Today during question period I rose to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources about what appears to be regulatory inconsistencies facing the advancement of Pacific Booker’s Morrison Mine project. As you will see from the exchange below, I was not particularly impressed with the Minister’s response to my questions.

I intend to explore this issue further in the coming weeks.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the Question Period Exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: I’m sure every member of this House will agree that a stable regulatory environment is key to maintaining B.C.’s reputation as a welcoming place to do business. This means that the approval of natural resource projects must be based on scientific evidence and not politics. Yet in 2012, upon recommendation from the executive director of the environmental assessment office, the B.C. Liberals rejected the Morrison mine project proposed by Pacific Booker Minerals, despite it having received a positive environmental assessment. In justifying their decision, they cited environmental concerns about the effects of the mine on water quality in Morrison Lake and local salmon populations, despite already having a positive environmental assessment.

Despite their rejection of the Pacific Booker project, in 2013 the B.C. Liberals went to Ottawa to lobby the federal government to approve the Prosperity mine, a project that had received two negative assessments by federal review panels. There’s some suspicion that the decision around the Morrison mine had less to do with environmental concerns and more to do with political calculation.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Has this government been able to determine why this company was treated so differently from others at the time? And how will it prevent situations like this from happening in the future?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I’d like to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question. I’m sure the member will appreciate that I’m not in a position to advise what led the former government to make its decision about the proposed Morrison mine. What I can say, though, is that their approach was shortsighted and certainly didn’t bring certainty to the sector.

Our government has taken a different approach. My predecessor, as minister, initiated the Mining Jobs Task Force, which worked hard with First Nations, industry and communities to find ways to strengthen this fundamental, foundational industry.

There were 25 recommendations emanating from the task force. They’ve all been accepted by government, and almost all of them have now been implemented. We have made two mining tax credits permanent, bringing immediate benefits to the B.C. mineral exploration sector by adding more certainty. We’ve invested $1 million for the mining innovation roadmap, $1 million for the Regional Mining Alliance.

As further evidence of the strengthening of the sector, the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan just signed a $300 million investment deal to provide an investment in the New Afton mine, just outside the civic boundaries of Kamloops.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I must admit that was a lot of information about a lot of mines that weren’t the mine I’m actually talking about. Maybe I can try again.

A key element of the previous government’s unrealistic strategy for natural resource development revolved around, as we all know, LNG. We know that certain natural gas projects were located in areas close to the Morrison mine. Comments from groups engaged in the Pacific Booker project have indicated that the province was facing significant pressure to avoid reopening discussions around the Morrison mine in order to obtain the support necessary for the Prince Rupert gas transmission line.

The decision to reject the project had serious repercussions for Pacific Booker. Their share price plummeted, from $14.95 to $4.95 in one day, and many investors lost their life savings. What’s more is that the ministry failed to inform Pacific Booker of its intention to issue an adverse recommendation and did not provide the company with an opportunity to respond to it.

After a legal battle in which the Supreme Court found that this conduct violated standards of procedural fairness and that the environmental assessment office recommendation be presented to cabinet for reconsideration, the government once again rejected the project in order to undergo further assessment. However, in its order, the government appeared to issue unclear directions that substantially delay the process. As of 2019, in September….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: As of Sep 2019, Pacific Booker had yet to be fully provided with this opportunity. My question, again, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. When is this firm going to have the chance to have their project undergo further assessment, as put forward by the Supreme Court?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: The short answer is that the company is currently working through the required regulatory processes for further assessment. The further assessment for the proposed project includes the requirement for a supplemental application information requirement. There are a number of requirements. The EAO continues to work with the company on this, and I’m advised that the latest submission was received by the EAO in December 2019.

Today the BC Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that the BC NDP government must reconsider the conditions of the environmental assessment certificate allowing the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. This is an incredibly important ruling as it means that the BC government now has the opportunity, which the BC Greens expect them to take, to reexamine the  nebulous environmental conditions put in place by the former B.C. Liberal government. As I’ve argued numerous times in the past, politics clearly trumped evidence in the decision-making process of the NEB approval for the Transmountain pipeline. British Columbia now has the opportunity to ensure our coastal regions are protected.

As we move forward I am looking for the BC environmental assessment process to now properly consider the many issues I raised during the fundamentally flawed NEB process.

Below is a copy of the press release my office released following the BC Court of Appeal ruling.

Media Statement

B.C. NDP government empowered to revisit Trans Mountain pipeline conditions
For immediate release
Sept. 17, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Today’s B.C. Court of Appeal’s unanimous ruling that the NDP government must reconsider the conditions of the environmental assessment certificate allowing the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline opens a path for additional environmental protections.

“The court has shown yet again the many shortcomings of the environmental assessment process that leaves our province facing the unacceptable environmental impacts that an expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline threatens to bring to our province,” B.C. Green Party Leader Dr. Andrew Weaver said. “The B.C. NDP government has a responsibility to revisit the conditions placed by the former B.C. Liberal government.

“The negative long-term economic impacts related to increased emissions and the risk of oil spills associated with the Trans Mountain pipeline are indisputable. And British Columbians are already shouldering the environmental costs from climate change by way of our depleted oceans, stressed forests, shallow rivers, and dwindling resource economy.

“Tripling the capacity of the existing pipeline from Alberta’s oilpatch to Burnaby would pose an even greater threat to our future. A spill would be devastating to our environment, our coastal economies, and our tourism and fishery industries. Furthermore, the seven-fold increase in tanker traffic would pose significant threats to British Columbia’s already endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales. We ask again: Is the federal government ready to justify to Canadians why it is willing to herald the death knell of this iconic species?

“British Columbia’s economic future lies in the innovative, creative industries that are leading global economic growth, not in continued fossil-fuel infrastructure development that created the climate challenges that our communities and resource-based industries are struggling to cope with today.

-30-

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

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled today to allow six of the twelve legal challenges against the Trans Mountain pipeline to proceed. These challenges are limited to the adequacy of the consultation with Indigenous Peoples and related issues. Below I reproduce our media statement in response to the ruling from the Federal Court of Appeal.

Media Statement

Trans Mountain pipeline faces six legal challenges; court rejects all environmental appeals
For immediate release
September 4, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – The Federal Court of Appeal ruled today to allow six of the twelve legal challenges against the Trans Mountain pipeline to proceed. These challenges are limited to the adequacy of the consultation with Indigenous Peoples and related issues.

“It is significant that that the courts will once again hear from First Nations about the consultation process,” said said Dr. Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Greens. “Honouring the reconciliation process in Canada must require more than after the-fact engagement about a project the government always intends to approve. I am disappointed that the significant environmental risks that this project poses will not be taken up by the courts.

“The B.C. Green Caucus will continue its campaign to pressure government and engage the public as well. Because we know that continuing to invest in fossil fuel infrastructure is not just fiscally irresponsible, it is an economic liability. The Bank of Canada recently warned about future stranded assets in the oil and gas sector due to climate-related risk. This means TMX will only turn a profit if all global efforts to combat climate change by transitioning away from fossil fuels to clean alternatives fail.

“So is the federal government wishing for a failed global climate change strategy? The Liberals say they will use any profits from the TMX to fund Canada’s transition to a cleaner-energy economy. That  is like saying profit from the Titanic’s maiden voyage will be used to fund remodeling the ship. They are actively working to undermine the very thing they say they are working to improve.

“We can do better than banking on a future that continues to rely on fossil fuels decades into a climate disaster. And we can fund a clean energy economy without sacrificing our children’s environmental future.”

-30-

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

Today Justin Trudeau once more announced the approval of the now Canadian Taxpayer owned Transmountain Pipeline project. Those who have followed this blog over the last few years will know I have extensively commented on the fiscal folly of the federal government stepping in to buy the pipeline after Kinder Morgan abandoned the project in response to changing market conditions for expensive-to-extract, high-sulphur, Alberta-based diluted bitumen.

Below I reproduce the media statement my office released in response to the federal government’s announcement.

Media Release

Statement on Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project approval
For immediate release
June 18, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – In response to the Federal Liberal Party’s approval of the Trans Mountain expansion project, the B.C. Green caucus has released the following statement:

“The Liberal government’s decision to forge ahead with the Trans Mountain Expansion project is an abdication of their responsibility to Canadians to show climate leadership,” said Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green party.

“Just yesterday these very same Ministers supported a motion that declared a climate emergency. How can this government declare a climate emergency and yet continue to invest in major expansions of fossil fuel infrastructure that will last 40-50 years?”

“Now is the time for elected leaders to be bold and courageous. We need to urgently begin the transition away from fossil fuels and toward a clean, sustainable economy — to invest in clean technology, to help workers transition, to truly protect the environment upon which a healthy economy depends.”

In addition to the climate crisis, the flawed First Nations consultation process, and the impacts on the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales, there is also growing concern that the pipeline is a fiscally foolish project, now reliant on taxpayer money. Earlier today, Chief Leah George Wilson of Tsleil-Waututh Nation joined the former Federal Environment Minister David Anderson in highlighting evidence that there is no compelling business case for the Trans Mountain expansion project. This includes concerns that the Asian market that is so often used as justification doesn’t exist for Alberta bitumen.

“No compelling business case has been made for the expansion, with Kinder Morgan offloading the risk onto the Canadian taxpayer. Proceeding with the Trans Mountain expansion is a reckless use of taxpayer money.”

The B.C. Green Caucus has consistently been opposed to this project, including in the confidence and supply agreement with the NDP government that commits the government to using every tool available to stop the expansion project.

-30-

Media contact
Stephanie Siddon, Research and Communications Officer
+1 250-882-6187 | macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

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.