn’t going to happen. There’s no way you’re going to fool the international community that British Columbia has an LNG industry whose intensity is only 0.16 tonnes of emissions of carbon dioxide. That’s not going to fool anyone internationally. They’re going to look at the overall increase of megatonnes produced of greenhouse gases in B.C. and say: “What are you doing about it? Why aren’t you living up to the treaties that you’ve signed, and, more importantly, why aren’t you living up to the climate action strategy of your own government?”

I think that’s perhaps one of the biggest problems of Bill 2 in a nutshell, that the dishonesty of the legislation is so rotten to the core, because it’s predicated on government saying: “Oh, we have a climate action strategy. Yes, we’re going to reach these legislated targets, right? It passed into law in this place. By 2017 and by 2020 we’re going to achieve GHG reductions.” But according to this bill, we’re going to exempt how they’re measured. Some things are going to count; some things aren’t.

That’s not going to fool anyone. It’s going to cause significant problems. Instead of the government actually being honest and saying, “We want an LNG industry, and we don’t care about the climate targets,” which would be a fair argument…. They could make that debate. They know that that’s actually what’s going on, but they don’t want to be honest with the public about this. It’s unbelievable.

People have already figured it out. I don’t understand why this legislation tried to put a curtain around people seeing what is actually associated with this industry. Instead of raising the bar for the LNG industry in British Columbia, instead of living up to the Premier’s oft-repeated commitment that B.C. will have the cleanest LNG industry in the world, they created a semantical sleight of hand trick to say that B.C. will have among the cleanest LNG facilities in the world — huge difference.

This has been well-raised by our Environment critic and other members on this side of the House. The LNG facility is less than a third of the related emissions in the production of LNG, so this legislation doesn’t even cover up to 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

[1620]

Now, it’s interesting, because government could have put a bill before this House that, in consultation with the industry and First Nations and all of the other stake-
[ Page 5002 ]
holders, could have covered the entire spectrum of emissions related to LNG development, from the drilling pads where the gas is extracted to the midstream emissions that are associated with leakage and the pipeline infrastructure that we have, and burning the gas at the LNG plants, as proposed by most of the major proponents in British Columbia. It could have accounted for all of that, and it should have, but it doesn’t.

That’s the problem here. Because it doesn’t is why it blows away the climate targets of this government. It was hardly just a few years ago that we had a climate action plan here that suggested B.C. was going to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020. It’s in law. Laws must be followed, right? I’m sure the government still agrees with that.

The reduction in greenhouse gases had interim years where they would be measured, and they had an end point. The one that was firm was the year 2020 — a 33 percent reduction. That would be the year that B.C.’s GHGs would be reduced to 46 million tonnes. That would be significant because I believe the baseline for which they were measured in the first year was 62 million.

Now, anybody who has had a cursory look at either the optimistic — the hyper-optimistic, the absurdly optimistic — and then, perhaps, the realistic growth potential of the LNG industry will still see that you cannot square that circle. You cannot deal with an increase in that industry’s greenhouse gas emissions and ask every other sector of the economy to make up for that increase in carbon pollution.

This government hasn’t even attempted to explain or develop the means by which you could do that. For example, transportation has an incredibly high level of emissions associated with it. They haven’t said: “Oh, we will achieve millions of tonnes of reductions by, for example, building out a public transit system in B.C. that, in part, the proceeds of an LNG industry may credibly fund.” Mayors are asking for that kind of infrastructure anyway, but there are no sectoral increases in emissions cuts that are going to account for the growth of emissions in this single industry.

The bill here makes a mockery of the legislation that we passed years ago on the legislated targets on greenhouse gas emissions. I find the lack of honesty about how irreconcilable this bill is with the laws that we have in British Columbia to be astounding — for government to say, “We don’t owe anyone an explanation” — in fact, to say, “We’ll meet our targets. How dare you question us?” — when they have no plan. They have no plan, and the plan that they did have has been torn into shreds.

What’s interesting, though, getting back to the point about what could have been in this legislation, is that if they had chosen to introduce a bill that understood that there are huge challenges with having an LNG industry and meeting these targets but with an attempt to deal with some of the emissions that are already occurring in British Columbia and would be associated with the increase in extraction and all the activity that could happen with LNG, then they might have brought in a more comprehensive set of regulations.

They might have looked at what some of our competitors are doing. They might have looked at, for example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which has recently brought in and built upon regulations that they have around fracking and shale gas development, where the associated increase in the GHG intensity because of methane and the loss of gas due to venting and all of those sorts of things that make the fuel a carbon-intensive unit, which narrows the climate benefits between natural gas and, for example, say, coal….

The EPA has said: “Look, we have to demand that industry find the ways and the innovation to comply with regulations.” They’ve given them timelines to do so, but they’ve taken steps to do what British Columbia has refused to do in Bill 2.

[1625]

Now, this is our major competitor. The United States is trying to reach the Asian markets, just as British Columbia is. Obviously, they don’t want to add unnecessary layers of cost, and they want to beat us to the market — all of those things — but their regulator is saying climate pollution is a paramount public policy concern as well.

Sure, we want new jobs. We want to find a market for gas. They have discovered that the reserves are much larger than they ever imagined. We have done the same here in British Columbia. But they have also said that you build out an industry, and you do it responsibly. You do it responsibly in terms of the social benefits the community should achieve and the environmental protections that should be there in the 21st century, the century where we must find ways internationally — and B.C. will be part of that effort — to tackle climate change.

This is the century where we will succeed or fail in protecting the integrity of the planet and the temperature rise and all of those things. You can’t just want to get rich. And we’ve seen that be scaled back dramatically. You have to do it responsibly. That’s not in Bill 2.

It’s interesting to read an article like this one from the United States which is discussing the regulatory changes that I just mentioned. The title of the argument is about the noose tightening around fugitive emissions in the United States. Well, there is no noose here in British Columbia. There have been no steps taken on those 70 percent of emissions that are not covered by Bill 2 but are associated in every way with the LNG industry.

You know what? There probably is a premium in the world, if you can back up your claim to have the cleanest LNG in the world. There probably is. There may even be something in the United Nations clean development mechanism where importers can do well by B.C. LNG. But we’re forgoing that opportunity through Bill 2, because it
[ Page 5003 ]
has such lax reporting requirements.

Nobody is going to take seriously the carbon intensity measurements of B.C. LNG, because they’re made up. There are too many omissions — omissions, not emissions — about where, in fact, the sources of methane and carbon dioxide are with the extraction of the gas.

The other thing that’s interesting, too, is that this government, in the throne speech and in its rhetoric and in its press releases, talks about natural gas as a transition fuel to stronger renewable energy sources that will occur in the future, and a lot of that claim is in fact acceptable. Natural gas does burn cleaner. If done correctly, the natural gas could bridge a number of economies to yet cleaner sources of energy — including our own, by the way, if we found stronger domestic uses for LNG and natural gas in our vehicles and in our energy consumption in terms of how efficient existing gas appliances are.

What’s interesting is that there are huge…. The same timelines in which government boasts that we will have a prosperity fund…. Well, I don’t think they claim that anymore, but that we will have these revenues and out to 2037 when the tax rate will be finally adjusted to its full maturity and all those sorts of ridiculous, unbelievable timelines….

One thing is clear going forward in the world, and that is that companies and big polluting industries will incur greater and greater liabilities for themselves as companies, because they are the polluters. There could be a reconciling one day, where states or citizens will come after them for what they have contributed in terms of the degradation of our air quality or all of the things that are associated with climate change around sea rise and the loss of people’s assets and their livelihoods. Climate liability is accruing. There’s no argument about that.

[1630]

If you want to argue that, then go to Zurich, Switzerland, and talk to all the big insurance companies and the reinsurers that are looking at exactly that, that are publishing risk analysis that is guiding the development of insurance products around the world.

These people, by the way, are not Greenpeace activists. These are cold-hard-cash money men who are looking at the risks of climate change. They are looking at carbon-intensive industries and the responsibility that they have now and in future years for greater and greater carbon concentrations in the atmosphere and the way that plays out scientifically.

This legislation doesn’t put away anything for taxpayers and citizens of British Columbia to deal with any of our associated liabilities to this. It’s simply not there. In fact, it’s even worse than that. It again tries to fool those who do the assessments about greenhouse gas emissions here and in other parts of the world, and that’s just not going to work.

Now, the other thing that’s interesting here is that Bill 2 repeals the cap-and-trade act that was passed in 2008. What’s interesting about that is, going back to the climate action plan of government and the significant cuts that were premised on that plan, the steps that were identified as ways that we would meet those targets, one of the strongest mitigation tools that government said would aid British Columbia in reaching these targets was — and I’ll read it, page 58 of the government climate action plan — “a cap-and-trade system.” A cap-and-trade system repealed in the legislation before us right now.

Isn’t it interesting that they take away one of the central pillars of how British Columbia is to meet the GHG emission target reductions, but they refuse to get rid of the climate action plan itself, which is in law? One law is identified for removal, and you know why? Because it would have cost implications on this industry. That is honest. They had to get rid of that to make this bill work. They, on the other hand, refuse to get rid of the climate action plan itself. So they keep the emissions targets while removing all the tools that are supposed to help to achieve it.

There have been a lot of people involved in discussions, as a background to the development of this legislation. Now, a lot of people were consulted, and a lot of people were completely ignored. Government can’t claim that it wasn’t warned that there is hypocrisy in this bill, that there are problems in terms of the reporting mechanisms of this bill, because they were told quite explicitly what it would do. One of those people that was around the table that I think is interesting to quote is Marc Lee.

I talked about the subsidies earlier, and this is how it would work. If, for example, you had a ten megatonne plant that was above the government’s guidelines of 0.16 CO₂ intensity and was closer to or at the 0.23 intensity — which is the top tier of where you go before the penalties are incurred — you’re actually not complying with the regulation, but you’re in this middle band of polluter. If you’re in there, it’s actually beneficial to your profit rate to pollute a little bit more than if you were closer to acceding to the regulation, or even below it.

I mean, this is an absurdity. This is a subsidy that has a notion built within it that it’s designed to reduce pollution, but in fact, if you’re at a certain point and polluting a little bit more, you’re rewarded better. The amount of profit that would be taxed would be lowered, and the amount of potential funds that could come back as an incentive and a subsidy to the company would be greater.

That makes no sense. That’s flawed legislation. That’s why it’s unsupportable, this bill, in its current form.

[1635]

There are a number of things here that are completely blank clauses that have not been worked out by government. In terms of those emitters that would be LNG facilities above government’s guidelines, government proposes that they either pay into a technology fund or purchase a number of carbon offsets. They say this without having any regime, independent or otherwise, that will be
[ Page 5004 ]
responsible for verifying and overseeing the sale of carbon offsets, so you have to take a huge leap of faith there.

Carbon offsets, I think members of this House well know, have had a lot of scrutiny and have been found wanting, to have a lot of problems with them. In fact, Ernst and Young and other firms have identified them as amongst the most lucrative areas for white-collar crime in the world, so they do require an incredible amount of verification to be credible. This bill says nothing about that.

For all of those reasons and others, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place now. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon and vote against Bill 2.

S. Hammell: It’s a pleasure to rise in this House to join the debate on Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. It’s always a pleasure to rise in the House, but more of a pleasure when the tabled bill provides leadership on an issue of critical importance. Unfortunately — and I think unfortunately for all of us — this bill just doesn’t make it, despite the fanfare surrounding it created by the government.

It is a sad state of affairs, a desperately sad state of affairs, when the government of the day needing — and I would say needing desperately — to develop an LNG industry has sold its climate reduction soul to do so.

Climate change is perhaps the greatest challenge we have on this planet. As leaders, elected leaders, it is particularly important that we note and recognize this challenge. The change in climate as a result of man-made activities is almost universally accepted. I say “almost” because only 97 percent of the scientists engaged in this debate agree with that premise.

We humans are fouling our nest. We are actually fouling the place we live in. Unfortunately, not only are we fouling our own nest, but we are doing the same thing to others — in fact, to all the other species in the world. As we watch and think about how difficult communicating this problem can be, we can foresee — actually see — reaching a point of no return.

All the literature, all the descriptions take us down a path to where there’s a tipping point and the actual change of the climate becomes unstoppable. So 97 percent of the scientists involved in this debate say we have a serious problem, and 3 percent — just 3 percent — disagree. Ninety-seven percent of the scientists who study this problem have provided us with enough information to know that we must do things differently.

We cannot continue down the same path. We as elected leaders in this province have a responsibility to lead. So you take the most serious problem that human beings on this planet are facing, and we acknowledge it’s climate change.

[1640]

We take the time as leaders to recognize this on behalf of the people who elected us, and we have a responsibility to lead. If you want to hang your hat with the climate change deniers, then do so. But you do need to look around, if you’re going to do that, and acknowledge the wild and extreme weather that is now regularly visiting this province and this planet. There’s been a drought in California for the last number of years — an extreme drought, unlike anything that has ever happened before.

Lakes have dried up, leaving moorages on dry land. Boat moorages that used to float the boats up to the pylons are dry and now on dry land. Water levels on these lakes. Many, many lakes in California have dropped their levels by half to three-quarters of a percent. If you look at some of these pictures, they are enough to make you stop and shudder.

This is a problem. Climate change is a serious problem that we need to acknowledge. We have wildfires in places that have never, ever seen or expected to have fires. We have extreme hurricanes, and we have disappearing polar ice.

There was a video on Facebook that showed the falling away of a massive, massive amount of polar ice in Greenland. Watching it was enough to just leave you breathless. This polar ice is drawing away from the glaciers and falling into the ocean and melting. We should be concerned about that. As leaders in this province and in this country, we should be shocked and concerned.

On a lighter note…. I want to repeat this, because this is something that we all ourselves experienced. I’m repeating something that the member from Oak Bay has said: “…this week September 2014 was announced as the warmest September on record.” I’m doing a direct quote. “This announcement came a month after a similar one citing August 2014 as the warmest August on record. Before that June 2014 was the warmest June on record. Before that May 2014, the warmest May on record, and April 2014, the warmest April….”

Now, all of us, I’m sure, enjoyed that warm weather, but it’s like being taken down the garden path. It may be lovely for us to enjoy that warmer weather, but we have to acknowledge as leaders that there is a consequence to us enjoying it, and the warm weather comes from the phenomena of climate change.

Again, 97 percent of the scientific community say unequivocally that we have a problem, and we have a limited amount of time to act. Past Liberal governments in this House have urged strong action. I guess I’m trying to resist becoming cynical. Some of the very people who are in this House promoting this bill were the ones that vociferously argued on putting forward a very strong climate action plan that we should follow. They argued that there were risks to our economy and our future if we didn’t act now. But don’t worry. There were huge opportunities if we took action now. We needed to create a clean, green economy, develop new technology, create better jobs and deal with emissions.

[1645]

This is a complete about-face. This bill is a complete about-face from the government previous to the government of the day. This bill is to meet the overblown, exaggerated rhetoric of the Premier prior to the election. We have a bill that is desperate to get an LNG industry because of the overblown rhetoric that the Premier delivered prior to the last election.

You can’t help but just be shocked when you go over this. “We are going to have a debt-free B.C., but first we need to stop having the debt grow. Regardless of that, we will have a debt-free B.C. We will have 100,000 new jobs.” This is the promise of the golden goose, the LNG industry. “We will have a trillion dollars of economic activity, and thank goodness, we will have the end to sales tax.”

This golden goose of the LNG — we’ll have a debt-free B.C., 100,000 jobs, trillions of economic activity and the end to the sales tax. “Oh, and by the way, there will be a $100 billion prosperity fund.” I forgot that one, a $100 billion prosperity fund. Of course, that will be driven by between 12 and 17 LNG plants. “But don’t worry. The LNG plants will be the cleanest LNG in the world.”

Almost two years later: reality. A reality sets in. It is actually really hard, going over that list again and again, to take the Premier at her word anymore. She knows what to say and when to say it, and then she just doesn’t deliver. What she does is revise her rhetoric to meet the changing conditions, without for one minute acknowledging or admitting that she was wrong. Hey, she never says: “I got it wrong.”

My colleague the member for Vancouver–West End described this phenomenon. The province’s LNG strategy used to read that LNG delivered in B.C. will have lower life-cycle greenhouse emissions than anywhere else in the world. It is a common, common refrain from the other side that they are always developing things that are the best in the world. Wow, just think about it: the province’s LNG strategy will be the best in the world. Light the firecrackers, and watch them go off. But when real life comes in and she knows what she needs to say, she again changes the message.

Instead of a life cycle beginning from birth to death or from the beginning to the end, we get the concept of the baby being delivered by the stork. We think of it in LNG that the liquefied natural gas arrives at a terminal, bound for China, by a stork.

It doesn’t have to go through a fracking system at the wellhead. It doesn’t emit any kind of pollution there. There are no flare-ups that are causing pollution. There’s no pollution from the gas pipe. What happens is that miraculously, LNG produces…. The only carbon that the LNG plants are producing, as counted by this government, is the production at the industrial plant. The life cycle of an LNG system is much more complicated. It is much, much more complicated.

[1650]

If you’re measuring the gas emissions, you have to measure the natural gas from the deep earth being extracted. Carbon is sent into the earth or into the air from that process. Sending it through pipelines creates emissions, and cooling the gas until it’s liquefied, of course, creates emissions. But the life cycle of that link is now not in the description of the best LNG in the world, the lowest emissions in the world.

It is now truncated to “industrial operations that emit a prescribed threshold amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere to measure and report these emissions, and requires industrial operations that are set out in the schedule to the act to ensure that their greenhouse gas emissions are below a specified emissions amount” — dead stop.

So we are now no longer considering at all the extracting of the gas from the ground and the piping of the gas to the plant and only talking about emissions that come directly from that plant. Does that describe the cleanest worldwide, the cleanest LNG in the whole world? Not likely. Not likely at all. What it really says is that you say one thing, but you really mean another, because it just doesn’t add up.

I particularly liked the section of my colleague’s speech when he spoke about the tonnes of greenhouse gases triggered by LNG activities that are not counted. We know you don’t count the extraction from the earth. We know you don’t count the emissions from the pipeline. But those just must be a small, little bit of the greenhouse gas, because these are going to be the cleanest LNG plants and system in the world.

But 70 percent of the greenhouse gases that are created from one end to the other of this industry are not acknowledged — none generated by extraction from the earth and none by the pipeline.

There was a promise and legislation reducing greenhouse gases in this province. There was a promise that we would cut 33 percent of our 2007 greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. You say you’re going to do something. In fact, you create legislation that you put in this House. The House debates the legislation. The legislation is voted on. People in good faith believe that what you say is what you mean. But never mind. That is not the modus operandi in this House.

You say you’re going to do something, and then a distraction comes along. The government says that we’re going to reduce our greenhouse gases by 33 percent. Then a distraction comes, and you’re off in another direction. Never mind what you’ve said about being the best in the world in the past. You just modify your rhetoric, redirect, and again you’re the best or the cleanest in the world.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re genuinely trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or you’re just making a facade of it by pretending you’re still the best in the world. If you don’t measure 70 percent of the gas created by this industry, you are 100 percent wrong.

Again, I’m just going to touch back on my colleague’s
[ Page 5006 ]
discussion. Five terminals — the phantom five terminals. Not quite the 12 to 17 that was once described, but if we get five terminals, 13 tonnes of CO₂ go up into the atmosphere.

[1655]

Doing the math, 70 percent is not counted, so you get 13 tonnes. Then you have to look at the 70 percent that you’re not counting. Those are the emissions that go from extraction, combustion, flaring, fugitives in pipelines. That — what you have not counted — equals 43 tonnes.

You have 13 tonnes you count and 43 tonnes for five terminals not measured. Altogether, 100 percent of the emissions is around 56 million. Some people put it higher than 56 million tonnes. But regardless of whether it’s higher or a bit lower, up and away into our atmosphere goes 56 million tonnes of carbon, based on five LNGs, if you count from the beginning to the end of the process.

We have legislation on the books, passed in this Legislature, that commits us to reducing our carbon emissions by 2020. We are asked to reduce the emissions by 33 percent. We currently, as human beings on this planet and in this province…. Just in this province we are adding 58 tonnes, and we need that to be reduced by 33 percent by 2020. So we need to reduce 58 tonnes by 33 percent. But meanwhile, while we’re focused on that goal, over here in this corner we are adding 56 million tonnes, if you measure from the beginning to the end of the process.

You say one thing and then do another. It is constant. We have legislation on the books that says to reduce it, and we don’t. We know — all of us, I’m sure, in this House know — that we do need to be aggressive and have a comprehensive strategy that provides leadership in every way possible in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

If you look at the numbers that we started with, the target in 2020 was 42.9 million tonnes and the target in 2050 was 12.8 million tonnes. This, again, as I mentioned, was enshrined in law in this Legislature. Target 2020: 42.9 million tonnes. We’re creating a situation where we’re going to add 56 million tonnes of greenhouse gases.

So let’s be straight in here, upfront and honest. Meeting our 2020 targets isn’t on. They are not possible. In essence, what we have is abandoning any attempt to be leaders in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

You know, it was a law. It was made in this House. But what’s to worry? We had a balanced-budget law. Many of you may remember that law. It was missed four years in a row — 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 — but there was no penalty, no fine, no nothing.

If we don’t meet our greenhouse gas targets, I just imagine that we’ll either ignore the fact we haven’t met them or we’ll change the law.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

In trying not to be too cynical, we know that this issue is not top of mind for many voters — or at least not top of mind or salient or a vote determinant for the majority of voters. We know very well that the issue is complicated and negative.

[1700]

There are often histrionics around it, and generally, that kind of worry turns people off, especially if they feel helpless and don’t know what to do to help.

In my mind, the buck stops with us, we in this chamber. We have the time, we have the ability, and we have the understanding and foresight, as has been demonstrated in this House, to set targets and follow them. We should not be insinuating in this bill that we have set targets that are strict, that we have set strict emission levels, when we know, as in a p.s., that we have allowed the industry to go over, and then we, the taxpayer, are going to subsidize the industry to get down to the standard.

We need to acknowledge that there is a free pass, that under the legislation LNG terminals are allowed to emit 0.16 tonnes of CO₂ for every tonne of LNG exported without penalty. Right away we have a free pass up to 0.16.

There are also offsets. The government has a poor record on offsets, with the failed, much-criticized and scrapped Pacific Carbon Trust. But we’re going to do it again. That’s part of this p.s. We’re going to have an LNG industry, but p.s., the government is planning on offsets.

The government was forced to scrap the PCT after a scathing report by the Auditor General that found the government agencies were buying offsets from the trust at a cost more than double the amount on the open market. It also found that the trust was purchasing carbon credits from projects that were not eligible. We’re going to repeat that process. Now, having gotten rid of one set of carbon offsets, we’re going to do another.

There is a plan for an incentive program that is enough to boggle the mind. It has been suggested that this incentive, or subsidy, will mean LNG operators will end up paying very, very little for their GHG emission offsets. But that’s not all. The government will subsidize the penalty, as much as 100 percent of it, for plants with emissions just over the standard — say, 0.17 — dropping on a sliding scale to 50 percent of the penalty for plants at 0.23. Above that, no subsidy. Well, that’s hardly the cleanest LNG industry in the world.

The details of other parts of this bill are not available, and there is a myriad of regulations that will come through cabinet. Those won’t be debated in the House because that is not available. There is not available information for us to debate that.

All in all, it’s over. The 2007 goal or target to reduce the levels by 33 percent — they’re gone. They’re gone. For anyone to suggest that you can add 56 million tonnes of carbon into the air and still meet those targets — they’re just not living on the right side of this planet. We do not have a chance of meeting this target, and we do not have the cleanest LNG in the world. We have abdicated our
[ Page 5007 ]
responsibility to provide leadership on the most pressing concern of our lifetime and of the planet.

[1705]

We need to do better. The Premier and the government need to do more than say what people want to hear and then do what they want. There are members who still sit in this House who passed the original legislation. I don’t think today is a good day for this Legislature, and I think this is a bill that should not be passed.

H. Bains: It is a pleasure to speak and participate in a debate that is, I think, one of the most important bills that we have before us. We are talking about our future, the future of our children, who will be asking questions. “When you were in the House and when this bill was being debated, who stood up to talk about the future? Who was actually serious about leaving a legacy of clean air and water for our children and their children?”

I will get to the really important parts of this bill, Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. When I look at the bill itself, I clearly see a pattern here, a pattern of this government saying one thing but doing quite the opposite. Here we heard the Premier before the election saying that we would have the cleanest LNG in the world. Since that time, that tone has changed. Now they are talking about the cleanest LNG facilities in the world.

What does that mean? I’ll talk about that a little later on.

What is not included is that a majority part of the pollution produced by these projects is excluded from this bill. I think that clearly shows how this government operates — say one thing, but do quite the opposite. That pattern is quite evident in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, you remember, just before the election, all the promises on LNG and jobs that were made. You remember the prosperity fund, $100 billion? You remember that. You remember debt-free B.C.? “Debt-free B.C.” — it was written on the bus. What do you actually have?

Since the Premier took over, about two years, the debt has gone from $45 billion to $69 billion. That is the highest rate of growth of debt in the province under any Premier in the history of this province. Here we were saying “debt-free B.C.,” but the debt has grown faster than under the watch of any other Premier in the province’s history.

In this bill, again, they promise something totally different than what they are delivering here. They are talking about only 30 percent of the pollution that would be produced. The other 70 percent is exempted. They are not talking about the 70 percent that comes from upstream pollution. Again, it is very clearly saying one thing and doing quite the opposite.

I think it’s no wonder. I question whether anyone on that side actually believes that we have global warming. There may be some. Yesterday somebody stood up — the member for Chilliwack-Hope — and this is what he had to say. I will quote him from the Hansard.

“Of course,” he said, “I want to speak in support of this bill. But I want to explain my support of this bill, which combats global warming, particularly when I’m not naturally inclined to believe in the science of global warming.”

This is what’s coming from that side. They don’t believe in the science of global warming. He goes on to say: “I think I represent many of my constituents as well. Although I’m not convinced of human-caused or so-called anthropogenic global warming, I wouldn’t call myself a denier either.”

[1710]

You can’t have it both ways. You don’t believe in the science of global warming, but “I am not a denier either.” What are you? What are you? Make up your mind.

Interjection.

H. Bains: The Minister of Health is chirping over there.

Mr. Speaker, what do they promise?

The minister probably…. I should invite him to Surrey. The wait line in the emergency ward — still eight hours. Come and visit them and see what’s going on under your watch. If you’ve fixed the problem under your ministry, then come and talk to the rest of us. Fix them. Fix them first before you start chirping away about someone else. This bill belongs to some other minister. Let them defend it. You defend your own ministry, Minister. You haven’t done that job very well there either.

This is what they are saying. They are saying that they don’t believe in global warming. They don’t believe in that science, but then they said they are not deniers either.

Interjection.

H. Bains: He’s not a denier.

Here he goes on to say again: “I think what makes me skeptical about the global warming debate is the passion, the rhetoric, the political pressure, the repression of opposing viewpoints, the accusations and condemnations and apocalyptic pronouncements that seem, to me, to be substitutes for hard scientific reality. I don’t like to give into that kind of thing.”

Clearly, the bills are before us, but they don’t really believe in the problem that existed in the first place. That clearly is written here. It was spoken in this House yesterday. No one stood up on that side to correct him. Therefore, they accept that argument. The Minister of Health has to accept that argument because he hasn’t stood up to counter that argument. He hasn’t stood up yet.

Interjection.

H. Bains: Well, you will have an opportunity. As soon
[ Page 5008 ]
as I sit down, you can stand up and denounce the member for Chilliwack-Hope. You can say how wrong he was, and then maybe we could have a serious debate over this bill. Make up your mind whether you believe in global warming or you don’t.

The Minister of Health just likes to sit here and throw little grenades every once in a while but wouldn’t have the backbone to stand up and challenge one of his colleagues who made a statement right here yesterday in the House. I am expecting that before this debate is over, the Minister of Health will stand up, and he will correct the member for Chilliwack-Hope, or he could stand up and say: “I agree with him.” He has a choice, and he can do that. I’m sure he’s quite capable of doing that.

I remind the minister: mind your ministry. There are a lot of problems you need to fix, and you haven’t done a very good job of that. I must say that. You need to come to Surrey. I will walk you through Surrey Memorial Hospital. I’ll walk you there.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: You can talk to the patients there. They will tell you firsthand. The member from Panorama Ridge should be standing up, and he should be telling you the problems that exist at Surrey Memorial Hospital today. He would tell you, if you only listened to him, because I think he knows what’s going on in Surrey, and you don’t.

I just say, Mr. Speaker, there’s a time to listen. That’s the problem from that side. They don’t want to listen.

Let’s get into some of the real issues in this debate. Let’s talk about Bill 2. What they have said here is that this act is an emission intensity benchmark for LNG facilities, which they say is lower than any other LNG facility in the world. We will examine that.

They use the intensity benchmark to say that they have achieved the province’s commitment to have the cleanest LNG facility in the world. I have just said that they have changed from cleanest LNG in the world to cleanest LNG facility in the world.

[1715]

We will examine that part as well — whether they actually can do that, whether the bill actually will address that. I’ll examine all of that. That’s the problem.

Let’s talk about some of the real nitty-gritties of the bill. The greenhouse gases intensity benchmark they set under this bill is 0.16 carbon dioxide equivalent per tonne of LNG produced. This includes all facility greenhouse gas emissions, which means combustion, electricity generation, venting and fugitives from that point when the gas enters the facility to where it is loaded into a ship, or car, or rail car or goes to the market.

However, the greenhouse gas intensity benchmark does not apply to any upstream emissions. That’s the issue here. It does not apply to any upstream emissions — for example, extraction, upstream combustion, flaring, fugitive and pipeline.

There are many experts and authorities out there that talk about where the problem here is. According to the Pembina Institute, upstream emissions account for approximately 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the LNG life cycle and are not covered by this legislation.

That’s where the issue is. Only 30 percent is covered, and 70 percent of the portion of this whole entire life cycle is not covered. That’s where the problem is. That’s why I will be voting against it.

The legislation also provides LNG proponents with the flexibility to meet that benchmark. If proponents cannot reduce their greenhouse gas emission to 0.16 per tonne of LNG produced, they can either invest in B.C.-based offsets at market price or contribute to a technology fund at a rate of $25 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

What does that mean? It means that the legislation does not actually require LNG producers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It sets a benchmark standard and then gives LNG operators a variety of options to get around that standard with offsets or technology fund contributions.

As one of the reporters here, Les Leyne, writes, the legislation “will allow the B.C. Liberals to continue to claim that any B.C. LNG will be the cleanest in the world. But there’s a lot of ‘flexibility’ and plenty of government help available to make the target achievable…. The common perception holds that it is a means of buying a way past a problem.”

That’s the problem. It does not require LNG producers to reduce the greenhouse gases, actually. You can buy your way out of this. How does that help the environment? How does that help reduce greenhouse gases? Not much.

The government’s own press release accompanying the legislation includes a backgrounder on the LNG environmental incentive program, which provides further subsidies to the industry and proposes a type of cap-and-trade system for performance credits for facilities that perform below the 0.16 carbon dioxide benchmark.

That’s the problem. The same release goes on to say that the facilities that have achieved annual performance below 0.23 tonnes of carbon dioxide per tonne of LNG produced are “eligible to participate in the LNG environmental incentive program. Performance below 0.23 and above 0.16 will receive a prorated incentive based on their actual compliance costs. Performance below 0.16 will earn the facility a performance credit that can be sold to other LNG facilities.”

There are all kinds of flexibilities, as they call it, but I think there are loopholes left. Really, the LNG producers are not required to reduce the greenhouse gases. They can buy their way. There are a number of different options available to them.
[ Page 5009 ]

[1720]

Again, many other details are not provided. It’s not clear how big the subsidy will be or how the performance credit markets will be regulated. The government does not admit that these programs will require government funding and administration. The government will need to commit new spending dollars to offer the incentive program but believes that the program will help ensure that B.C. will have the cleanest LNG facility in the world.

The legislation is very short on details. Approximately 25 percent of the bill allows government to change various regulations at a later date. So 25 percent of the bill can be changed to regulations at a later date with the stroke of a pen, through cabinet regulation. That’s where the problem is.

Furthermore, the only part of the legislation that sets or even mentions the 0.16 greenhouse gas intensity level is in the schedule at the end of the bill. This schedule can be changed and/or added or subtracted from. At any moment LNG could be exempt entirely from the legislation if the government chooses to do so. Those are the dangers in this bill.

Again, they are making it as if they are doing something right. They’re telling the world, especially here in British Columbia, that they will have the cleanest LNG in the world. That’s what they said earlier. But now they’re back to the facility, which means excluding 70 percent of the greenhouse gases produced upstream. That’s where the big problem is.

Let’s go point by point. Just before I do that, let me go into what are some of the big issues here that we are facing. I want to talk about sources of carbon pollution from LNG shale gas first, and then I want to talk about B.C. greenhouse gas reduction targets. Let’s talk about the sources of carbon pollution from LNG and shale gas.

Carbon pollution is released all along the LNG supply chain, from the point where the shale gas is extracted to the point where it is burned for electricity or loaded for transportation. Like I said earlier, it is called the greenhouse gas life cycle. In the B.C. LNG context, then, now the greenhouse gas life cycle includes every point from the wellhead, which is extraction, to the waterline, the point where LNG leaves the province for export on tankers.

It will show you…. I have a chart here. Pembina Institute have produced a chart that shows clearly that, based on the numbers that they have put together, 30 percent of the pollution comes from LNG terminals and 70 percent from upstream, which means 9 percent comes from the pipeline. They have broken it down further: 61 percent from extracting and processing shale gas. The only portion covered by the Bill 2 intensity benchmark is the 30 percent from LNG terminals.

Mr. Speaker, see where we are going? We have come from the cleanest LNG in the world down to cleanest LNG facilities in the world — now down, with this bill, to only covering 30 percent of the pollution and the greenhouse gases. I mean, starting from here, we are down to about here. It’s again saying one thing, promising one thing, and doing quite the opposite, and it’s quite a pattern every time a bill comes.

In my first term I used to wait very patiently that maybe the next bill will come and they will actually have what they mean, that what they’ve been saying will be in the bill.

Interjection.

H. Bains: You’re still waiting.

The member for New Westminster, her first term — she’s still waiting. And I waited. For the first term, I thought maybe there were some people who were not very serious about that kind of stuff. Maybe the next term somebody will change that. No, nothing.

[1725]

I thought: “Well, there’s a new Premier. Maybe now the environment will change.” No, more of the same, which means saying one thing and doing quite the opposite.

Here, let’s talk about B.C.’s own Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act. We have it here. We’ve discussed it here. It establishes legislated targets for reducing B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions as compared to 2007 levels. Emissions must be reduced by a minimum of 33 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. Interim reduction targets of 6 percent by 2012 and 18 percent by 2016 have also been set by the ministerial order.

The law requires the annual carbon pollution from all activities — transportation, buildings, agriculture, forestry and other industries — to be below 43 million tonnes by 2020 and below 13 million tonnes by 2050. Now, based on a 2012 greenhouse gas inventory report, the total greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. were 61 million tonnes. In 2007, the base year for the calculation of greenhouse gas emission targets, greenhouse gas emissions were 64.3 million tonnes carbon dioxide. B.C. has achieved a 4.4 percent reduction for 2007. Four percent — that’s the reality.

Again, it is such a serious issue. You would think that they would be serious about leaving a province for our children and their children who would enjoy, if not cleaner water, air and land than what we enjoy today — that at least what we enjoy today they would be left behind with. But no. I’m worried what they will be inheriting from this government. It’s all about politics — nothing about real policies that will matter to people and that will matter to our children and their children.

That requires leadership. Leadership means that you do what you say and you say what you do. But we haven’t seen that from this Premier or the cabinet that she has chosen. Every now and then one or the other MLA will stand up and speak their mind, but that’s about it. They are not even allowed to speak their mind. What do you
[ Page 5010 ]
expect? More of the same. Say one thing and do quite the opposite.

I think that is a very, very serious issue.

Interjection.

H. Bains: The Minister of Health continues to chirp away. I thought that he would make some substantive commentary, but I am waiting. I have some time. You know what? He could do even better. He could stand up, and he could actually speak. He could speak on this bill, which is so important. I’d like to hear whether he agrees with his colleague from Chilliwack-Hope or he doesn’t. I would like to hear that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Etc., etc., etc.

H. Bains: Another minister, the Minister of Technology over there…. I think he should also mind his own ministry. I don’t think…. He’s not going to stand up.

You know what? It would be really refreshing if any one of the ministers would stand up — any one — would stand up and speak on this bill. It would be some change. They will chirp away, sitting over there, but never stand up and go on the record. I’d like to hear what they have to say about this bill. I’d like to hear what they have to say about their colleague from Chilliwack-Hope.

You know what? Like everything, we have to wait a long time. None of them…. They are told not to stand up, and they will continue to just follow the orders, follow the orders and just keep on chirping away without coming up with any positive contribution.

[1730]

Let’s go on to talk more about the content of this bill. You know, as I said earlier, it does not cover the upstream emissions. The legislation does not require actual greenhouse gas reductions. They talk about flexibility, but I would say that they are talking about giving them a way to buy their way out if they are not able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I mentioned that earlier.

Under the legislation, LNG terminals are allowed to emit 0.16 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every tonne of LNG exported, without a penalty. Although it is set at 0.16, there’s no penalty. If it’s between 0.16 to 0.23, then there’s kind of a prorated buyout. Even if they’re higher than that, there’s a buyout. I think there’s nothing in the bill that requires them to reduce the greenhouse gases and the emissions. As long as you can buy your way out, it’s okay to this government. But it’s not okay to the people of this province. It’s not okay for our children. It’s not okay for our future. That’s why I will be opposing this.

Also, the plan for offsets is not very clear. The B.C. Liberals have a poor record on offsets. I would just explore a bit of that. Let’s take a look. The legislation sets the basic framework for greenhouse gas reporting and how offsets will be accounted for.

Offsets must be B.C.-based. This is how they set it up; it must be B.C-based. Offsets companies must register with the government and receive certification. Offsets must receive third-party validation. However, the complex details must still be established through regulation at a later date. The ministry staff expect to draft regulations by 2015, at which point all other existing offsets regulations will be repealed.

So here we go. It will be decided later on through regulations. The minister will decide what those offsets are, and anything that exists today will be repealed. All regulations will be repealed.

The government also must establish administration to oversee the offset process, including verification, certification, trading, etc. This will require a budget, a staff and further regulation. Details again are not available. That’s a very serious problem. That’s why I will be opposing this bill.

Then again, the plan for an incentive program is also not clear. You go on, and the details on the technology fund are not available. There’s no way that we can meet B.C.’s legislated greenhouse gas emission reduction targets with this plan. The government has no plan on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere. The legislation also lacks important detail and grants government the ability to change rules at any time with the stroke of a pen.

That’s the problem. People like Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada, CCPA — all those reputable organizations — are having serious concerns, and rightfully so. If this government would listen to them, then I think we could get somewhere. But that’s not going to happen anytime soon, knowing their track record.

I’m still waiting for that…. You know, they have stopped talking about the prosperity fund, $100 billion. The sales tax is still going to go on. Debt will continue to grow at the highest rate ever in the history of this province. What else? The 100,000 jobs here in B.C. in the LNG industry — at the same time as the Premier and the ministers are running around the world, promising those workers to train and come and work at the LNG plants.

[1735]

What about our children coming out of high school and colleges? What about their training? And what about the 124,000 people who are looking for jobs? What about them getting trained and getting these jobs with B.C. resources? That’s not even on the agenda.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

H. Bains: My time has run out. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I hope the Minister of Health will stand up now.

Hon. T. Lake: I’ve just been sitting here for the past 20 minutes or so listening to the member opposite talk
[ Page 5011 ]
about greenhouse gases and sort of bobbing and weaving all over the place — sometimes talking about the bill before us, which is the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

I’m happy to stand up in support of this act and in support of the whole idea of developing liquefied natural gas as a solution to the global greenhouse gas challenge that we have in front of us. There is no question, on this side of the House…. When you look at government policy — I’m talking about executive council — government policy is to reduce greenhouse gases, not just in British Columbia but globally. We are world leaders on greenhouse gas policy.

The speaker before me twisted in different contortions about the carbon tax in 2009. That was my first provincial campaign. I was listening to a podcast from an all-candidates debate from 2009 while I was spending one of my many, many hours at airports and came across a podcast from the all-candidates forum where the NDP candidates in that forum talked about the job-killing carbon tax and how they campaigned against it — how this was going to be the demise of British Columbia. The carbon tax was the worst policy ever.

The cap-and-trade, something they rail against now, about the use of carbon credits to trade. They rail against it now. They were big fans in 2009. They were certainly against the carbon tax in 2009. Now they’re great champions of the carbon tax. Now they see the light. They recognize that 2009 was a mistake on their part. It was a totally unfounded campaign that was based on bad science, from that side of the House.

There’s no question that climate change….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, let’s have one speaker at a time, please.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

There is no question that we are seeing greenhouse gases lead to climate change. There’s no question about that. That’s why British Columbia has been a leader. That’s why I, when I was Environment Minister, was proud to go to the UN conference on climate change and talk about the policies we have here in British Columbia, why I was proud to go to Portland State University and talk about the carbon tax, why I went to the state legislature in Oregon to talk about the carbon tax. There’s great interest in those jurisdictions to follow us on carbon tax.

The members opposite rail against liquefied natural gas, so they’re against developing one of the very resources we depend upon to support health care, to support education. They rail against liquefied natural gas.

The International Energy Agency did a very, very comprehensive study. The International Energy Agency looked at two scenarios on the development of unconventional gas — two scenarios to develop unconventional gas or not to develop unconventional gas.

They looked at the different scenarios. The result, after this very comprehensive study, was that with the development of unconventional shale gas, we will see a 6 percent reduction in global greenhouse gases. On this side of the House we believe in reducing global greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases around the world are a challenge. There’s no question. One of the answers, as the International Energy Agency recognizes, is the use of natural gas to displace more carbon-intense fuels like coal.

[1740]

In fact, the biggest reduction in global greenhouse gases anywhere in the world over the past three years has been the United States of America. Why? Because of the displacement of coal-burning power plants with cleaner natural gas. That’s what we believe in on this side of the House.

The members opposite like to twist themselves in all kinds of contortions. They’re against the carbon tax one year. They’re against cap-and-trade the next year. They don’t want to develop any kind of industry in northern British Columbia. They don’t want to reduce global greenhouse gases.

On this side of the House we do. That’s why we on this side of the House support the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

J. Kwan: It’s my pleasure to rise to enter into the debate on Bill 2, Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

I just heard the Minister of Health and his comments, and I can’t help but to make some comments about what he just said. What I did hear him say was that…. He actually did acknowledge somewhere in that rant that global greenhouse gases are a challenge. He actually did acknowledge that. I think it’s particularly important.

I wonder whether or not he will actually share that information with one of his colleagues, the member for Chilliwack-Hope, who just yesterday said on the public record…. He actually said that while he would not call himself a denier…. This is, of course, a global warming denier. He does not refer to himself as that. Then he goes on to actually suggest that “the science is not yet settled.” That’s the comment on the public record. I find that particularly interesting, because you actually don’t have to look very far to know that global warming is impacting British Columbia right here, right now.

Right now we have a challenge, as the members know, with the pine beetle epidemic. This has gone on for some time. Part of the problem with the pine beetle epidemic is that of global warming. The reality is that the winters are not cold enough and that it’s not killing off the bugs. As a result of that, it’s impacting our resource industry directly, right here in British Columbia.
[ Page 5012 ]

To pretend that this is not happening…. I suppose some members can do that, can choose to actually be the ostrich and stick your head in the sand and pretend that “I don’t see the evil” and “I don’t hear the evil” and that it doesn’t actually exist.

Sadly, for us, it does exist. It impacts each and every one of us not just today but for generations to come. That’s the reality.

The members and the government touted for months now the highly anticipated legislation around LNG, on the taxation scheme, and right now we’re debating Bill 2, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

The Premier goes on the record. The Minister of Environment goes on the record. The Minister of Natural Gas goes on the record to talk about…. They brag about how British Columbia is going to deliver the cleanest-ever LNG facilities in British Columbia.

When you dissect those words, you figure out exactly what it means. When you look at this bill, it’s 40 pages. It feels substantive when you hold it up. But when you look carefully, clause by clause, definition by definition, you figure out what the government is actually talking about, and you actually catch them out in their pattern of behaviour, which is this continual pattern of saying one thing and then just simply turning around and doing whatever the heck they damn well want.

[1745]

Bill 2 sets out the greenhouse gas, GHG, emission intensity benchmark for LNG facilities, and the Liberal government says that this act ensures that we have the lowest-ever LNG facility in the world in terms of GHG emissions.

Interestingly, here’s the catch. When you talk about facilities, literally in this act it defines what the facility is. In this act under definitions, you don’t even have to go very far. On page 4, facility is defined as: “all buildings, structures, stationary items and equipment that (i) are located or used primarily on a single site, contiguous sites or adjacent sites, (ii) are controlled and directed by the same person, and (iii) function as a single integrated site.”

The point I want to make…. I’m not the only one who caught it. In fact, the public, who is reviewing what the government is doing — they are examining what’s going on. There’s an article that was posted on the website that I searched and found. It’s from McCarthy Tétrault, so it’s not a disreputable organization that came up with this. There was analysis done by Paul Cassidy and Selina Lee-Andersen, and it was posted. Let me just quote.

“The 0.16 benchmark, which will cover all facility GHG emissions — including combustion, electricity generation, venting and fugitives — from the point when gas enters a facility to where it is loaded onto a ship or railcar to go to market. Under Bill 2 a ‘facility’ is defined as including ‘all buildings, structures, stationary items and equipment that (i) are located or used primarily on a single site, contiguous sites or adjacent sites, (ii) are controlled…by the same person, and (iii) function as a single integrated site.’

“This means that gas-fired generation owned by another party and supplied to an LNG plant would not fall within the definition of a ‘facility,’ nor would the regime capture emissions from upstream activities.”

It’s one thing for the government to say that gee, this is going to be the cleanest LNG industry ever in the history of human life, when the reality, the limitations of what the government has put in is quite astounding. It’s not just limiting it to facilities. It’s a facility owned by the same person.

In other words, as has been identified by Paul Cassidy and Selina Lee-Andersen…. They correctly cite that if the facility or the components delivered towards the industry is owned by another organization, that actually does not count towards the emissions.

I don’t know. That’s only just one element of this, but it doesn’t actually stop there. It doesn’t actually stop there in terms of the weaselly ways in which one can give out in actually ensuring that the markers and the benchmarks are comprehensive and true to its intent when you say you want to deliver the cleanest LNG industry here in British Columbia.

Let’s measure what the government claims, what they like to say versus what is reality. The government says the benchmark is 0.16 carbon dioxide equivalent per tonne of LNG produced. Now, we have to actually understand that what the government is talking about is that the emissions only count from the point when the gas enters into a facility where it is loaded onto a ship or a railcar to go to market.

What they don’t tell you is that the GHG intensity benchmark does not apply to any upstream emissions — for example, extraction, upstream combustion, flaring, fugitives, venting, pipelines. None of those things count in Bill 2 here.

[1750]

According to the Pembina Institute, upstream emissions account for approximately — wait for this, yeah — 70 percent of the GHG emissions in the LNG life cycle, and that’s not actually covered by legislation.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: Maybe the Minister of Technology will have something to say about that.

When you don’t count 70 percent of the life cycle of the LNG industry towards the emissions, which is supposed to ensure that British Columbia has the cleanest-ever LNG industry in the entire universe, how’s that going? How do you not count 70 percent of the emissions towards this supposed claim of the cleanest LNG delivery here in British Columbia? I find that astounding that the government can actually stand up with a straight face and say that. I do. I just…. Are you kidding me?

Let’s just break it down for a minute to see what exactly this does mean. Carbon pollution is released all along the LNG supply chain. We all know that. Every one of us
[ Page 5013 ]
knows that. From the point where the shale gas is extracted to the point where it is burned for electricity or loaded for transportation: this is what people — scientists, people in the industry, not just me — call the GHG life cycle.

Now, in the B.C. LNG context, life-cycle GHGs include every point from the wellhead extraction to the waterline, the point where LNG leaves the province for export on the tanker. That is a true account of the process, and I don’t think any member from the other side, the government side, could dispute that.

The Pembina Institute provided a breakdown of the sources of the GHGs from LNG throughout the life cycle. It identifies that 30 percent of the GHGs come from LNG terminals and 70 percent from upstream sources, 9 percent from pipelines, 61 percent from extracting and processing shale gas.

The 61 percent of those GHGs from extracting and processing breaks down as follows: upstream combustion and flaring, approximately 40 percent; upstream methane, approximately 10 percent; upstream formation carbon dioxide, just over 10 percent. Based on Bill 2, the only portion that’s covered by Bill 2’s intensity benchmark is the 30 percent from the LNG terminals. That is the only percentage which it covers.

The further analysis by the Pembina Institute, based on 24 million tonnes of LNG exported per year, which is just over half of B.C.’s targeted volume, estimates the life-cycle emissions would be approximately 83.2 million tons. That’s 16.5 million tonnes from extracting and processing natural gas to supply LNG plants, 1.3 million tonnes from transporting natural gas to LNG plants, 3.4 million tonnes from operating the LNG plants and 62 million tonnes from burning B.C.’s LNG. This 24-million-tonne figure is equivalent to the initial phases of the Petronas and Shell LNG proposals.

The facts tell you something very different than what the government claims. The truth of the matter is Bill 2 does not ensure that British Columbia will have the cleanest LNG industry ever in the entire universe. It simply is not true.

Without additional policy or regulations, a standard B.C. plant will produce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 0.96 tonnes of carbon, of LNG produced. One tonne of fuel produced is roughly one tonne of carbon production. This is actually three times higher than the leading facilities in Norway and Austria, as has been reported by Clean Energy Canada.

[1755]

I’m not making this stuff up. People who know what they are talking about researched this material. We went and looked into this matter, when the bill was brought to the floor, to find this information.

For the government to claim, to tout, to suggest that somehow they’re going to deliver with Bill 2 the cleanest LNG industry ever, is just simply not true. But I guess in the Liberal world it is, because that’s what they do. That is their pattern of behaviour. Time and again and again — not on just this issue, but on pretty well every other issue — they will say one thing and then turn right around and just do pretty well the opposite.

They never actually deliver on what they say they will do, and here we are again on the biggest campaign promise that the Premier ran on in the last election. Here we are again, failed yet another mark, because basically, her word is not even worth the paper that it is printed on.

The future of British Columbia is too important. It’s too important for the government to play these kinds of games. The natural resource, the fact is, belongs to each and every one of us. We are supposed to be the stewards of our natural resource. We are so lucky to live in British Columbia and have such wealth that has been gifted to us. We should value that — how we utilize that resource, how we treasure that resource to generate economic activities to ensure that those things that we value, that we enjoy today, are going to be passed on to future generations.

British Columbians want the LNG industry to succeed. We want the LNG industry to succeed, but a successful LNG industry means honesty in its measurements. It means actually saying what you will do and doing what you will say.

For us on this side of the House, what we want to see are guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians. What we want to see is a fair return for our resources, for all British Columbians to enjoy the benefit of our resources. What we want to see is benefits for the first people of this land, the very people who have shared their lands with us. We want respect for the First Nations community.

What we, of course, want to see is protection of our air, our land and our water, including living up to climate commitments, the very commitments that the Liberal government themselves touted and bragged about, which they now have so conveniently just forgotten about — what those commitments are. It does not mean say one thing and then do another, as the current Premier is so prone to do.

Bill 2 provides LNG proponents with what the government calls “flexibility,” the pretend GHG intensity benchmark of 0.16 carbon dioxide equivalent per tonne of LNG produced. What Bill 2 actually does is that it does not require actual GHG reductions. There is no cap on emissions right here in this bill. You look and look and look until your eyeballs are falling out, and you cannot find it. Why? Because it is not there.

It is not a commitment from the government. Instead, they weasel in the words — what they call flexibility. I heard those when the Premier was actually the Minister of Education. Good grief. I won’t go into that, but let me tell you: flexibility meant a lot of things back in those days. Some things, I guess, just never change. Here we are again — flexibility.
[ Page 5014 ]

[1800]

That is to say, if proponents cannot reduce GHG emissions to 0.16 CO₂ equivalent per tonne of LNG produced, they can either (a) invest in B.C.-based offsets at what they call market prices, or (b) contribute to a technology fund at a rate of $25 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent.

In effect, Bill 2 does not actually require LNG proponents to reduce their GHG emissions. It sets a benchmark standard and then gives LNG operators a variety of options to get around that standard with offsets or technology fund contributions. In practice, this means that the government can claim — right? — that B.C. LNG is the cleanest in the world when in reality it actually is not. That is the truth.

Again, it is just talk. It’s just more talk and talk and talk. I guess, maybe for the Premier and for the government, if you say it enough times to yourself, you actually believe it. That’s what I know the government is hoping British Columbians will do, that they don’t actually pay attention to the real things that are happening, on what really is going on. If they hear it enough, they may actually believe that it’s true, when in reality it simply isn’t.

Bill 2 clearly states that companies are not required to actually reduce their carbon footprint. In other words, LNG facilities will not actually be clean. They will be able to purchase offsets and technology fund contributions to meet what I say is the Liberal’s smoke-and-mirrors benchmark. Bill 2 — facilities are permitted to emit as much GHGs as they please so long as they purchase offsets.

Now, when you think about this, what does it mean in terms of the long-term sustainability of this industry for British Columbia? That means they don’t ever have to work towards finding technology to reduce their GHG emissions. As long as their profits can actually just pay and buy off the emission targets, as long as they can just erase that, they don’t have to worry about it at all.

What does that do for the environment in the long term? What does it do for the children and the grandchildren? In this House we hear MLAs all the time get up to introduce their grandchildren. What does that mean for them, in terms of the environment, for their grandchildren? That is the question that we should all ask of ourselves.

Aren’t we tasked here to look at that issue as well? Don’t we actually look and debate these matters with that forward, long view in terms of how policies and decisions will impact future generations? Based on the acts of this government and based on Bill 2, I’ve got to tell you, I think not.

The Liberals, of course, want you to believe that they have incentives in place, according to Bill 2, that they are putting in incentives to ensure that the industry comes to play and that they will deliver the cleanest LNG industry ever in B.C., when, in fact, it doesn’t.

Then, to top it off, aside from all of those loopholes, those weaselly clauses that let all of these things happen to not deliver a clean LNG industry in B.C., the government actually, in Bill 2, makes available a large subsidy for the LNG companies when they perform between 0.23 and 0.16 GHG intensity. The government labels this as an incentive when it amounts, frankly, to a subsidy.

To quote economist Marc Lee, this is what he had to say about this.

“The government will subsidize the GHG penalty, as much as 100 percent of it for plants with emissions just over the standard, say 0.17 tonnes, dropping on a sliding scale to 50 percent of the penalty for plants at 0.23. Above that, there’s no subsidy.

[1805]

“What does this mean in terms of numbers? A ten-million-tonne LNG plant at 0.23 intensity would have to contribute $17.5 million to the tech fund, but half of that would be paid for by the government. By comparison, the profits to the company for exports to Asia would be just shy of $2 billion…. The post-subsidy hits to the company would be less than half of 1 percent of total profits. At 0.19 intensity, the subsidy ramps up, and the hit to the profits would be about 1/10 of 1 percent.”

That’s what it means. That’s why the government actually put in this clause — to allow for the buyout if they were to exceed the benchmark, and a false benchmark at that. Even at this pretend benchmark with all those loopholes embedded within it, there is still a buyout clause. That’s what Bill 2 says here in this document.

Now, when you think about the offsets, I can’t help but go back and look at how the Liberal government’s record has been on offsets. Let’s just think for a minute about the government’s failed and much criticized and now scrapped Pacific Carbon Trust.

The Liberal government was forced to scrap the Pacific Carbon Trust after a scathing report by the provincial Auditor General, which found that the government’s agencies were in fact buying offsets from the trust at a cost more than double the amount on the open market. Only B.C. Liberals would do that, actually. How is that for a deal? Then it found that the trust was purchasing carbon credits from projects that were in fact not eligible. How is that for a practice for the government?

Now, I didn’t make this up. This is actually what the Auditor General found to be the practice. Here we are with a major, major, major industry, with a bill where the government gives exactly those offset opportunities. There’s no information in this bill whatsoever, really, to tell you how that would be implemented and to ensure that we don’t actually have the kinds of problems that the Liberals had with the Pacific Carbon Trust.

Now, Clean Energy Canada pointed out that Bill 2 on its own, basically, won’t result in the cleanest LNG in the world. So it’s not just the opposition who is saying that. People who spend their lives on this issue and who are very concerned about it and knowledgable about it are saying it — that the LNG production “releases carbon pollution all the way down the chain of production from wellhead to waterline” and that this legislation frankly “only addresses the last link in that chain, the port facility where companies would chill the gas to load it aboard
[ Page 5015 ]
ships. It also allows the company to buy credits rather than actually build cleaner terminals.”

Imagine if Bill 2 actually had requirements for the industry to build those terminals that are in fact clean so that the government could make good on what they claim. Just imagine that for a moment — unfathomable here in this Legislature with the Liberal government at the helm.

Clean Energy Canada continues to say: “It will take continued and strengthened leadership from both government and the industry before government can credibly tout the cleanest LNG in the world.”

This is what we’ve got to drive for. That’s what will make the LNG industry a success. But government can actually make these changes, and we will have that opportunity as we embark into debate, into third reading. I am sure there will be amendments that will be tabled. I ask the members to rethink their strategy and their approach so that they can make good. I urge them to make good on their words of what they claim.

[1810]

When they do that, it will build confidence for British Columbians, for governments of any stripe to deliver on what they claim. Maybe, just maybe, the participation rate for elections from the community won’t be so low when we actually do just that.

There are many, many other pieces that I want to turn to, but I do see that the green light is now on, which is telling me that my time is running out. I will just simply close with this.

This bill, some 25 percent of the bill, allows the government to change various regulations at a later date — no doubt probably on a Friday, late afternoon, before a long weekend, so hoping that nobody would notice the already watered-down provisions that are here in this bill. I mean, I’ve been here for a long time. I have not seen a bill with this many loopholes that will allow the government to put a lie to the claims that they make.

D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to rise today to speak to this legislation and represent the constituents of Vancouver–Point Grey.

I have to say that when I was planning on speaking to this bill, I didn’t think that I would spending some of my time trying to convince members of this House of the reality of climate change and why this legislation needs to be stronger than it is. Unfortunately, I will have to spend some of that time in light of the remarks made by the member for Chilliwack-Hope as the first government speaker on this — the only speaker, actually, until the Minister of Health was moved to speak this afternoon.

I think the government sends a strong message when the first speaker to the bill says that he is not convinced that human-created climate change is a real thing. The message that is sent is: “This bill doesn’t really matter, necessarily, because we’re not even sure that this climate change thing is real.”

I think we do need to address that argument head-on because this bill is very important. I bring to this House some of those comments to express the importance of getting this bill right. He said: “…I want to explain my support of this bill, which combats global warming, particularly when I’m not naturally inclined to believe in the science of global warming.”

NASA. Rocket scientists. You know, they are saying: “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out.” We generally understand rocket scientists to be pretty sharp people. NASA, on their website, says: “Consensus: 97 percent of climate scientists agree.” The article says: “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities…”

Interjections.

D. Eby: Oh, we’ve got two. We have two climate deniers. Okay.

“…and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.” These are rocket scientists. Maybe that will help convince the member for Chilliwack-Hope that human-caused climate change is a real thing.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

He continued to say:

“The very use of language like ‘skepticism’ and ‘belief’ and ‘denial’ and ‘agnosticism,’ which are widely used around the world, to me is telling. These are words that we use of faith matters rather than settled issues of science.”

It suggests to him that the science is not yet settled.

“After all, we don’t really discuss or argue about whether one plus one makes two or whether water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. Those kinds of things are beyond debate. But this, obviously, is not beyond debate.

“I think what makes me skeptical about the global warming debate is the passion, the rhetoric, the political pressure, the repression of opposing viewpoints, the accusations and condemnations and apocalyptic pronouncements that seem, to me, to substitute for hard scientific reality. I don’t like to give in to that kind of thing.”

Maybe this will convince the member for Chilliwack-Hope if he’s not keen on understanding that humans are causing climate change. Ten of the warmest years on this planet measured “have all occurred since 1995, and seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.”

[1815]

The average global temperature “has risen by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, 0.8 degrees Celsius.” And 2010 “was the hottest on record, tied with 2005.” We’re observing sea level rise, ocean acidification and weather that damages our cities.

The member for Chilliwack-Hope should call an insurance company. He should ask that insurance company how they’re preparing for extreme weather events, which
[ Page 5016 ]
are happening more frequently as a result of human-caused climate change. When money is on the line, the insurance companies are preparing for climate change. I’m not sure why the member for Chilliwack-Hope still resists this consensus.

The member for Chilliwack-Hope, if you can imagine, went into a so-called scandal from many years ago called Climategate. He said:

“A few years ago there was a scandal involving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2009 and again in 2011 there were hundreds of thousands of e-mails and other documents that were hacked from a server in East Anglia, in England. They were made public, and they seemed to show that senior scientists who influence public policy on a global scale were pushing the bounds of scientific evidence and politicizing that issue.”

The U.K. government looked into this so-called scandal and concluded that there was absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing in that scandal. The member read the headline on the Sun News website and then concluded that that was the end of the story. He should have googled the U.K. government’s investigation of the so-called Climategate, and then he would know that there was no scandal, and in fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is entirely complete in its integrity.

The last piece. This is a very important to address from the member for Chilliwack-Hope, the lead government speaker on this bill, who came to the House to convince us that climate change is not as urgent as people believe and that we should be very skeptical that it actually is human caused.

He said: “What gives me pause about the science of global warming is the ongoing debate within the scientific community itself. For example, the latest news at the end of September was from two scientists from Alabama who compiled NASA satellite data to conclude that the earth’s temperature hasn’t increased for the last 18 years. That, to me, is a problem for global warming.”

By that, I can only take that he understands that to be a problem for the 97 percent of climate scientists who agree that human-caused climate change is a real thing.

I have to thank NASA again. They’re not having a great day today. I’m sorry to hear that the launch did not go well for the international space station. I hope they deal with that quickly. But I can tell you….

Interjection.

D. Eby: The members are also opposed to space exploration. That’s interesting. We’re moving backwards very rapidly on the other side of the House.

NASA has also kindly provided on their website a link to the California Office of Planning and Research — a list of organizations from around the world that hold the position that “climate change has been caused by human action.”

The science academies in Chile, Portugal, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Guatemala, Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Senegal, France; the Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Mozambique, South Africa; the developing world — Malaysia; Moldova, Czech Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Egypt, New Zealand, Italy, Albania.

This is just the beginning of the list. I think it is important to recognize that if the member for Chilliwack-Hope had a party with the scientists who are climate deniers, it would be a much smaller party than the party of worldwide scientific organizations that recognize that climate change is real.

The Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Medical Association, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, California, Cameroon.

In Canada alone: the Canadian Association of Physicists, the Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the Geophysical Union, the Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Society of Soil Science, the zoologists; the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

That’s page 1.

Interjection.

D. Eby: I hear the Minister of Technology suggesting that this is a filibuster. The lead speaker for the government had the nerve to stand in this House and say that human-caused climate change was in debate in the scientific community — can you imagine that? — as he introduced a bill that ostensibly shows this government cares about climate change. He was the person the government chose as their lead speaker.

[1820]

This is not a filibuster. This is to show how absolutely absurd that position is.

The Croatians, the EPA in the United States, the Geological Society of America, the Geological Society of Australia, the Geological Society of London, Ghana, the Indian National Science Academy, the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, the Kenyans, the Koreans, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, for crying out loud — yet the member for Chilliwack-Hope is not there yet.

The National Academy of Sciences in Sri Lanka.

Oh, NASA. Now, the member for Chilliwack-Hope has two scientists from Alabama, who compiled NASA’s satellite data. The people who own those satellites, who put them into space… NASA agrees that humans cause climate change, but not the member for Chilliwack-Hope.

The Nicaraguans, the Pakistan Academy of Sciences, the Polish Academy of Sciences, the Romanian Academy, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, the Royal Scientific Society of Jordan, the Swedish Academy of Sciences, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan.

We are rapidly approaching a scientific consensus here, yet we can’t get consensus on the other side of the House
[ Page 5017 ]
that climate change is real and human-caused. Can you imagine?

Interjection.

D. Eby: I hear the Minister of Health say: “Baloney.” But his colleague the member for Chilliwack-Hope stood in this House as the first government speaker on this bill, and he said — and I read the quote — that he’s not naturally inclined to believe in the science of global warming, and that there is “a problem” for the science of global warming.

Interjections.

D. Eby: Absolutely. I hear that he has a right to his opinion. But he was the lead speaker for the government side on not just any issue, but what the government has listed as their most important initiative — the natural gas initiative. He was the lead speaker.

Interjections.

D. Eby: Oh, I see. I will correct myself, because the members on the other side are absolutely right. The minister introduced the bill. He was the first speaker who was not a member of cabinet. Thank you.

The Sudanese, the Tanzanians, the Turkish Academy of Sciences, the Uganda National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, the Zambia Academy of Sciences and the Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences.

From A to Z, a list of worldwide scientific organizations that all disagree with the member for Chilliwack-Hope.

Interjections.

D. Eby: What about Jim Morrison? I don’t even understand that. The members are making less and less sense, on the other side of the House, as we progress through this bill.

Interjections.

D. Eby: There are a number of classic rock fans on the other side of the House, but the only fossil is the member for Chilliwack-Hope.

You’ve heard a number of my colleagues stand to raise a number of issues with this government legislation, not the least of which is that they apparently don’t take it that seriously because they’re not that sure about human-caused climate change.

Interjection.

D. Eby: I will get there. I’ve got to find my notes. That’s very reasonable, to the Minister of Technology.

This civil House — we will get there. Residents of B.C., we will get there.

Interjection.

D. Eby: Am I noting the hour? I can’t even get…. Hon. Speaker, in my quest to ensure that every B.C. Liberal believes in climate change, we will get there, but maybe not today. I’m noting the hour, and I do seek to reserve my place to continue this debate.

D. Eby moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. T. Lake: Madame Speaker, firstly, I reserve my right to raise a point of privilege, and I now move the House adjourn.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada