Yesterday in budget estimates for the Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources I took the opportunity to question the Minister on the status of BC Hydro’s clean energy Standing Offer Program.

The exchange is very illustrative of the problems I have been trying to raise with respect to the direction BC Hydro is taking. The decision to proceed with Site C has led BC Hydro to essentially grind the Standing Offer Program, and the BC NDP PowerBC Better Plan, Brighter Future  energy and jobs campaign plan, to a halt.

Below I reproduce the text and video of the exchange.

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Surrey–White Rock for her line of questioning and the minister for the answers that we’ve been receiving. Very interesting.

I had a number of questions on the standing offer program that B.C. Hydro has ongoing. As the minister will know, the standing offer program for wind developers, at least, requires $1 million of investment over two years and over two years of studying permitting work to be done prior to the project achieving an electricity purchase agreement. The requirement for this up-front investment was done with the explicit intent of reducing program costs for the Crown, and when the BCUC approved the standing offer program, the BCUC stated that developers could expect to be offered an EPA if the project meets all the eligibility requirements and must be willing to incur the cost to prepare an application.

As the minister will know, the standing offer program was suspended in August 2017 with no warning. Despite that Hydro might suggest that…. Its only warning to industry was that there would be changes to price and volume of the SOP projects, not that the criteria itself would change or that the program would be completely redesigned. As the minister will know, developers that continue to invest in their products accepted that there would be changes to price and volume.

Hydro also implied that IPPs should have read market signals that there was an oversupply of energy and therefore infer that the standing offer program was a risky investment. However, the B.C. government legislated that the authority must maintain the standing offer program, and there was no indication the program would be suspended or cancelled or that there would be a change in the eligibility requirements.

There have been some recent public statements by the minister suggesting that there will be significant changes to the standing offer program and that there will be a First Nations focus. I have a number of questions on this. First, if this suspension leads to a material change to the policy, then is this suspension not actually a cancellation, because the new program is a different product?

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate the member’s question is: if this program doesn’t come back, isn’t this ultimately a cancellation? But I wouldn’t be able to say that at this time. Where it is at, as the member knows, is that it’s on hold. What is going on is…. A review was first started in 2016, and we’ve talked about that. That was attached to the rate revenue application and so on.

Industry was informed at the time, in 2016, that a review was taking place. That included the SOP, and of course, part of that was: well, does B.C. Hydro need the power? Do British Columbians need the power? So now review, review, right? Governments love to do these things.

With this government’s, the new government’s, review of energy procurement, as mentioned earlier, as part of the review that we just started in March, we’re looking at energy procurement, and if the SOP is a good program to continue on with. There’s been no decision one way or another at this time.

A. Weaver: The B.C. government legislated that the authority must maintain the standing offer program. When B.C. Hydro proposed the original SOP review, they set precedent for a review period length for prospective SOP participants, thus ensuring that important conditions such as price and eligibility would not change suddenly while they were preparing their projects.

Why wasn’t this put into practice for the recently announced review?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m sorry, in the conversation I just had with staff, if I’ve missed and forgotten some of the member’s question. I’m sure he’ll remind me if I don’t get everything that he was hoping to get answers for.

Where things are at is that this government — and I know the member opposite and all members of the House as well — wants to make sure that rates are fair for British Columbians and for customers of B.C. Hydro. Whether they’re direct customers — they pay a B.C. Hydro bill — or, in my case, Nelson Hydro. We buy power from B.C. Hydro, as the city of Nelson does — and passes it on.

For all the B.C. Hydro customers, we want to make sure that rates are fair and affordable. Part of that issue is ensuring that we’re not purchasing power that we’re not able to then disperse at the time that that power becomes available. So we want to make sure that we have enough power for British Columbians, recognizing that we are able to sell on the spot market around North America, but then there’s the price that you get on the spot market that you also have to consider. So we want to make sure that we’re not putting an undue burden onto the backs of ratepayers by having more power than we’re able to disperse at the time at which we need it.

I hope that that’s making sense. For example, an IPP comes on line next year, but we actually have a surplus of power, perhaps, next year. So that would actually impact rates, because we’re obliged to pay that contract.

A. Weaver: Coming back, as I initiated with my questions on this topic, I noted that the SLP program required wind developers to invest $1 million over two years of the study permitting. Many wind developers have invested this money.

My question to the government, then, is how do they see this liability to companies who have made the required investment, sometimes with their own money, and have no program to participate in, in light of the fact that they were told that the program would exist, that they were required to make this investment and that they would get an electricity purchase agreement, although the price itself had not been set at that time?

Hon. M. Mungall: Ultimately, the impact on companies and the investments that they put in will depend on the outcome of the review. However, there are two things that B.C. Hydro has to balance in this.

One is obviously impact to ratepayers if we start purchasing power that we’re not going to need right now or in the immediate future and the risk that private investors take in the private market. Ultimately, B.C. Hydro is responsible to ratepayers, not to private investors in the private market.

A. Weaver: Thank you, and I appreciate the answer, but I would suggest that the government is responsible to both. I would suggest that the rules were put in place for investors, investors played by those rules and the rules changed and now the investors are left with a loss.

I would argue and suggest that government has accepted a potential liability through changing this program, particularly in light of the fact that the argument that the minister just put forth doesn’t hold water because the minister and her government recently approved continuation of the Site C dam to produce power for which there is no demand. So I’m sorry — the answer is quite unacceptable to me.

Nevertheless, let me continue. Was the minister aware that on March 14, 2018, the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna, announced the launch of the low-carbon-economy challenge? In particular, is she aware that this $500 million initiative will fund projects “aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, saving energy and creating green jobs”? And that $162 million of that will be available to B.C. ?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes. We are aware of the low-carbon-economy challenge and the fund associated with it. We’ve actually been able to access it.

The fund is going to be able to…. It’s contributed to other programs, but within this ministry specifically, it’s contributed an additional $12 million toward our building energy retrofit partnership, which will help communities across B.C., obviously, reduce carbon emissions associated with the built environment.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Chair. Again through you to the minister: is she aware that the federal Minister of Environment Catherine McKenna chose Vancouver as the location to make the announcement for the program and that on that very same day, B.C. Hydro announced it would be further diminishing the standing offer program by suspending those applications already accepted into the program by B.C. Hydro, with only a few exceptions? And if so, why did B.C. Hydro do this?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes, those two announcements were made on that day. It was purely coincidental, however. There was no purposeful reason why both of them were made that day. It’s just how things roll out sometimes.

A. Weaver: Purely coincidental but profoundly ironic.

I’m wondering if the minister is aware that some of the projects were already engaged in the B.C. Hydro interconnection process.

Hon. M. Mungall: The interconnection process is obviously part of the broader process in the standing offer program. The reason why it’s there is that it looks at the longer-term viability of connecting with that particular project. Sometimes projects go ahead, and sometimes they don’t. That’s just the broader, for people’s information. But, yeah, the ministry was aware that there were projects that were in that process at the time of the announcement on March 14.

A. Weaver: I’m just wondering if the minister could please provide two numbers. The first number is: what’s the accepted total megawatt capacity of accepted applications in the standing offer program? And the second number is: of this total megawatt capacity, how much is within the interconnection queue?

Hon. M. Mungall: Sorry about the delay to the member.

What’s the megawatt capacity of accepted applications in the SOP? For the standing offer program, it’s 137 megawatts. In the micro standing offer program, there are two megawatts. To answer the second part of his question, all of those projects — so therefore, all of those megawatts — are at varying stages in studying interconnection, so it’s the same number.

A. Weaver: My understanding is that 59 megawatts of the 137 are much further along in that process than the 137 itself.

With that said, I’m wondering if the minister could then briefly, in summary remarks, comment on the status of the following projects: the Nahwitti wind project in Port Hardy, 14 megawatts; Babcock Ridge wind project in Tumbler Ridge, 15 megawatts; Canoe Pass tidal project in Campbell River, two megawatts; Little Nitinat River project in Port Alberni, five megawatts; the English Creek hydro project in Revelstoke, 5.8 megawatts; the Fosthall Creek power project in Nakusp, 15 megawatts; the Sarita River project in Bamfield, 5.3 megawatts; the MacKay Creek project in Revelstoke, and I do apologize to Hansard who are trying to get this down here, 5.2 megawatts.

The East Hill project of my good friend from Kootenay East, in Cranbrook, a solar project, 15 megawatts; the Sukunka wind project of my good friend here from Peace River South in Chetwynd, 15 megawatts; the McKelvie Creek hydroelectric project in Tahsis on Vancouver Island, 5.4 megawatts; Newcastle Creek hydroelectric project, Sayward, 5.3 megawatts. Again, coming to the riding of my good friend from Peace River South, the Wartende wind project and the Zonnebeke wind project, both of which are 15 megawatts in those.

What is the status of these projects that have been approved and are sitting in the standing offer program?

Hon. M. Mungall: All of the projects are on hold, with the exception of the Sarita River hydro power project. They have been sent a draft energy purchase agreement, a draft EPA. The Sukunka wind energy project in Chetwynd is currently pursuing an electricity purchase agreement. Sorry. They are not. We are. B.C. Hydro is pursuing an EPA negotiation with the project. That’s the same result for the Zonnebeke wind energy project, also in Chetwynd. And the last one that is not on hold but unfortunately has been rejected is the McKelvie Creek hydroelectric project.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Chair. I’m wondering if….

Hon. M. Mungall: Can I just ask…? Would you like a written copy of that?

The Chair: Members can redirect comments through the Chair, please.

Hon. M. Mungall: Mr. Chair, I’m just wondering if the member would like a written copy of that, if that would be helpful for him.

A. Weaver: That would be very helpful, and I do appreciate the response and the offer.

On this topic that I’m wondering about, hon. Chair, through you to the minister, if she’s aware that the Rocky Mountain solar project in Cranbrook has formed a B.C.-based research and innovation consortium that includes the UBC engineering Clean Energy Research Centre, the SFU chemistry department, the Natural Resource Council of Canada, Ballard Power, Schneider Electric, Iona Miller, Avalon Battery and others.

Hon. M. Mungall: B.C. Hydro wasn’t aware that RMS was forming a B.C.-based research and innovation consortium. They didn’t put that in their application, in their SOP application. That being said, ministry staff have been able to meet with several of the partners within this consortium and learned about it through those meetings. That’s my understanding.

A. Weaver: The Rocky Mountain solar project, as the minister will know, is the only solar project that’s gone through the standing offer program. They plan to build a living lab facility site that will focus on advancing next-generation energy solutions, in partnership with those organizations that I previously mentioned. As the minister may know, connectivity through the transmission line is not that difficult in light of the fact that it goes right through the property of the proposed solar facility in the Cranbrook region.

I’m wondering. Again, I’d like to suggest that the Rocky Mountain solar project is exactly the type of project that is being looked for under the low-carbon economy challenge that I spoke about earlier, and particularly, the clean growth fund that demonstrates a commitment to creating diversified clean energy. It ensures that we have reliable power, it promotes research R and D in the province, it helps establish B.C. as leaders, and it’s being supported by investor capital, not ratepayer-supported capital.

My question, then, is: what is the government doing to attract and retain a clean energy sector here in B.C., and in particular, whatever happened to the B.C. NDP PowerBC better plan, brighter future program they touted in the lead-up to and during the last provincial election campaign?

Hon. M. Mungall: Just for the member’s information, the Rocky Mountain Solar project is actually not the only approved solar application in the SOP. There’s also the Tsilhqot’in solar project, which is being advanced under the micro SOP. It’s smaller, yes, but it is another solar project. I know that the member is very interested in what kinds of projects are out there, so I wanted to share that with him.

In terms of his question, in terms of what we’re doing to attract and retain clean energy sector in B.C., as well as the PowerBC plan that our party launched while we were in opposition — where is all of that? Well, that’s a fair question. I mentioned earlier that we were talking about the energy road map. We only got a chance to mention it briefly. But that’s precisely where we have driven these very issues, is into building our energy road map. That road map is about planning for the future. It is about looking at ways in which we can address load and demand.

One of the things that we need to do, and I know the member’s very passionate about this and is very, very well versed on this, is obviously reducing carbon emissions. How do we electrify the economy using clean, renewable electricity that is carbon free? We already have 98 percent of the energy we produce in B.C. meeting that test of carbon free. But if we want to be able to produce more carbon-free energy, then we also need to look at the demand side, the load of what is being demanded by British Columbians.

We have to look at where we are going into the future, what kind of demand we are anticipating and what kind of demand we can grow. I know that the member knows a lot about electric vehicles. He has an electric vehicle, and he really wants to see the transportation shift from fossil fuels to clean electricity. I agree very much with that vision. That’s part of our energy road map and planning out for that.

How do we do that? We already have incentive programs. We’re already working on expanding charging stations. But what more can we do to ensure that we’re reducing costs for people, which is one of the barriers, as well as making sure we have good, solid infrastructure? BCUC right now, as I mentioned earlier, is looking into the utilities aspect and who can actually sell power so that we can build out the infrastructure so that it’s just as commonplace as what fossil fuel infrastructure has been in the past, and so on and so forth.

There are a lot of questions and planning, and that’s where that energy road map comes into play. That’s where we see that broader vision that we’ve expressed in the past funneling into. Earlier we were talking about that energy road map then leading into, obviously, how B.C. Hydro would be organizing itself and placing itself into that future demand — for example, around electric vehicles, around partnerships with the clean energy sector, the private clean energy sector, and so on.

A. Weaver: I appreciate the answer, although I’m not sure it directly addressed the question I was raising. I do take issue with the assertion that the Tsilhqot’in program is on par with the Rocky Mountain. Of course, it isn’t. I’m quite aware of the micro–standing offer program, which is quite different from the larger standing offer program.

In fact, on March 14, 2018, B.C. Hydro issued a statement on that saying:

“…electricity purchase agreements for five clean energy projects that are part of the impact benefit agreements with B.C. Hydro and/or are mature projects that have significant First Nations involvement. B.C. Hydro supports the government’s decision to take a closer look at energy procurement to ensure the best value for B.C. Hydro’s customers through their review of B.C. Hydro this year. As a result, there are no plans at this time to issue any additional electricity purchase agreements. The standing offer and micro–standing offer programs will remain on hold until the review is complete.“

The issue I have here, and the issue I continue to raise, is companies have invested millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in British Columbia in good faith directly in response to signals that government sent and B.C. Hydro sent, and they are now on the hook for this. This is not because of any uncertainty in the market. It’s exclusively because of uncertainty in terms of direction B.C. Hydro is….

I’m sure the government is aware, for example, that larger power projects, like in Alberta, have seen prices coming in at 3.7 cents a kilowatt hour for wind. We know that the next call is Saskatchewan, which is supposed to follow. It’s likely going to have, if it hasn’t come in yet, wind power coming in at 4 cents a kilowatt hour. We know that if there was a call for power at 10 cents or 8 cents, industry would meet that. We know that firm wind power can be delivered at around that price, and it’s being done around the world.

My question to the minister is this. Why hasn’t she instructed B.C. Hydro to explore cheaper alternatives to Site C, cheaper alternatives that could include firm power calls that link wind with storage?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member’s question was specifically: why didn’t I direct B.C. Hydro to look at alternatives, specifically wind with firm storage? He’s right to say that I didn’t direct, because they were already doing it. They did do that, and they put it as part of their submission to the B.C. Utilities Commission, I believe, originally back in 2014 — the original submission to, I believe, government in 2014. Pardon me if I’m not getting that correct. But definitely their submission to the B.C. Utilities Commission, in their review of Site C that we put forward last fall.

Video of Exchange

Today during Members’ statements I rose to speak about the good work that can be done in the legislature when MLAs work together. I offer a special tribute to Shirley Bond who I have very much enjoyed working with on many files over the last few years.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my statement along with the accompanying news release.

Video of Statement

Text of Statement

As we reach the end of the session, I’d like to take a moment to reflect upon this past spring and the work that we’ve collectively accomplished. This session has offered a unique opportunity for members from each political party to come together around shared values to work tirelessly for the betterment of all British Columbians across our vibrant and diverse province.

Collaboration and communication are always key. Collaboration isn’t just limited to one side of this chamber; it involves all members from all parties. I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the work of each and every member in this chamber and to highlight just a few of the many examples where government of any stripe has improved the lives of British Columbians.

In Saanich, immersion students are reconnecting with their language and culture through a commitment to increased investment in Indigenous language programs. We’re already witnessing positive impacts on the ground.

The MLA from Saanich North and the Islands and the MLA from North Vancouver–Lonsdale both rose during members’ statements to share their testimonies as to the importance of language and preserving culture.

The MLA for Cowichan Valley noted the example of a single mother fleeing domestic violence who was able, with the support of the provincial domestic violence plan, to find shelter, stable housing and post-secondary enrolment.

A few weeks ago the MLA for Peace River South discussed ministry work on seismic upgrades while he was Minister of Education. He expressed enthusiasm for continued funding to support the upgrading of additional schools.

When floods swept the Interior earlier this month, all parties came together to tour and support the affected areas.

I’d like to offer my own personal thanks to the member for Prince George–Valemount — whether it be regulations to ban employers from requiring employees to wear high heels, working to bring an engineering program to the University of Northern British Columbia or the world-class glacier destination ski resort to Valemount, advocating for realtors struggling with imminent yet still-changing rules governing their profession or the Borealis geothermal energy project near Valemount — you have been gracious and generous in your willingness to work together.

This is the message that I’d like to share today. We do our best when we collaborate with one another and other British Columbians, when we are creative, innovative and forward-looking. Despite our differences, this session has provided numerous examples of how we can better the lives of British Columbians when we are working together.

I’m encouraged by our session and look forward to further collaboration. Thank you to each and every MLA in this chamber for your dedication to your communities — and to the member for Prince George–Valemount, we still need to get that physiotherapy program at the University of British Columbia.

Media Release

Spring session shows value of collaboration: Weaver
For immediate release
May 31, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party caucus, says the Spring session of the B.C. Legislature shows the value of working collaboratively across party lines.

“We do our best when we collaborate with one another and other British Columbians, when we are creative, innovative and forward-looking,” said Weaver in a morning statement to all members of the house.

“Despite our differences, this session has provided numerous examples of how we can better the lives of British Columbians when we are working together. I am proud of the many instances of collaboration this session. The B.C. Green caucus will continue to advance evidence-based good public policy regardless of its origin, and to push for legislative reforms and modernized parliamentary practices so that British Columbians can see more of this kind of work from their elected officials.”

Weaver highlighted previous statements made in the House by MLAs from all three parties on the importance of Indigenous language immersion, the provincial domestic violence plan and continued funding to support seismic upgrades in schools. Weaver extended a special appreciation to the member for Prince George-Valemount for her efforts to work collaboratively to ban employers from requiring employees to wear high heels, an initiative he brought forth under the previous B.C. Liberal government. Weaver said these examples demonstrate how governments of all stripes have worked across the party lines to improve the lives of British Columbians.

The Spring legislative session has seen a number of unique instances of collaboration, including:

• The release of an all-party committee report on ride-hailing, which included a number of recommendations for a legislative and regulatory framework that had all-party consensus. The report is a result of the topic of Weaver’s Private Member’s Bill on ride-hailing being referred to committee, which held a number of public hearings on the issue in order to develop the report. Weaver is optimistic the report will advance B.C. finally passing ride-hailing enabling legislation.
• Weaver’s Corporations Amendment Act, 2018 passing second reading. Weaver’s Bill is the first instance of an opposition Member’s Private Member’s Bill passing Second Reading in the history of the B.C. Legislature. This was made possible by the government making legislative drafters available to opposition parties for the first time in B.C.
• An emergency debate on proportional representation, after Third Party House Leader Sonia Furstenau agreed to the debate proposed by Official Opposition House Leader Mary Polak.

-30-

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

Today during question period I rose to as the Minister of Labour when he was going to deliver on his commitment to more broadly extend the presumptive clause for work-related mental health disorders to other workers.

This was the first question that the minister has been asked since he was sworn in so he had a fair amount of “pent up answer” waiting for a question.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Mental disorders incurred from job-related trauma are serious injuries that can be debilitating. This government recently introduced protections by adding a presumptive clause for this kind of workplace injury. Now certain first responders are supported for injuries that can arise from the important work that they do.

While I am pleased that B.C. is extending protection for some workers, I’m concerned that others who suffer mental disorders on the job are being left out. Particularly, I’m profoundly troubled that professions such as nursing, teaching and social work — professions that employ disproportionate numbers of women compared to men — are being left out.

When I raised this issue earlier this year, the minister stated that he shared my concern and was committed to every worker getting the help and safety protection they need. What has the minister done to deliver on this commitment?

Answer

Hon. H. Bains: On the last day of the session, the last one to get a question, and I just want to tell you how thrilled I am to get that question. I want to thank the member for asking this question and giving me the opportunity to talk about the health and safety of workers in this province.

I share your passion about health and safety of workers in this province, Member. That’s why my goal is to make workplaces in British Columbia the safest in the country. You do that by having a strong preventative and training program so that we prevent injuries from happening in the first place. Then those who are injured or sick at workplace — that we treat them with respect and dignity and give them care and support when they need it so that they are able to go back to their pre-injury work as soon as they can.

That’s why we brought in Bill 9: to give protections to those workers who are first on the scene at a very dangerous and challenging situation. The first responders have been asking for these changes for a long time, and their requests have been ignored time and again. Well, we’re going to change that. I am considering expanding presumption to other groups of people, and as a result, I have been meeting with those groups — like nurses, CUPE, the dispatchers who are represented by CUPE — and other workers and with the member that asked this question so that we can continue to work to enhance and provide better working conditions for the working people of this province.

I believe and I know that everyone in this House believes that every worker deserves to go home healthy and safe at the end of their shift or their work. Anything less is unacceptable, and I do

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I’m beginning to regret asking these questions these last few days. Yet more pent-up answer looking for a question to deliver to.

I do have a supplemental. The supplemental is this. The Canadian Institute for Public Safety Research and Treatment at University of Regina undertook research that found that the percentage of 911 operators and dispatchers who suffer from post-traumatic disorder as a result of their work is comparable to those for police officers. But in B.C., affected 911 operators and dispatchers continue to fight for treatment and compensation while struggling with work-related mental health disorders.

We now have the tools to ensure they get the coverage they need. To the Minister of Labour: briefly, what concrete steps has the minister taken to expand the support we now offer to other first responders? And what steps are those now being applied to 911 dispatchers and call receivers?

Answer

Hon. H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, you can never be brief when you’re talking about the health or safety of working people in this province. The member knows that I’ve been discussing with him and other members of this House and all those workers who need better protection when they go to work. And they need protection when they are injured or sick at workplaces.

First responders have been asking for these changes for a long time. In fact, my colleague, the member now of Social Development and Poverty Reduction has put a private member’s bill in this House asking for just those changes that was ignored by the previous government.

UBCM 2016 passed a similar resolution and was ignored by this government. It doesn’t surprise me, member, because, if you’ve watched you watch for the last 16 years, the only time the members of that government stood up in this House to talk about workers was when they were ripping up their collective agreements, when they were eliminating the injured workers’ benefits, or when they were cutting their health and safety protection.

We said that we will do things differently. Workers know now that they have a government that respects them, a government that values their work. You know, we have taken some steps, and more is coming, Member — and everyone here — and workers know that

Yesterday during budget estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources I asked the Minister a couple of questions concerning very recent changes to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. These new changes preclude detailed information about royalty revenues being publicly disclosed, and grant the Oil and Gas commission increased regulatory power.

This line of questioning followed the good news that Shirley Bond (MLA Prince George-Valemont) and I received about the proposed Borealis geothermal project near Valemont, BC. The Oil and Gas Commission recently approved their drilling permits and, to quote the Minister:

“The good news is that the ministry is already working with Borealis in terms of helping them navigate all the different funding opportunities, particularly from the federal government as well. “

Below I reproduce the video and text of the exchange.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I would like follow the comments of the member for Prince George–Valemount and echo her thanks to the minister for this good news about Borealis. I, too, am thrilled with the news, and it’s great to see B.C. champion this demonstration project. It’s good for B.C. It’s good for Valemount. It’s good for all of us in this room, and I think it’s a great step forward.

I have a number of questions. I’ve given most of them to the minister in advance, because they were rather lengthy, and I thought rather than scrambling on the floor, I could give them time to prepare.

I have two that I wanted to ask first that I had not…. They just came to my attention very recently. They came to my attention when a member of the general public sought information that used to be available through a freedom of information request, and that was recently changed in the statutory miscellaneous stats law that was passed under this government.

Under section 122.1 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act now, information about royalty revenues must not be disclosed. It essentially means that British Columbians are denied the right to know about royalty payments on a resource that belongs to the citizens of this province. This is a very new addition.

My question to the minister: is she comfortable with this, given the stark contrast to the forest industry, in which the volume of timber harvested by specific companies is publicly available information? What is the justification for this level of secrecy around a publicly owned resource, exclusively for natural gas. Now you nor I, our friends here — nobody — can know which company gets how much natural gas out of the ground. Very unusual given that it only applies to the natural gas sector.

Hon. M. Mungall: The overall amount of royalties that are paid by the industry is aggregated and then made public through Public Accounts, but I believe the member opposite was talking about the specific amount of royalties per company and that not being shared.

My understanding is that this is very similar, actually, with mining in that Ministry of Finance has determined that a best practice is to treat royalties, in terms of their privacy, the same way as you would treat individual income tax. We want to protect that privacy information for industry in the same way that we would protect privacy information for individuals.

What that means is that we would know the information for the industry as a whole but not for individual companies.

A. Weaver: Is it then publicly available — the amount of a resource that is being extracted by a particular company? As of a few months ago, if a FOI was put forward, a member of the public could find out how much natural gas — a British Columbian owned resource — was extracted by a British Columbian natural gas company. Now they would be told that they’re subject to the section 122 and that information is not available. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Mungall: If the individual that the member has been speaking to is concerned about the actual volumes of gas tied to any well at all in British Columbia and wants to know how much volume of gas is being extracted for that one well, or for a group of wells or so on, that information is actually publicly available on the OGC, the Oil and Gas Commission’s, website. That is readily available. They don’t have to file an FOI, but it’s that financial component that has been now retained as private information.

A. Weaver: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

My second question in this area is: the board of the Oil and Gas Commission has the power to make regulations under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, and it has, in fact, exercised this power to make regulations related to consultation and notification requirements, geophysical activities, drilling and production activities, pipeline and liquefied natural gas facilities, and fees and levies and securities.

My question is this. Does the minister feel that it’s appropriate for a body, which is both a promoter and a regulator of the oil and gas industry, to have the ability to create regulations without cabinet or legislative approval?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member’s question, specifically, was if we, as a government, see it as permissible for an entity to be both regulator and promoter of an industry.

The answer to that is that the OGC is a regulator, full stop. That is very clearly laid out in section 4 of the act that governs the Oil and Gas Commission. If the member likes, I can read it out as a whole. But important to note is looking at….

The Chair: I’ll have to interject. The standing orders do not permit the use of a device.

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m sorry, Chair. My understanding is there was a ruling made in the last parliament that actually allowed members to read from an electronic device.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Mungall: Yeah, not during question period, but otherwise, at other times, I’ve seen members do that. But maybe the member doesn’t need me to read it.

The Chair: Pardon me, Minister. We’ll consult with the Clerk in the meantime.

Hon. M. Mungall: I’ll leave my answer at that, though. The member is able to use the Internet, so I’m sure he will.

Today in the Legislature I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction why the government had yet to increase the $375 shelter allowance for income assistance. This rate hasn’t increased in a decade yet housing costs have risen dramatically.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: In September, government raised social assistance rates by $100 per month. Not only, of course, do I support the move, but I also commend government for implementing this increase. Rates had been frozen for a decade, leaving people worse off year after year, as their buying power eroded with inflation and the affordability crisis exploded.

Nevertheless, while support payments have gone up, the shelter allowances have remained the same, at only $375 a month. This is far, far below what it actually costs to find shelter.

For example, the organization Raise the Rates found that in Vancouver, even a single-room-occupancy hotel, known as an SRO — the cheapest form of housing available — cost $548 a month. And a number of advocates and journalists have documented the appalling and unsafe living conditions that people are forced to endure in many SROs in Vancouver.

My question to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is this: do you agree that $375 does not come close to reflecting the true cost of finding shelter in B.C., let alone shelter that is safe and secure?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: I thank the Leader of the Third Party, though I did lose the bet on getting a question-free session.

I agree with the Leader of the Third Party. Persons on income assistance, persons with disabilities and hundreds of thousands of other people who are living vulnerable and living poor are struggling immensely in this province today. I’m proud of the $100 increase that we put in place, the first increase in over a decade for people on income assistance.

As I said, there are significant numbers of working poor in this province who are struggling as well, and I’m excited that at the end of this week, we’re going to have a $1.30 increase in the minimum wage, the first step on the way to a $15.20 minimum wage.

On the issue of housing, the member is correct: it is challenging, as we move forward, but we have many steps that we’re taking. I’m excited about the biggest investment in housing in the history of British Columbia in the February budget. I’m excited about the increases around rental assistance programs and SAFER grants. I’m really excited about the 2,000 modular units that are out there being built today, that are being occupied today, that are helping the most vulnerable people in the province, people living homeless, and giving them a place to live. That’s progress, and that’s leadership.

The last thing I would say is: we’ll bring in the poverty reduction plan, and yes, we’re going to deal with housing.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: There certainly was a lot of pent-up answer waiting for a question there.

A substantial gap remains between social assistance rates and what is required to maintain a dignified standard of living. That’s why during the election the B.C. Greens committed to transitioning people to livable incomes, starting with an increase in social assistance rates by 50 percent above 2017 levels by 2020.

The previous critic on this file said last year: “Every year I ask the minister how on earth they come up with $375 as the shelter allowance for income assistance, because there’s nowhere in B.C. that’s available for $375.” I would agree with her, but unfortunately, this remains true today, and the average rent of a bachelor apartment in Vancouver is over $1,000 a month.

My question, again, to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is this: will you increase the shelter allowance as part of the forthcoming poverty reduction program and strategy?

Answer

Hon. S. Simpson: We have 557,000 people living in poverty in this province. We’ve had the highest rates of poverty for over a decade and a half, pretty much every year, and certainly the highest rates around child poverty.

We have challenges. We need to deal with the affordability questions that the member’s talking about. We need to create opportunities for people to break the cycle of poverty. We need to deal with the issues of social isolation and social inclusion for people struggling in poverty, whether they be the 100,000 children living in poverty, the Indigenous and the disabled who are living in poverty.

We’re going to do that. We’re going to bring legislation this fall that will legislate the poverty reduction plan, and British Columbia will no longer be the only province in this country without a poverty plan. We will end that this fall. We will bring the plan shortly after, and we will address those issues of improving the lives of people in this province, including on the housing issue.