The BC NDP government released the 2017 greenhouse gas emissions data today. To no one’s surprise, BC’s 2017 GHG emissions increased by 1.2% from 2016 to 2017 to a total 64.5 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e), or roughly 13.1t CO2e per capita. Leading the way was a year-over-year 29% increase in emissions from natural gas flaring. Of course, this too is unsurprising as there is a glut of natural gas in the market and the predominant value from the drilling activity in the northeastern BC’s Montney Formation is in the liquids. A significant fraction of these liquids are shipped to Alberta where they are mixed with bitumen to form dilbit, the less viscous substance that can flow through pipelines. The gas, for which there is no market (and for which we have slashed royalty payments to the province and so literally give away), can be pumped back underground or burnt on site (flaring). And all of these activities are subsidized by the BC taxpayer to the tune of billions of dollars.

As I’ve outlined numerous times over the years on this blog site, with BC’s expansion into LNG, I do not believe the BC NDP government will be able to deliver a plan that will cut GHG emissions to 40% below 2007 levels by 2030. The premier claims that he will. I remain unconvinced.

Nevertheless, I remain very supportive of the CleanBC economic plan, which the BC Greens played an integral role in developing. However, I fear that it may be all for naught. As you will see in the above graph, the trend in emissions from the natural gas sector is on the rise, even without a single LNG facility in place. The trend in emissions from residential buildings is on the decline as we would hope.

Do we believe that it is fair for British Columbians to be burdened with the requirements and cost of reducing GHG emissions while we continue to offer subsidies and corporate welfare to the oil and gas sector? I think not for we have to work even harder as individuals to curb our emissions to account for the continued growth of emissions in the oil and gas sector.

Below I reproduce the media statement that I issued in response to government’s release of these new greenhouse gas emissions data.

Media Release

BC’s greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb
For immediate release
September 9, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – At a time when citizens are calling on their governments to ambitiously decarbonize – and every international panel has stated doing so is the only way to meet our agreed upon international climate targets- the provincial government’s recently released greenhouse gas data  shows that BC, as of 2017, has failed to correct its emissions trajectory.

The data released today show total emissions in British Columbia increased 1.2 per cent from 2016 to 2017 to a total 64.5 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e), roughly 13.1t CO2e per capita. Emissions are now back up to 2007 levels when 64.8 Mt of CO2e was emitted, despite the BC NDP government last year committing to reduce emissions by 40% from this amount by the year 2030.

“We designed the CleanBC economic plan to start to tackle this challenge. Now that it is being implemented I expect we’ll start to see some slight emissions reductions, but it is clear we have a long way to go and we need to remain diligent in our commitment to our reduction targets,” said Dr. Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Greens. “The timing of the release of these new emissions numbers is also particularly ironic as it comes on the heels of British Columbia announcing it’s sending a delegation to Japan to tout the potential export of highly subsidized LNG. As I’ve identified numerous times in the past, we cannot expand investment in the fossil fuel sector and hope to reduce our domestic emissions to promised levels.”

“British Columbians say they want to fight climate change. Looking at this data, they should be enraged that the lack of regulations in the oil and gas sectors means their footprint is two to three times larger than that of the average person living in the UK, Norway, New Zealand, Denmark and Sweden. The average British Columbia emits about 29 times the CO2e compared to an average citizen in Bangladesh.

“Our individual carbon footprint per British Columbian barely come in under our neighbours to the south, by a measly 12%. These numbers show us that we are not the concerned environmental stewards that we think we are, and it is because we have had governments that fail to regulate industry and fail to implement a vision for a new, green economy rooted in sustainable practices.”

This summer, government released its strategic climate risk assessment for British Columbia . Analyzing the climate risks likely to face British Columbia between 2040 and 2059, the report stated:

“British Columbia is already experiencing the effects of global climate change: average temperatures are increasing, sea levels are rising, and variable and extreme weather is becoming more frequent. Scientists expect these changes to accelerate and intensify in the years ahead, creating risks to society, natural resources, and ecosystems.”

British Columbia is contributing to global emissions rising when they need to be falling dramatically. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has repeatedly reported that carbon pollution needs to be cut by 45 percent by 2030 if we are to stay below 1.5C warming, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen climate change impacts and drag hundreds of millions of people into poverty.

“Now is not the time to protect the status quo or invest billions in expanding the oil and gas sector,” Weaver said.  “Now is the time to rise to the challenge before us. Climate change is an immense risk if we don’t do anything about it. But it is also an incredible opportunity if we act. We can- and must- build cleaner and healthier communities and vibrant, resilient, sustainable economies.”

CleanBC was developed in collaboration with the BC NDP government and supports the commitment in the Confidence and Supply Agreement to implement climate action to meet B.C.’s emission targets.

Quick Facts

In 2016, the most recent global data available from the International Energy Agency, the United Kingdom’s per capita emissions were 5.65t CO2e, New Zealand’s were 6.45t CO2e, Norway’s were 6.78t CO2e, Denmark’s were 5.84t CO2e and Sweden’s were 3.83t CO2e. For comparison, per capita emissions in Bangladesh were 0.45t CO2e and in the United States were 14.95t CO2e.

This puts the average British Columbian’s carbon footprint 2.3, 2.0,1.9, 2.2 and 3.4 times larger than that of the average person living in the UK, Norway, New Zealand, Denmark and Sweden, respectively.

-30-

Media contact
Macon L.C.  McGinley, Press Secretary
B.C. Green Caucus
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Today I had the distinct honour of giving a keynote presentation at the 2019 Spring Conference of Clean Energy BC whose theme was Powering Generations: Legacy to the Future. After the presentation we toured the Teck smelter in Trail to explore innovation in the mining sector first hand.

Below I reproduce the text and slides of my speech.

Text and Slides of Speech

It’s a distinct honour for me to be invited to address you, the delegates to Clean Energy BC’s Spring Conference: Powering Generations: Legacy to the future.

Over these past 25 years Clean Energy B.C. has been the voice of British Columbia’s Clean Energy sector and I am sincerely grateful for your ongoing contributions to our province.

The BC Green Party and I share your goal to support the growth of British Columbia’s clean energy sector and we will continue to do what we can to improve the regulatory and economic environments for clean energy production through our work in the B.C. legislature.

Since first getting elected in 2013, I’ve watched growing uncertainty emerge in British Columbia’s clean energy sector. I’ve watched the Canadian Wind Energy Association pull out of BC. I’ve watched BC Hydro’s standing offer program grind to a halt.

I’ve witnessed the release of a poorly researched report to justify government’s ideological position on independent power producers. And I’ve watched a growing sense of overall frustration emerge as your sector struggles to remain viable.

Of course, as we all know, government’s decision to proceed with the construction of the Site C hydroelectric project was both unnecessary and fiscally-foolish.

It has undermined the investments many of you made in clean energy here in BC. And it puts the ratepayer on the hook for inevitable cost overruns down the road.

But we are where we are and for me, it’s important to look ahead.

I entered politics via an unusual route. By now, most of you know that prior to my election as the MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head (and subsequently becoming leader of the B.C. Green Party), I was Lansdowne Professor and Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and analysis at the University of Victoria.

I’d served as a Lead Author on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th scientific assessments. I was Chief Editor of the Journal of Climate and I had the honour of participating as a member of BC’s first Climate Action Team set up in 2007 under Gordon Campbell’s leadership.

The year 2007 was a remarkable period in British Columbia’s history with respect to the development of climate policy. It was also a particularly noteworthy time for me.

I’d been publishing papers in the field of climate science for more than two decades, all the while listening to political leaders around the world talk about the importance of dealing with global warming while concomitantly doing virtually nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and offering staggering subsidies to the fossil fuel sector.

But in 2007 in British Columbia I finally saw a government take the matter seriously and recognize the challenge of global warming for what it was: an economic opportunity for innovation like never before. Gordon Campbell recognized that early leadership would pay off and that all eyes in the world would be turned to BC in 2010 when we hosted the Winter Olympics.

On November 20, 2007 the Honourable Barry Penner, Minister of Environment, introduced the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which put into law British Columbia’s 2020 reduction target of 33% and a new 2050 reduction target of 80% relative to 2007 levels.

The act also required carbon neutrality for the public sector, including universities, schools, hospitals, Crown corporations, and the government by 2010. And over the next several years as government rolled out its policy measures, BC head off on a path to meet its legislated targets.

But all of our successes started to unravel shortly after British Columbia’s provincial leadership changed in 2010. In fact, every year since the 2011 change of leadership, emissions have gone up.

Why? Because of the signal government sent to the market that our emissions reductions targets no longer mattered — that economic prosperity would be found in industries from the last century, and that they would help take us back there.

It happened almost immediately after the leadership of the BC Liberals changed. In fact, I remember participating with Judith Sayers, Paul Kariya and Graham Horn (from Innergex) at a press conference hosted by Clean Energy BC in September 2011 where we pleaded with government to stick with its plan to become self-sufficient in clean energy.

In 2012, knowing that scientists had done their job in defining the problem and that it was up to politicians to do theirs if we are to deal with the challenge of global warming — and they are not — I accepted an invitation to run as a candidate representing the BC Green party. I could no longer sit on the sidelines as the legacy of Mr. Campbell’s climate leadership was dismantled.

The BC Liberals under Christy Clark had stifled clean innovation and introduced policies that further entrenched “dig-it and ship-it” oil and gas development.

And were the BC Greens not holding the balance of power in a minor government, I fear that the BC NDP would be no different (as witnessed by the outrageous giveaway involved in their proposed further subsidies to the LNG industry).

When the market no longer supported these activities, successive governments doubled done by creating more and more subsidies in a desperate attempt to squeeze water from a stone.

I often reflect back on the spring of 2017 when my colleagues and I were locked in negotiations with both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals as we hashed out the foundations of a confidence and supply deal. I reflect back to remind me of why I got into politics and why we ended up supporting a BC NDP minority government.

Climate scientists had done their job in defining the problem and that it was up to politicians to do theirs if we are to deal with the challenge of global warming. Only the BC NDP appeared serious in its desire to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

And so the seeds were planted for what would end up becoming CleanBC.

CASA – our confidence and supply agreement – underpins B.C.’s minority government. It is an agreement to work in good faith, with no surprises, with the B.C. NDP.

        CASA has provided the B.C. Green caucus with an opportunity to champion key aspects of our economic platform, and the ability to work in partnership with government on our priority issues like climate policy.

From our perspective, of course, these two files are one and the same.

Two key elements of our 21st century economy platform were embedded in the CASA agreement to help us identify and hence seize economic opportunities in the emerging economy.

The first was the Emerging Economy Task Force set up to advise government on how to respond and adapt to emerging economic challenges and opportunities. Government needs modernizing so that it is considerably more responsive to technological innovation.

The Emerging Economy Task Force looks to the future, identifying emerging trends and advising government on how to maintain our competitiveness and achieve prosperity amidst these changes.

The second element from our platform integrated into CASA was the Innovation Commission (now Innovate B.C.) as well as the appointment of an Innovation Commissioner.

The innovation commissioner serves as an advocate and ambassador for the B.C. technology sector in Ottawa and abroad, to enable B.C. companies to more easily tap into existing federal programs and build key strategic relationships internationally.

I’m confident that both of these initiatives will continue to bolster and grow key sectors of our economy.

But of course, the most important words in CASA from my perspective are:

“Implement a climate action strategy to meet our targets”

which is why we pushed government to legislate these in the spring of last year:

GHG emissions are to be reduced by at least 40 per cent below 2007 levels by 2030, 60 per cent by 2040, and 80 per cent by 2050.

Targets without a plan to meet them are not worth the paper they are written on. Canadian political history is littered with a legacy of missed targets. And that’s why we turned our attention to delivering a pathway to reach these targets.

A meaningful climate plan requires careful planning, innovative ideas, and a new economic vision for how B.C. will prosper in a changing and challenging world.

If we are to meet our legislated targets — we will be doing so with clean energy — likely following the lead of people in this room.

In that regard, B.C. is setup to succeed. From our access to cheap, renewable energy, to our educated workforce, to our innovative business community, to the quality of life we can offer here, together with British Columbia’s natural beauty, we have an opportunity to develop our Province into one of the most prosperous jurisdictions in the world.

Our challenges are too big, and the consequences too profound, to ignore this opportunity.

We stand to gain by building on the expertise that our neighbours have already developed in these areas. And yet, there is still so much room to grow in this sector, to improve upon current technologies and policy innovations.

The approval Site C was a terribly disappointing decision for me because I believe small-scale, distributed energy projects are the way of the future for B.C. and that we should fundamentally change the mandate of B.C. Hydro.

B.C. Hydro should no longer be the builder of new power capacity.

Rather, it should be the broker of power deals, transmitter of electricity, and leveller of power load through improving British Columbia power storage capacity.

Let industry risk their capital, not taxpayer capital, and let the market respond to demands for cheap power.

We need to optimize support for clean energy development, including grid storage for community or privately generated power and work with neighbouring jurisdictions to expedite the phase out of fossil fuel powered electricity generation.

The future of economic prosperity in B.C. lies in harnessing our innate potential for innovation and bringing new, more efficient technologies to bear in the resource sector.

B.C. will never compete in digging dirt out of the ground with jurisdictions that don’t internalize the same social and environmental externalities that we value.

We will excel through being smarter, more efficient, cleaner and by working together to solve our problems.

This means that we not only export the dirt, but we also export the knowledge, technology and value added products associated with resource extraction.

To get a fair value for our resources that deliver maximum benefits to our communities, we need to get smarter and more strategic when it comes to embracing innovation.

Government should be doing more to support these initiatives and create fertile ground for a sustainable, resilient, and diverse economy.

We should be using our boundless renewable energy resources to attract industry, including the manufacturing sector, that wants to brand itself as sustainable over its entire business cycle, just like Washington and Oregon have done.

We should be setting up seed funding mechanisms to allow the B.C.-based creative economy sector to leverage venture capital from other jurisdictions to our province.

By steadily increasing emissions pricing, we can send a signal to the market that incentivizes innovation and the transition to a low carbon economy.

The funding could be transferred to municipalities across the province so that they might have the resources to deal with their aging infrastructure and growing transportation barriers.

Yes, we should be investing in trade skills, as described, for example, under a B.C. jobs plan.

But we should also be investing further in education for 21st century industries like biotech, high tech and cleantech. It’s critical that we bring the typically urban-based tech and rural-based resource sectors together.

Similarly natural gas has an important role to play, but we should use it to use in our domestic market and explore options around using it to power local transport.

Global investment trends are being driven by the world’s shared Paris commitments, predicated on the fact that keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius is far more cost-effective than dealing with the effects of a temperature rise above that level.

This shift presents a significant opportunity for B.C.’s economy.

Our province is well poised to bolster its leadership in the cleantech sector – we have a strong competitive advantage in the building blocks required to foster a knowledge-based economy.

For we know responding to the challenge of climate change is both an intergenerational opportunity and an intergenerational responsibility.

CleanBC’s sectoral approach doesn’t simply show a plausible pathway to meeting our targets – rather, it drives a return to the vision of a clean 21st century economy.

We have one of the best public services in the world and for a long time they have had the policies ready to get us there.

What has been missing is political leadership. This minority government must – and will – show that leadership.

I’m hopeful, but still wary of our starting point and the strength of the status quo.

Yet I am truly excited about the prospects that lie ahead for this minority government. We’ve accomplished a remarkable amount already in just two short years.

But there is so much more to do. The years ahead will require all of us to come together to look for areas where we can be partners – to drive the innovation that will enable us to electrify our economy and decarbonize our energy systems. I don’t doubt that many of the emerging solutions we need will in fact come from the people in this room.

The transition to a low carbon economy presents an exciting challenge for the Clean Energy sector. For example, one of the flagship proposals within CleanBC is the aggressive Zero Emission Vehicle which came into law with the passage last week of the Zero Emission Vehicle Act.

This act mandate that zero-emitting vehicle must make up 10% of light-duty vehicle sales by 2025, 30% by 2030, and 100% by 2040. The good news is that in the month of May alone, 15% of all new light-duty vehicle sales were zero-emitting.

With the electrification of the transportation sector and our built environment comes the opportunity for innovation in smart grid systems.

Whether it be interconnecting myriad distributed production, with innovative local storage systems and point to point high voltage DC transmission, or whether it be the design of new electric transportation systems, or whether it be electrification of our natural resource sector, Clean Energy BC has a strong and vibrant future in our province.

And I remain committed to your sector and I ask that you help me help you. I don’t know what I don’t know. I don’t have all the solutions… but, I know that it is not this:

On Wednesday of this week I rose during budget estimate debates for the Office of the Premier to ask a number of questions concerning demand side measures that affect the price of gas. Prior to me rising, the Leader of the Official Opposition had spent a fair amount of time accusing the Premier of somehow causing the recent rise in the price of gas. I was profoundly disappointed by the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition. It appeared to me that he was more interested in trying to score cheap political points and finding gotcha moments than he was in trying to probe the supply and demand side of the price of gas.

When my turn came, I asked a series of questions to understand how the recent increase in the price of gas might have affected transit ridership, active transportation and the purchase or electric vehicles. The answers I received from the Premier were very clear — there has been a great effect.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I’d like to start by saying I think it’s an important anniversary today. I believe it’s the two-year anniversary of the signing of our CASA agreement. With that I would suggest that this has been a rather unique time in the province of British Columbia with a minority government. I would suggest that the Premier would probably agree that the relationship has been fruitful, collaborative, at times challenging, without a doubt, but nevertheless, reaffirming the commitment that we made in CASA to work together.

That doesn’t mean we agree on everything. It means we that have a process to reflect upon our disagreements, and I would just like to canvass a few of the issues here. In particular, I’d like to start off with some of the issues with respect to the gas prices. I was listening with interest to the comments coming from the official opposition. I was somewhat flummoxed by the kind of apparent petro-stumping that I heard, and somewhat concerned that I did not perceive there to be a desire to actually support British Columbia in standing up for British Columbians, as opposed to supporting the gouging that is going on by certain elements.

I noticed that over the last few months, the Premier and this government have come up under fire, frankly, about the rising gas prices, and the official opposition has done what they can to try to distort the issue — frankly, to blame government — appealing to the worst type of populist politics.

I want to start my questioning by asking the Premier: what tools does he have to affect gas prices?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the leader of the Green Party, for his questions and his interventions here today in the budget estimates for the Premier’s office.

Firstly, I’d like to say that we’re trying to find ways to bring down the cost of gasoline by talking to suppliers, finding ways to bring more supply into our region. That means talking…. Again, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, we’re working on a plan that has not come yet to fruition, but I think in the next while, if I give it time, I’ll be held to that. But we’re working hard to try to find a way to increase our ability to affect what’s in the pipeline.

What we’ve been trying to do is work with the federal government, get an acknowledgment from our federal government, who now does own the pipe. Although they can’t dictate what goes into it, they have a bunch of mechanisms at their disposal to help us explain how the price went up so high and what we can do to bring it down in the short term.

But in the long term, the member will know, and he and I are both enthusiastic about this, we’re going to be moving away from gasoline in the first place. We want to see more people in electric vehicles. We’re putting in place, as he knows, incentives to see more people using electric cars. I drive a hybrid. You drive a full electric. We’re building charging stations right across British Columbia. I think we have over 1,500 now, or somewhere in that neighbourhood, right across the province.

We’re putting in place infrastructure to reduce the costs over the long term and also have a better environmental outcome. But that’s not happening today. Sorry, Member. The public expects, rightly so, that we will be doing what we can to do to bring on more supply so that prices can go down, so we can make that transition over a longer period of time.

A. Weaver: I concur. I accept the arguments brought forward by the Premier with respect to the ability to affect what’s in the pipeline. I found compelling the arguments that discuss the fact that in fact, the Trans Mountain was not about enhanced refined capacity. It’s all about increased diluted bitumen.

The Premier has referred to a multitude of things that could happen. One of the things that I have a concern on, and I’m going to frame a question in this regard, is that if we look back historically, virtually every year, as long as I have known, gas prices go up in the spring, and they come back in the fall.

The Premier will remember back in…. I forget. Whenever the Axe the Tax campaign was initiated by a previous government, it was during the summer months, right at the peak price, when there were record prices being set. The kind of rhetoric associated with that campaign kind of fell flat as the fall approached, because the price of gas came down.

My question to the Premier is: does he think it is prudent for a government to have a market intervention along the lines of what the member of the official opposition is stating, in light of the fact that essentially every year, we know that the price of gas goes down as we move out of the summer season, and in fact will fall naturally because of traditional supply and demand arguments and enhanced refining after, basically, the long weekend in September?

Hon. J. Horgan: I agree with the member’s premise, but this year seems to be, without any doubt, anomalous relative to others. That 40 cent increase, when only one penny a litre can be put to the carbon tax that we increased on April 1 — that is unusual. There is always an increase in demand during the travelling season. You and I have talked about that. I agree with you. But it’s never been that large. That’s why, when I asked my deputy minister about the margin question, the refining margin, why it had gone from 2½ cents to 24 cents, what happened there? And we did our best through inquiries to get an answer to that question, but we can’t compel people to testify. The Utilities Commission can, and that’s why we’ve punted the question over to them.

In the meantime, we need to continue to talk about how people can get out of their cars. That means investing in transit, which we’re doing in a big way, not just in the Lower Mainland but right across B.C. It means giving incentives to get off of fossil fuels and on to cleaner energy alternatives for our transportation needs. These are all long-term goals that we have in our plan, that you and I worked on together with the Minister of Environment as part of CleanBC. But for today, when people are looking at their summer season, they’re pretty unhappy about this, and I absolutely feel that and understand it. And we are trying to find ways to have temporary relief through mechanisms that we’ve been working on as well as coordination and cooperation from the federal government.

But you’re absolutely right: these cycles are traditional. And the Leader of the Opposition and his crew are saying that it’s a tax question, among others. That’s not the case. Do we have a significant amount of tax in our gasoline — federal transportation, TransLink and so on? Yes, we do, but that does not explain these wild swings, seasonal swings that you’ve suggested.

A. Weaver: I agree with the Premier. The refining margin in British Columbia seems to be out of whack with the rest of the country. I’m hoping that the B.C. Utilities Commission is able to explore this. I look forward to the results.

But on that note, I noticed that the official opposition was focusing on increasing supply, increasing supply, increasing supply. And at one point, they kind of walked away from that. They started introducing this kind of Marxist logic about introducing a price cap, which was just outrageous coming from a free market party. Unbelievable. I think they’ve walked away from this price cap.

Anyway, my question is on the demand side then. I suspect, knowing that, the last time we had some price hikes and the widespread move towards alternate forms of transportation, which did have a legacy effect…. I’m wondering if the Premier has any statistics about uptakes of electric vehicles, uptakes of transit ridership or uptakes of other modes of active transportation that have arisen as a direct consequence of the rising price of gas, and whether or not this has affected the demand side of the equation and whether or not, in fact, demand is dropping in British Columbia.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m just asking if we can get the uptick in people using transit, because it will be significant. The member is quite right. In times of crisis, people modify their behavior. They do different things. They don’t go, maybe, out to the grocery store every other day. They wait, or they buy larger amounts so they’re not travelling as much.

But I can say, on our incentives to get people into electric vehicles, as you’ll know, we had to increase that budget three times last year, which means that there’s a big demand for people to get out of the lineup for gasoline and a big demand to get into the future, which is electric vehicles. Prices are coming down. They need to come down further so that more people can get into electric vehicles. But people are voting with their feet on this question, taking up the incentives that government is providing. The federal government is now involved as well. This is very good news.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: The transit numbers are coming. Because we’re short of time, perhaps I’ll just make sure that I can get those numbers to you and I can quantify the three increases. I think we had the budget number in February. We increased in September, Minister of Finance? And then again in November.

The money is available, which is unprecedented to have a program that you increase not once but twice during the course of that fiscal year.

A. Weaver: I just want to canvass just a little more on the gas prices. I think it’s important, because we had so much focus on the supply side and, I would argue, not enough focus on the supply side. The numbers I had heard I got from good sources. I’m hoping to confirm. I recognize that it may be a little outside the scope of the Premier’s estimates and be more into Energy and Mines.

I’ve heard that this year, upwards of 10 percent of all new vehicles in British Columbia have been electric, and pushing 15 percent in the last month. Can the Premier confirm these numbers, as to whether I’m in the right ballpark?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member is quite right. We’ve seen a continued increase in demand, and supply is now having challenges. Providers are having longer wait times to get vehicles. Actually, the member for Delta North managed to get his electric vehicle ahead of you. That’s because there is so much demand.

That, of course, means that Detroit — I say Detroit as the amorphous auto sector — is changing their production plans because they see a change in the marketplace. We see that with the incentives that I talked about, and we’ll be able to provide those numbers to you in some detail afterwards. But there has been a steady increase in demand for non–fossil fuel transportation mechanisms, and I think that is all good news for us. That, of course, requires industry to recognize that, and they have. But because of these longer wait times, they realized they have got to build more cars faster.

A. Weaver: The Premier mentioned the member for Delta North, and I am very jealous. The member for Delta North and I both ordered Hyundai Konas. I did about three months beforehand. He got his about one month before, and mine isn’t even here yet. He was able to go to a dealer that actually ordered them proactively instead of reactively. The Premier is quite right. The supply for these vehicles is troubling.

I’m wondering, on the issue of demand again, to what extent the Premier has explored or with his office explored the work that was done, the report that was done on mobility pricing in the greater Vancouver area. I’m wondering if he’s had any thoughts about where government is going in terms of the issue of mobility pricing — whether or not they’re thinking of that in Metro Vancouver or not.

Hon. J. Horgan: Just on the previous question, May is not finished yet, as you know. So 15 percent of the vehicles sold in May were light-duty EVs. That is unprecedented, as the member knows, and speaks well for the future. I think gas prices are a part of that, absolutely. People are saying: “Well, this might be the time to make that leap.”

We’ve been reducing costs for people — reducing medical services premiums, eliminating them; eliminating tolls; reducing fees for child care. But then on the toll question, the reason we eliminated the tolls…. It was just one area, one piece of infrastructure. When other pieces of infrastructure were being built, there was no toll ascribed to them. And the federal government, of course, has a policy that they will not fund infrastructure that has tolling on it. That meant that the Massey project, for example, was solely on the back of the provincial government.

TransLink has established a mobility committee, and they’ve been working diligently, I guess, for quite some time now. They were supposed to report back in the summer of 2019. We look forward to hearing from the region, the densest part of the province, with what their plans are. This is going to be largely an issue to be dealt with by residents in the Lower Mainland. Of course, we need to work with TransLink, with the Mayors Council to make sure that any mobility program that comes forward makes sense to the travelling public and that it is not onerous.

A. Weaver: To explore this a little further, the Premier mentioned the issue of the Massey Tunnel replacement, and he’s referred to this recently. As an issue, of course, we support the Premier in this regard. The bridge was…. I just didn’t quite understand it; twinning of the tunnel was more sensible.

My question to the Premier is this. As government is exploring this option — and I understand they’re doing it through consultation — are they considering active modes of transportation in the Massey Tunnel as well? Right now you can’t really get across that south arm of the Fraser with bikes and walking. I’m wondering if that is in the cards for a Massey Tunnel expansion if it happens.

Hon. J. Horgan: Yes, it is, Member. I was excited last week when I learned that the regional mayors have come to a consensus that they need to work together to address the congestion problem at Massey. Both the member and I are Vancouver Island members, so when we enter into the Lower Mainland, our first introduction to the challenges of transportation is the Massey Tunnel. That’s our way off the island. Get off the ferry, go through the tunnel, and you’re on your way into Metro. So we’re very seized of that.

The Minister of Transportation is working on that. We’ve got a study underway that will include multimodal transportation. We don’t want to just have the same old, same old, but we need to find a way to get it done in a cost-effective manner. The federal government will participate provided there’s no tolling infrastructure. Now, how mobility pricing fits into that, I think, is a discussion for, I would expect, after the federal election in October. We’ll see what the outcome is there.

But we’re very much aware that we can’t just keep building infrastructure to move cars and trucks. I will also say that in Metro, transit use is 437 million boardings in 2018, up 7.1 percent from the year before. Again, that speaks to…. We have a population increase, of course, but more and more people are choosing to use public transit. We have a safe, effective means of moving people around in our metro area. It’s cost-effective. People like it. And more success will breed more success.

A. Weaver: Those are impressive numbers. Actually, 7 percent is far and above any population growth for Metro Vancouver, I would suggest. That’s actually quite good news. I thank the Premier for that.

I know that one of the other issues with respect to…. I believe the government campaigned on this. I know we did as well. It was exploring the ways to deal with the affordability issue and somehow to incentivize zoning or taxation policies to incentivize density around transit hubs. I’m wondering if government has any exploration into this area about tools that they might use at their disposal to incentivize the densification in urban areas around transit hubs, whether or not that’s being considered.

Hon. J. Horgan: We don’t believe that incentives are required, but we do know that coordination is. That’s why, when I formed the executive council, I put the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville in charge of Municipal Affairs, TransLink and Housing, so that we could put all three of those critical areas under one roof so that we could coordinate our transportation links with density, ensuring that municipal governments, local governments, were participating and understood our objectives, and we understood their objectives.

But when we designate a transit line, density will come to that. But the challenge then becomes: are neighbourhoods prepared for that? That’s where the municipal activity takes place.

We’re confident that these things will come together, but we are also looking at property taxes and how that’s affecting small businesses. That’s become very topical in the past number of months, and that’s part and parcel of zoning issues that become…. This is what is possible here. All of a sudden, the value of the land goes to the possible rather than the real. That has a negative impact on business and on people.

I will say, also, people are lining up and looking at me. City of Vancouver, 2017 — 52.8 percent of all trips were made by walking, cycling or transit. That’s up from 48 percent the year before. Again, a 4 percent increase in activity.

People are voting on these questions with their feet, literally — walking, cycling. Finding other ways to move around reduces their carbon impact, reduces their costs. I believe government’s role is to work as best as we can — and you agree with this — to put in place a framework that will work to get people where they want to be. It makes for a better society. It makes for better communities.

On Thursday last week I was up during budget estimate debates to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum resources a series of questions pertaining to BC Hydro, the standing offer program for clean energy, and Site C. As you will see from the exchange (reproduced in text and video below), I was quite frustrated with the lack of substance in the answers I received to the questions I posed.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: A thank-you to the member for Shuswap for his thorough canvassing of the issue of the Zapped report. I’d like to pick up on this a little bit. The member was able to canvass the procurement process, which I was as equally troubled by as the member was. The answers drawn from that were very troubling.

What I’d like to do is come up to some of the comments that are in the report and fill in some additional detail, building on what the member for Shuswap has asked. For example, the report noted that the average surplus per year that B.C. Hydro acquired was “9,500 gigawatt hours of blended energy.” However, the Clean Energy Association of B.C. highlighted that the average surplus that B.C. Hydro recorded was closer to 1,532 gigawatt hours. They base this off the number shown on B.C. Hydro’s website.

My question to the minister is: could the minister confirm that B.C. Hydro actually did acquire, as stated in the report, 9,500 gigawatt hours per year of unneeded energy?

Hon. M. Mungall: Sorry for the length in trying to sort this out, but I just want to make sure that I completely understand what the member is asking and understand the analysis and the expertise those who are sitting with me have to offer.

Basically, what happened was that the way the previous government defined what B.C. Hydro could do in being self-sufficient is what drove what ultimately would be this surplus — B.C. Hydro having to buy power that was surplus to their needs. As I stated earlier for the member’s benefit, shutting Burrard Thermal, saying that only very modest upgrades to existing assets plus Site C were allowed…. That all constrained B.C. Hydro’s ability to meet the demand of its customers throughout the province.

So it forced B.C. Hydro into a position where they had to buy power from private power producers, which therefore created this market for private power producers to develop their generation assets and then sell that power back to B.C. Hydro. As I’ve stated earlier and as Mr. Davidson pointed out in his report, much of that power was expensive and was also coming on line at the wrong time of year — namely, during the spring freshet, when B.C. Hydro just didn’t need it.

A. Weaver: I shake my head every time I get an answer. The minister is saying what the report concludes, but the report assumed the conclusion that it concluded. So it’s kind of circular to suggest that the report is concluding that the surplus required them to go to the IPPs. It’s just circular logic.

I’ll ask another question, then. What is the total surplus energy that is produced in British Columbia each year, on average? Simple question.

Hon. M. Mungall: From year to year, the total that the member is asking about does vary. But we can give him that, on average, it’s 4,000 gigawatt hours per year.

A. Weaver: Does that report also note that the value for energy would be its market value? The member for Shuswap talked about this — mid-C, basically.

I understand that since 1989, British Columbia Hydro has entered into quite a number of long-term contracts. Can the minister confirm that B.C. Hydro buys energy through long-term contracts that don’t follow the mid-C market value rate?

There’s no excuse for this delay. It’s a simple yes-or-no answer. I asked the question: can the minister confirm that B.C. Hydro buys energy through long-term contracts that don’t follow the mid-C market value rate, yes or no? It’s not a complex question.

Hon. M. Mungall: In every estimates, I feel like we go through this with the Leader of the Opposition. Honestly, Member, I’m just doing my best to make sure that I provide a fulsome answer. I’m not trying to delay or scoop up any of his time. I’m just trying to be fulsome. So please, just give me a moment to be able to do that for you.

In that, B.C. Hydro does buy energy, as he’s asking, at mid-C price. Only one project, though, as pointed out in Mr. Davidson’s report. Yes, B.C. Hydro does have contracts, many multi-year contracts, that are for above the mid-C price. That’s exactly the point of Mr. Davidson’s report, because the IPPs are all well above mid-C price. We know that.

For example, a lot of the IPPs are coming in at $100 per megawatt hour. Compare that to what Alberta is now doing for their wind projects, at $40 per megawatt hour. So you can see that there’s still quite a difference, even if we’re not going to be comparing it with the mid-C price. But I do want to highlight that the mid-C price is a benchmark for what ratepayers can get for surplus energy when B.C. Hydro has to sell that.

A. Weaver: Again, I shake my head. I ask a question, and I get a response to a question I didn’t ask. I was asking about long-term mid-C market value rates. Maybe the minister can say why Mr. Davidson didn’t consider these. I’m not talking about the IPPs. I’m talking about whether or not B.C. Hydro, since 1989, long before the IPPs were ever even talked about, has bought energy through long-term contracts. Yes or no? And if so, why were they not discussed and mentioned at all in the Davidson report?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes, B.C. Hydro does have long-term contracts. I did mention that in my previous answer. I am sorry I don’t have the report right in front of me, but I do recall Mr. Davidson talking about some of those. I did already mention, as well, that he noted that there is one project that does have a long-term contract for mid-C prices.

A. Weaver: In the Zapped report, there was a line that caught my attention. It was based on the interviews. The report claimed that the 2007 energy plan was created with the intent to “create the appearance of an energy shortfall.” It is remarkable that an independent consultant would provide value-added commentary like that in a so-called independent report. I’m shocked, to say the least.

Anyway, I continue. However, I was under the impression that much of the 2007 energy plan — and frankly, I was here and working with government at the time on that energy plan — was designed to get British Columbia to be self-sufficient in its energy production.

Can the minister confirm that prior to 2007, there were several years of high net energy imports and a strong domestic load growth projected? It’s a simple question. Prior to 2007, can the minister confirm that there were several years of high net energy imports and strong domestic load growth projected?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member wants yes-or-no answers, so I’ll just say yes, and I will not endeavour to seek further information unless he specifically asks for it. Pardon me for doing that in the past.

A. Weaver: I’m going to continue on this theme, because there are a lot of assumptions that have been stated here as facts and conclusions from the report that were not conclusions. They were assumptions. Here are some others. I’m going to discuss the issue of importing power.

The minister has said that we have a surplus of energy produced over the last number of years. However, the large fluctuations that happen from year to year, based on water levels, can dramatically change how much power we produce.

In B.C. Hydro’s compliance filing form F17-19 revenue requirement application, it stated: “In the past ten years, there has been a difference of 12,000 gigawatt hours between low and high water…requiring surplus sales or market purchases.” There’s a slight missing word in there.

Anyway, the reality is the 12,000 gigawatt hours between high and low waters is the key number there. It’s a very big difference.

My question to the minister is this. I’d like to know if we were a net importer of energy in British Columbia over the last year? Yes or no? Or in any of the other previous years? Yes or no?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes.

A. Weaver: Can the minister please tell us how much B.C. Hydro paid to import energy in March or this past quarter?

Hon. M. Mungall: We spent $54.9 million net importing energy in March.

A. Weaver: So we spent $54 million importing energy. We had too much energy surplus, that we didn’t need these projects. Very interesting.

Can the minister please provide how much power, on average, we have been importing over the last ten years?

Hon. M. Mungall: I did say that I would only provide the yes-or-no answers that the member wanted and the very short answers that he would like, but I feel like I’m doing a disservice to the British Columbians who might be watching this, as well as to the member to not inform him that the reason why there was an import of energy recently is due to low water levels.

For example, in my riding, I can look not too far down the hill and see exactly what those water levels are because the Kootenay Lake is, essentially, a reservoir for B.C. Hydro, along with Duncan Lake and so on. So those are the parts in my riding.

But generally, over the last decade, we’ve actually be exporting energy, not importing it.

A. Weaver: I’ll come to that shortly — maybe now. Pushing on, first I’d like to ask… The $54 million — what was the price that you were selling it at in March of this year?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think the member might have misspoken, but he can correct me if that’s not the case. I think he meant what we were buying it at, the price that we were buying it at.

A. Weaver: Sorry, yes.

Hon. M. Mungall: Okay. In March, we were buying it at $57 per megawatt hour, Canadian.

A. Weaver: So the average price was $57 per megawatt hour.

I understand that Powerex is the key trading arm of B.C. Hydro. Well, it is a trading arm of B.C. Hydro, but I know it’s separate. It imports and exports power when it’s financially advantageous to do so. It brings money directly into the provincial coffers — a good thing, I would suggest.

However, the power we import comes from Alberta and the U.S. I’m concerned that much of it, if not all of it, is brown power, despite the rhetoric we hear from this minister. That’s power created by burning natural gas or coal, which emits high levels of CO₂. Over 80 percent of Alberta’s electricity is coal- or gas-generated. In Washington state, there are over a dozen coal and natural gas plants. Can the minister confirm that the majority of the power that B.C. Hydro, via Powerex, imports to B.C. is from natural gas– and coal-fired plants?

Hon. M. Mungall:  I appreciate the member’s concern about exactly what type of power is coming to B.C. I know that he knows that electrons aren’t tagged one way or another, except in the situation with the Canadian entitlement, which is the Columbia River treaty. When we’re getting that power coming up from the United States, that is hydroelectric power. We know that that particular power is not generated by using coal or natural gas. In terms of in March, it’s hard to say whether it was natural gas–fired or coal-fired if it was not the Canadian entitlement, power that we were purchasing at that time. We were purchasing at that time, as I said earlier, because of low reservoirs.

That being said, it’s important to note that in Alberta, they’re increasing their wind generation. Solar is increasing as well in Alberta. Wind and solar as well below the 49th parallel is also increasing.

As more renewables come on line, we are obviously trading in more renewables. What I would say is it may be not the case for March, but in general, when we are buying power from other jurisdictions, it’s normally when they have an excess of wind, or an excess of solar, and they’re putting that on to the grid.

What is likely coming into B.C. is power generated from those avenues.

A. Weaver: I’m getting very close to calling for the resignation of this minister, hon. Chair, based on the lack of substance of these answers. This is a minister who clearly does not understand the file, clearly does not understand how electricity is produced and shipped. This is a minister who is responsible for the oversight of B.C. Hydro’s next review? It’s just shocking.

Let me explain to the minister how the power comes through. Coal and natural gas plants typically run, not on natural gas, 24-7. Powerex recognizes that, at night, coal power, which is going 24-7, is really cheap, because demand is low. But it doesn’t need to actually need to sell the power from it’s hydro dams, so it saves that for the day. We’re importing coal power and making money by shipping off clean power.

The minister should know that. The minister should not be trying to imply to British Columbians that somehow we’re buying wind and solar, intermittent sources. But we’re not. It is shocking, just shocking, that we’re hearing this in estimates today. I’m stunned. I almost feel like sitting down. I cannot believe that this is what we’re hearing.

Anyway, I’ll continue. I think it’s fair to say that based on these aspects of how the U.S. Pacific Northwest and Alberta generate their power, particularly their low-cost power, that the majority share of it will come from coal and natural gas. I think that’s safe to say.

Can the minister give an estimate of how much emissions were generated based on B.C.’s import of this brown power over the last year? What the emissions input…? That’s leakage into our province from emissions, because we’re buying brown power in this province.

Hon. M. Mungall: The Ministry of Environment does work with Powerex to calculate the carbon intensity of the energy that British Columbia imports. I’m happy to get that number for the member.

In terms of my previous answer that has clearly sparked outrage from the other member, I want to be clear that I’m just trying to share information that is coming to me from our experts at B.C. Hydro who are working on these issues every single day and trying to share that with the member so that he has a better understanding but also a bit of comfort in terms of where we are getting our electricity from when we are importing. The world is changing, as we know. We know that coal-fired plants are starting to be shut down in favour of renewables or lower GHG emission plants. I’m just wanting to share that information with the member.

A. Weaver: I so very much appreciate the minister providing the information on a file that I’m not certain she understands, frankly. I’m not certain she has a grasp of this most important file in our province, based not on the answers of the last question but the answers that I’ve been getting throughout estimates here, both this time and last time and in question period — time after time after time.

And to throw the good people of B.C. Hydro under the bus, to suggest that she is conveying the information to me about wind and solar in the U.S. from the good people at B.C. Hydro — that’s just ludicrous.

Coming to energy self-sufficiency. In 2012, the provincial government changed the regulation that forms the basis of electrical generating and planning criteria that B.C. Hydro uses. Historically, the definition of “critical water conditions” was used to ensure that there would always be a certain amount of power available. The previous government changed that metric. Instead of using critical water conditions, they now use the average water conditions. Overnight the amount of energy that B.C. Hydro could reliably produce went up by 5,600 gigawatt hours, through the definitional change there.

With climate change and variability predicted to continue, this change to using average water conditions for planning does not seem to be very prudent. Instead of being self-sufficient when a drought happens, we could be faced with a real possibility of importing large amounts of power if such a drought were to happen, because of poor planning.

Has the minister considered the impact of using average water conditions to forecast energy generation potential? I can maybe do two at once: given the variability in water flows this province is facing, is it prudent to continue to use average water flows as the basis for predicting the amount of power that we can generate?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member’s question is if using average water flows for predicting energy generation is good, if it’s the right way to go. I think that is a very important question, and it’s actually one that we’re going to be looking at in phase 2 of our B.C. Hydro review. It is going to, ultimately, feed into the integrated resource plan, the IRP.

As we continue on in this process, I very much appreciate the member’s knowledge on this file. I very much appreciate the member’s expertise in this area and that he is seeking more information. I am doing my best to offer it to him. I know he doesn’t like me personally, but I don’t know that personal attacks are helping the estimates process at all.

Point of Order

A. Weaver: May I ask that you please, as a point of order, ask the minister to withdraw that? That is outrageous. This has nothing to do with personal and everything to do with lack of substance in the answers that we’re getting on a file that’s very, very important. I find it offensive that the minister would stand and try to deflect from the criticism and concerns I and my friends here have had on the answers that we’re getting and turn it into an ad hominem.

The Chair: I think that in the best interests of everyone, we should take a five-minute break. So I’m going to recess the committee for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:21 p.m. to 3:49 p.m.

Point of Order
(Chair’s Ruling)

The Chair: Prior to the recess, the Leader of the Third Party raised a point of order relating to comments made by the minister. Upon consideration of the point of order and the circumstances leading to it being raised, I note that both the Leader of Third Party and the minister expressed some frustration with this debate.

I recognize in this committee room that any criticism within the debate can escalate and be amplified, particularly in this small setting. So it’s my expectation that we can now resume debate on Vote 22 with all members treating each other with respect.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: I’m going to move to final questions on Site C. As Site C progresses, we learn more and more about the shady nature of what occurred and continues to occur to get the project past the point of no return.

Between 2016 and 2018, no fewer than 38 contracts were directly awarded, avoiding a more transparent and competitive tender process. Close to $90 million has been awarded from B.C. Hydro to a variety of companies, some with close ties to the official opposition, with respect, and some that are simply numbered companies. Transparency is lacking, and awarding public funds to numbered companies is, frankly, somewhat suspect.

Site C is a huge undertaking that has already cost the citizens of British Columbia an enormous amount. For contracts to be awarded directly, without due process or justification, frankly, I would argue, is unacceptable. Can the minister please explain why the awarding of direct contracts like this was occurring under her watch?

Hon. M. Mungall: The percentage of contracts that are direct award is 3 percent of all the contracts since July 2015 that B.C. Hydro has procured. Many of those contracts that are direct-awarded are to Indigenous businesses.

The numbered company that the member spoke of…. That direct-award happened in January 2017, prior to the 2017 election. It’s pursuant to B.C. Hydro’s Aboriginal procurement policy, and it is for road remediation and various erosion and sediment control works.

That company was designated by the Doig River First Nation as their business partner to complete the work. As I said, it falls in line with B.C. Hydro’s Aboriginal procurement policy as well as their IBAs.

A. Weaver: The government announced a Site C project assurance board to oversee the project and ensure it stays on time and on budget. But what is the point, frankly, of having a private board issue reports that no one can have access to, other than government?

When the government was in opposition they rightly criticized the previous government for excluding Site C from review by the BCUC. However, now that they’re in control, they’ve set up their own board to oversee the project — a board that is not accountable publicly, a board whose members were handpicked and a board that is anything but independent. I understand that even a year after this project assurance board was created, the government has still not determined if the public will be privy to what it’s reporting on. Can the minister please let us know if the project assurance board will have any accountability to the public?

Hon. M. Mungall:  I know the member recalls that our government did have the B.C. Utilities Commission review the Site C project, and it continues to review quarterly reports about Site C. Those reports are reviewed and approved by the public assurance board — PAB is the acronym — and I would mention that PAB is accountable to government, and it reports regularly to Treasury Board as well.

A. Weaver: My question was not that, hon. Chair. My question was: can the minister let us know if the project assurance board will have accountability to the public — yes or no?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think the member may have a different view of how that accountability occurs than it currently does. Perhaps he would like to lay out what he thinks might be a better strategy or a better process than what we have right now, which is going to Treasury Board, accountable directly to government as well, in that it is reviewing all of the quarterly reports on Site C that are ultimately delivered and deposited with the B.C. Utilities Commission.

A. Weaver: Well, I’m not the minister. Therefore, I’m not able to answer the question as to whether or not the reports and recommendations written by the project assurance board are made public or not. That is really a question of her ministry. It’s not for me to say we would…. Yes, if I were Minister of Energy, we would make those reports public if there are such reports. That’s all I’m asking.

Is there going to be…? As I pointed out, the public assurance board was created by government, appointed by government. There’s nothing reporting out from government. It’s a simple question. Will there be a public transparency component to the assurance board?

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate that maybe the member would like to see reports put on line or so on. The reports that are made to the public are the quarterly reports on Site C that are approved by the public assurance board and then delivered to the B.C. Utilities Commission. Those reports are available to the public on their website.

A. Weaver: We’ve heard directly from residents on the ground who are monitoring the progress of the dam and the work on the diversion tunnels. It has been on hold for quite some time now, I understand. Can the minister please provide an update as to what is going on and if this is further delay to the construction schedule?

Hon. M. Mungall: There was a two-week stand-down. This was because WorkSafe was investigating an electrical incident that happened with a worker. The worker is fine — so that everybody knows that he’s fine — and that’s very good news for that worker, but it required a two-week investigation by WorkSafe following up on that.

The tunnelling does still continue, and Hydro is still projecting to achieve river diversion by September 2020.

Yesterday during question period yesterday I rose to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources questions about the ever increasing liability British Columbians are taking on as the number of orphan gas wells grows out of control. I remain deeply concerned about the Minister’s grasp of the file and profoundly troubled by the lack of substance in her answers to our questions.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Yesterday my colleague from Cowichan Valley asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources how many gas wells in British Columbia are leaking, and she didn’t know. Well, here’s some information for her: out of the 134 wells in the province with confirmed gas migration — that’s leaking problems, as documented by the Oil and Gas Commission — almost half are owned by one company, the Shanghai Energy Corporation.

This company, which has strong links to the Communist Party of China, is buying up wells in our province at an alarming rate. They now own 1,128 wells, with 863 active, 184 inactive and 13 that are being decommissioned.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources: does she think that the Communist Party of China buying up stranded assets in B.C. is concerning, and does she think that the Shanghai Energy Corporation will be a good corporate citizen and clean up their activity and all their leaky wells when the time comes?

Answer

Hon. M. Mungall: We have an open marketplace for tenures and for gas wells. That means that companies from around the world are able to purchase these tenures as well as the wells and so on. They then have the duty to be good corporate citizens, no matter who they are, no matter where they come from. We have the Oil and Gas Commission, as well as this government, who is taking its role as a regulator very seriously to ensure that, again, no matter who they are, no matter where they’re from, that any corporation who’s doing business in British Columbia and business in our oil and gas sector is following the rules.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I’m not sure I understood what the answer to the question was there, but nevertheless, let me try again.

Ranch Energy was one of three companies that became insolvent last year, leaving a forecasted $12.3 million deficit in the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission’s orphan reclamation fund. Currently — I know these facts are troubling to the minister — there are 310 sites designated as orphan sites, requiring further restoration. But there are 300 to 500 Ranch Energy wells that could be added to this, creating a further potential liability of $40 to $90 million.

Yesterday the minister told the chamber that things have gotten a lot better since her government was sworn in. Yet over the last two years, B.C.’s orphan well sites have increased by — get this — 48 percent. Bankrupt companies have left the province with massive cleanup bills.

Last month we heard from the Auditor General. There are more than 10,000 active wells, with a $3 billion price tag for decommissioning them. All the while, her ministry is giving massive handouts, corporate handouts. It’s not an open market. It’s a subsidized market by this government because the market would not exist in a free and open market, because it does not compete on the international scene.

What is the minister’s plan? Please, please, I beg you — no more non-answer, no more rhetoric, no more 16 years nonsense. Answer the question for a change.

What is the minister’s plan to ensure British Columbians are not on the hook for the cleanup costs of this industry? There is no excuse for not hearing an answer here.

Answer

Hon. M. Mungall: The member might recall that just over a year ago we passed legislation — it was Bill 15 at the time — to address the issue of orphaned wells. We have done a considerable amount of work. Part of that bill was to address how we are funding the orphaned well reclamation fund.

The previous government had it funded through a taxation on production. We have moved from that because that was not an effective way to fund this fund. We’ve moved away from that, and we have a liability levy so we’re actually able to get the financial resources so that we can start reclaiming the orphaned well sites.

We have a multi-year plan to reclaim all of these sites. It involves Treaty 8 First Nations, who are doing a wide array of work to do this reclamation, including having nurseries with the appropriate vegetation of native plants so that we can truly reclaim these sites and the land to the state that they need to be in for future generations