Yesterday during budget estimate debates I took the opportunity to question the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on her plans for rolling out EV charging infrastructure in British Columbia.

As I mention in the discussion, reproduced in video and text below, the single biggest barrier in BC to the widespread installation of EV charging stations is the inability for anyone to charge for the electricity unless they are a registered utility. Those who install charging stations must give away the electricity for free. BC Hydro has installed only 30 (I’m serious ONLY 30) DC fast chargers throughout British Columbia! At these stations users presently pay 35 cents per kilowatt hour with a minimum of $2.00 per charge session.

Given that transportation is responsible for 40% of household greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia, and given the growing uptake of electric vehicles provincially, nationally and internationally, it’s about time we work with industry to allow for charging stations to be installed throughout BC without relying on BC Hydro and public subsidizes.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I have a couple of questions — I believe it’s within the mandate of the staff that you have present — with respect to electrical vehicle infrastructure. The questions are as follows. First off, what are the minister’s plans in terms of building out the electrical vehicle charging infrastructure in this province?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for the question. I’m actually really excited about the potential electric vehicles have in our future. How do we get there? Of course, the infrastructure for charging stations is really important, so I’m glad the member brought this up.

He’ll take note that there is $40 million in this year’s budget, over the next three years, to invest in the electric vehicle program, and $7 million of that is specifically earmarked for infrastructure, so for those charging stations.

We’re partnering with other utilities — B.C. Hydro being one of them, but others utilities like Columbia Power Corporation, FortisBC and local governments — to increase that overall $7 million and make those dollars go even further so that we can get more charging stations all across the province.

I’ll just let the member know, as well, that B.C. Hydro currently owns and operates 30 electric vehicle fast-charging stations. They have 29 more slated for construction. To accomplish that, they are partnering with FortisBC; with the province, as well, as I mentioned; Natural Resources Canada; and site hosts. So for example, you pull up to the Canadian Tire, and you see a B.C. Hydro fast-charging station. Well, that’s a result of that partnership.

A. Weaver: I do appreciate there being the high-voltage DC chargers that B.C. Hydro has done. Unfortunately, those chargers are not maintained by B.C. Hydro, and it is not uncommon to pull up to such a charging station and, actually, to have it inoperable.

My next question is: to what extent is B.C. Hydro planning to actually ensure that these high-voltage DC charging stations are in operation and are not going to go down on an ongoing basis? For example, Duncan was down for a couple of weeks. We also have one in the Interior where the executive director of the New Car Dealers Association was trapped with a Bolt that could not charge because the HVDC was down. Nobody told anyone about it.

The question is: to what extent is B.C. Hydro going to invest money to ensure, in the ones that they operate in collaboration with Greenlots, that these are actually in operation on an ongoing basis?

Hon. M. Mungall: It’s a new technology, as the member well knows. As we install these new technologies, we’re learning a lot in terms of how we do maintenance. That’s why B.C. Hydro has a program where they are ensuring that they’re doing their best in terms of maintenance. Also, what are they learning in terms of how this infrastructure rolls out and how it’s built?

Part of that $40 million that I talked about earlier, that $40 million envelope…. Well, $1.5 million is going to job training and public outreach and program analysis. For example, when we have these types of issues with the infrastructure around charging stations, we’re able to learn from it very quickly. We’re able to train people so that they’re able to maintain it appropriately and on time.

I appreciate that being out of a charging station for two weeks is excessive, and I’m sorry to hear that that happened. But moving forward, we’re definitely looking to learn from those lessons and ensure that we’re doing a better job.

A. Weaver: I would argue that the single biggest barrier to the introduction of electric vehicles in the province of British Columbia is, in fact, B.C. Hydro. In British Columbia, if you want to install a charging station, you simply cannot charge for power. B.C. Hydro and other utilities are the sole organizations that are able to charge a consumer for power. If you go to a gas station and you fill up with gas, you pay the gas station for the amount you wish to fill up.

We don’t need a public subsidy for the introduction of electric-vehicle-charging stations if malls, individuals and companies were actually allowed to install, in partnership with companies, and charge users for the ability to consume the power they do. That’s not possible in British Columbia, and that is the single biggest barrier for our introduction of electric-vehicle-charging stations.

My question is: to what extent is she exploring, as part of these measures, and looking at changing the requirement to be a registered utility in order to charge for electricity to use in your car? And to what extent can that be done through consultation with BCUC?

Hon. M. Mungall: B.C. Hydro is not the barrier that the member is talking about. In fact, B.C. Hydro is looking to partner with private businesses and individuals and is looking to see that infrastructure expanded. What is the barrier? There is one, and the member is right to identify it. It’s actually in the act with the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Responding to that, the ministry is working with BCUC on ways to address this barrier, on ways to allow private businesses to own charging stations and to flow through the charge of power that they would be purchasing. They’d also have a sound business model. They would be able to charge for the parking, for example, while somebody is charging their car while, maybe, they’re shopping at Canadian Tire. I obviously have a particular love for Canadian Tire because I keep bringing it up.

The point is that we do recognize that there are some barriers, and we are working on them.

A. Weaver: I do wish to acknowledge, I believe, the Chair, who showed leadership, which is what I’m arguing is needed here, through the actual installation of electric-vehicle-charging stations here at the Legislature. Unfortunately, the Legislature must subsidize the paying for that. The Legislature cannot allow, even though all of these are set up for swiping a credit card, for me to pay for my electricity or the Minister of Environment to pay for his electricity.

I come back to the issue. B.C. Hydro is the barrier to innovation. Twenty-nine charging stations across British Columbia, high-voltage DC, is hardly innovative when we have some down for weeks. This is not new technology. This is technology that is widespread and is in production around the world.

B.C. has the highest uptake of new electric vehicles in Canada. Four percent of new cars are electric cars in British Columbia, not too dissimilar from what California does with their own ZEV standard, yet we do not meet the infrastructure. The barrier is actually a proactive, innovative way of looking forward as to what’s happening in the future.

Coming back to the question then. Will the minister commit to actually work with industry — not with B.C. Hydro — to ensure that there’s a means and ways for industry to use their capital to install charging infrastructure, to allow electric vehicle users to swipe a credit card to pay for power that they want to pay for so that people will have incentive to install them, rather than requiring schools and hospitals and municipal halls and the Legislature and malls to pay for that?

Charging for parking does not work, because it is patently unfair unless you charge everyone for parking. You pay for the energy you use. Again, coming back to that. Will the minister work with industry — not with B.C. Hydro — to ensure that these can be installed in British Columbia like they can in most jurisdictions in the world?

Hon. M. Mungall: As I said, the ministry is already working with industry and being a mediator between industry and B.C. Utilities Commission on this very issue.

The member did ask that we not work with B.C. Hydro. Obviously, we will be working with our Crown corporation on this issue as well.

The long awaited British Columbia Utilities Commission Inquiry Respecting Site C was released today. I am absolutely thrilled with the thorough and comprehensive analysis that was undertaken. The report reaffirms the position that the BC Greens and I have taken on this project for the last five years.

As noted in the report’s Executive Summary:

1. “The BCUC is not persuaded that the Site C project will remain on schedule for a November 2024 in-service date. The Panel also finds that the project is not within the proposed budget of $8.335 billion. Currently, completion costs may be in excess of $10 billion.”
2. “The Panel finds the least attractive of the three scenarios is to suspend and restart the project in 2024. The suspension and restart scenario adds at least an estimated $3.6 billion to final costs and is by far the most expensive of the three scenarios. In addition, the Panel considers it the most risky scenario because, among other things, environmental permits will expire and that will require new applications and approvals.”
3. “The Panel finds the Site C termination and remediation costs to be approximately $1.8 billion, in addition to the costs of finding alternative energy sources to meet demand.”
4. “The Panel finds BC Hydro’s mid load forecast to be excessively optimistic and considers it more appropriate to use the low load forecast in making our applicable findings as required by the OIC. In addition, the Panel is of the view that there are risks that could result in demand being less than the low case.”
5. “The Panel believes increasingly viable alternative energy sources such as wind, geothermal and industrial curtailment could provide similar benefits to ratepayers as the Site C project with an equal or lower Unit Energy Cost.”

It is now up to the BC NDP cabinet to decide upon the fate of Site C. Armed with the BCUC report, it would be fiscally reckless to proceed with construction. The BC Greens will remain vigilant on this file to ensure that the BC NDP make the evidence-based decision to cancel the project.

Cancelling Site C will now take real leadership. I hope that the BC NDP will seize the incredible opportunity that has presented itself to develop a 21^st Century vision for the future of energy in this province.

Below I reproduce the media statement that I issued on the report.

Media Statement

Weaver statement on BCUC Site C Report
For immediate release
November 1, 2017

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, issued the following statement in response to BCUC’s release of the Site C report.

“I am pleased that BCUC’s comprehensive review and insightful report have been completed on time,” said Weaver.

“It is unconscionable that the B.C. Liberals demonstrated such reckless disregard for British Columbians and for sound fiscal management by pushing through such a substantial mega-project without proper due diligence and oversight.

“I am very encouraged that the report indicates that alternative energy sources could provide similar benefits to ratepayers as Site C at an equal or lower cost. I have long argued that the plummeting cost of alternative renewables makes Site C the unequivocal wrong direction for B.C.’s energy future.

“Supporting the development of smaller renewable projects presents a significant economic opportunity for all corners of British Columbia. In recent months our caucus has met with numerous communities across the province who are proposing exciting projects like wind and geothermal that would generate jobs and innovation in their communities using private sector investment rather than billions in taxpayer funds.

“Cancelling Site C will take real leadership. I hope that the B.C. NDP will seize the incredible opportunity before us to develop a 21^st Century vision for the future of energy in this province.”

-30-

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

As noted earlier, today in the Legislature we were in Committee Stage for Bill 2: Budget Measures Implementation Act 2017. This is a bill that implements the various initiatives discussed in the BC government’s most recent budget update.

One of the sections in the Bill dealt with shutting down the International Business Activity Program. I took this issue very seriously as I was concerned about the unforeseen or unintended consequences of cutting this program. Prior to speaking to the amendment I sought two briefings on this particular section of the bill from staff within the Finance ministry. The evidence I gathered informed the decision I ultimately made.

Below I provide the rationale for my support in eliminating this program.

I also append in the text below an exchange I had with Shirley Bond, the MLA for Prince George-Valemont. In it you will see that I support her statement that the partisan BC NDP Caucus claim that AdvantageBC was a BC Liberal corporate giveaway scheme was not supported by the evidence (the program started under the Social Credit government in 1988).

Video of Justification

Text of Justification & Followup

A. Weaver: I thank the member for Prince George–Valemount for putting forward the amendment. I also wish to thank her sincerely for providing me with information, including a copy of the MMK Consulting report Building B.C.’s Brand and Assessment of the International Business Activity Program.

I have sought two briefings on this particular section of the bill out of concern, as expressed by the member for Prince George–Valemount and others on the opposition side, with respect to: what are the unforeseen or unintended consequences perhaps of cutting this program?

I will say also that I do commend the present CEO of the program, who has clearly taken steps since a previous review to get it on its right track. But if we come, in speaking to the amendment, back to the history of this program, the international business activity program was actually brought forth in 1988 at a time when the corporate tax rate — combined province and federally here in British Columbia — was over 50 percent.

At the time, the rationale for bringing it in was that in British Columbia we were not competitive with other jurisdictions in terms of the corporate tax rate.

Now, as of January 2018, the corporate Canada-plus-B.C. tax rate will be 23 percent. Corporate tax rate has come down 23 percent since the introduction of this program.

If we look, very recently, in terms of what this program is being used at, I have, in the briefings that I’ve sought to get to the full details here…. I understand that, in terms of what’s using it, factoring contributes about 29 percent; dealing in securities, about 28 percent; foreign exchange, about 33 percent; and other issues, such as with the film industry, etc., 10 percent of the usage.

Now, the issue of factoring is an interesting one. What it allows to occur, for example, is British Columbia…. It’s done in a non-arm’s-length fashion. You can set up, in a non-arm’s-length fashion, businesses in other jurisdictions. For example, if I’m a business, I can trade amongst myself by setting up a corporation in America, say, and have a company in Canada. I can go back and forth between myself and take advantage of the tax credits in this program, when really all I’m doing is taking advantage of something that is finding a means and ways of taking advantage of a specific tax break.

Where it gets particularly egregious…. This is a 33 percent that comes in with foreign exchange. I’d like to give a specific example. Let’s suppose that I would like to loan you $100 million U.S., and in order of doing that, I’m going to not loan you but find you $100 million U.S. as capital, so you’re going to get access to it. There may be, say, a 5 percent or a 3 percent commission attached with that. Now, if I’m registered in this, I can go and get the B.C. taxpayer to give me a 12 percent tax credit on that 3 percent commission.

The problem here is that that’s just not right. Why should the B.C. taxpayer…? This is 33 percent of the business model within this international business activity program. One-third of all the activity involves foreign exchange. Any service fee associated with getting money from somewhere…. And it just has to be the money. It doesn’t have to come from another jurisdiction. If it’s another foreign currency, it’s eligible for the money.

One-third of the business model, and you get a 12 percent tax credit. The B.C. taxpayer is subsidizing those who don’t need a subsidy just for the commission. It’s just wrong. I can’t see any justification for that.

You know, I’ve looked at this in detail. I understand that this report is a thoughtful report by MMK Consulting. Unfortunately, it only relied upon interviews, and pre-audited fees were looked at — that is the information that was used. That’s my understanding. The claim of 7,800 jobs that was embedded in this report is actually based on a large number of assumptions that I think could be challenged by the civil service and government if the actual income tax reporting data were available.

I’m not saying that this isn’t a thorough report, but I’m saying the analysis in this report did not have the actual data, the income tax data, that would allow it to make exact or precise assessments of jobs and income.

I took this very seriously. I took the suggestion of the member for Prince George–Valemount very, very seriously. It was not until the second extensive briefing from the civil service…. I’m very grateful to the minister and the staff of the civil service who have provided me with this briefing. It is only after extensive briefing that I must say now that I support the rationale here in recognition of the good work done by the present CEO, and I cannot support this amendment.

S. Bond: I appreciate the comments that have been made. I go back to the fact that the quote that I…. You know, this is a reasoned amendment. It’s not saying that eventually this program needs to be tweaked, modified, changed, but the minister has moved on this issue more quickly than anything else that she’s undertaken. I go back to the words in the NDP government caucus release that “there is a lack of evidence and this is a B.C. Liberal giveaway scheme.”

The request is a simple one. Take a look. Extend the time frame. The program has shown benefit, and I think our job in this House is actually to ask those questions. While there may be some amusement about that on the other side, the fact of the matter is that this has made a difference in British Columbia.

The question is simply: why so quickly? Why not give it the opportunity?

And to the minister: “I’m not interested in referring it to the task force.” That’s exactly what a task force is created for. It’s simply the opportunity to take a look at a program that’s existed, look at its merits and its weaknesses, and take the opportunity to take some due process here. In fact, in our view…. That’s why the amendment has been tabled. There was a significant lack of due process. Quick action. We’re simply asking for reconsideration and allowing there to be some time before the decision moves forward.

A. Weaver: I wanted to stand and support the member for Prince George–Valemount’s comments, with respect to this being a Liberal giveaway. Clearly, this is not a B.C. Liberal giveaway. It’s a program that was established under the Social Credit government in 1988. It was developed and continued through the NDP governments of the 1990s and continued through the 2000s under a B.C. Liberal government.

I think it’s very unfortunate wording that it’s been phrased that way, but it doesn’t change my views with respect to the actual amendment itself. I do respect the fact that it was brought forward. I think it’s a very reasoned amendment. But in light of the briefings that I’ve had with Finance staff, I remain still committed in opposition to this amendment

Today in the Legislature we were in Committee Stage for Bill 2: Budget Measures Implementation Act 2017. One of the questions I asked the Minister of Finance concerned the application of BC’s carbon tax to marine gas oil.

As noted in the video and text exchange, reproduced below, I serve on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. We recently had a compelling public presentation in Nanaimo from a representative from Cruise Lines International Association – North West & Canada (also reproduced below). One of the issues he raised was the competitive disadvantage that BC ports have been placed in relative to US ports due to an error in the application of our carbon tax.

In what can be only described as an oversight, the carbon tax in BC is only exempt on traditional bunker fuels and jet fuel for international travel (consistent with international reporting rules). However, more modern cruise ships use refined marine gas oil which is not exempt.

I am thrilled with the response I received from the Finance Minister who stated that she is very open to examining this further.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I am on the Finance Committee, and we had a very compelling presentation made by representations from the cruise ship industry who have noted that bunker fuels, as per international standards, are exempt from carbon pricing because of the fact that you’re essentially moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they’re historically exempt. However, modern cruise ships don’t actually use the traditional fuels that are exempt, and they’re under a competitive disadvantage against Seattle, which does not, of course, have a carbon pricing.

My question: is there a consideration for exempting cruise ships who will be using fuels now subject to the carbon tax?

Although, under international reporting regulations or rules, typically multi-jurisdictional travel is not charged with carbon tax — international airfare, for example, international cruise ships and so forth.

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member for the question. As the member points out, quite rightly, there are already exemptions for interjurisdictional travel that are in place for the carbon tax. But as we’re going through the budget process for February, we know a request and the information has come in. The member sits on the Finance Committee, so it may come forward through that route as well. But we’ll take a look at all of that information as we develop the February budget.

A. Weaver: The Finance Committee has a very broad set of recommendations. I’m not sure something as specific as interjurisdictional travel and fuels with the cruise ship will be in the report. It may, but I’m not convinced. I just bring this to the attention of the minister, if she might consider having a look at this with her staff as we move forward. We wouldn’t want to put our cruise ship industry in a competitive disadvantage against docks in Seattle versus docks in Vancouver.

Hon. C. James: Happy to take a look at it.

Presentation by Cruise Lines International Association – North West & Canada to Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services

G. Wirtz: Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity.

I am Greg Wirtz. I’m the president of Cruise Lines International Association, North West and Canada. Our association is based in Vancouver, and we represent the cruise lines operating in Canada. Our association has been a pillar of the B.C. economy for decades, with 15,000 jobs associated with B.C.’s cruise industry and some $2.2 billion in economic benefits to our province each year.

Currently British Columbia’s cruise industry is facing some serious competitive challenges. That’s why we’re here today asking for your support for a small change to tax policy that will enhance our competitiveness and further the growth of our industry while reinforcing British Columbia’s environmental leadership and promoting the use of cleaner-burning fuels.

Please allow me to explain. Cruise ships operate in this region typically between Vancouver and Alaska or Seattle and Alaska. Alaska is the marquee destination, and Vancouver and Seattle are the primary home ports. Each year more than one million cruise guests tourists sail to Alaska from either Vancouver or Seattle as home ports. The ships often call at B.C. destination ports, like Victoria, Nanaimo and Prince Rupert as well.

The cruise lines, however, acquire the vast majority of the services and supplies needed by the ships — like fuel, food and other supplies — in the home ports, Seattle and Vancouver. Each home-port call in Vancouver creates $3 million of direct benefits to the B.C. economy. In total, there were more than 230 home-port calls in Vancouver this year alone.

When ships buy fuel for an international voyage, it is normally tax-exempt. This is just like airlines flying on international voyages. The fuel purchased is tax-exempt, recognizing that taxing fuel exports is not good tax or economic policy.

In B.C., cruise lines can purchase what are known as residual fuels, or bunker fuel or heavy fuel oil, for their Alaska voyages on a tax-exempt basis. Cruise lines also purchase cleaner, refined fuel, known as marine gas oil, in B.C.

However, due to a historical artifact of B.C.’s tax legislation, these marine gas oil purchases are only tax-exempt if used in what is called a gas turbine engine. The legislation is more than 15 years old, reflecting that the only cruise ships at the time using marine gas oil were gas turbine ships. Today most ships can operate with the cleaner marine gas oil whether they have gas turbine engines or traditional internal combustion engines. In fact, most cruise ships today are equipped with internal combustion engines, as will be most of the $50 billion in new cruise ships currently on order. Gas turbine ships just have not caught on.

Cruise ships with the much more common internal combustion engines will have to pay three cents per litre on the cleaner-burning fuel when purchased in British Columbia, but not on the less clean-burning bunker fuel. A cruise ship that’s home-ported in Seattle, Washington, does not pay any such tax on their fuel used in international voyages.

As a result, Washington state enjoys a significant fuel-tax advantage over British Columbia in attracting cruise ships, and their passengers, as well as the associated work and supplies needed to support the cruise ships, their thousands of passengers and crew.

In recent years, Seattle has outpaced Vancouver as the home port of choice for cruise ships. There are a number of reasons for this, and a long-term strategy is needed to help British Columbia remain competitive.

However, in the interim, a small, positive change regarding the taxation of cleaner-burning marine gas oil would send a very encouraging signal to the cruise industry that British Columbia remains committed to a sector which contributes $2.2 billion in direct and indirect spending in our province, including $712 million in wages and salaries.

In summary, if British Columbia provides an expanded exemption for the purchase of marine gas oil, it will (1) eliminate a significant competitive disadvantage in attracting cruise ships to British Columbia’s port cities, (2) send a clear signal of support to a key revenue-generating industry in the province and (3) help create jobs in related industries on which British Columbians rely.

I do have copies of a letter and a short backgrounder, which I’d be happy to give to you for your reference. I’d welcome questions, although I acknowledge you can’t ask them.

Last year I introduced Bill M217: Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Ammendment Act in order to include paramedics and emergency dispatchers in the existing Act.

As it stands, paramedics and emergency dispatchers are not considered an essential service. By including them in the collective bargaining act, we would eliminate labour disputes and the use of strikes or lockouts. The bill would give them the ability to resolve disputes through binding arbitration.

Earlier this year, and after consultation with paramedics and their union, I gave notice that I had intended to introduce a variant of the Bill. The bill would have given the Paramedics and Emergency dispatchers their own bargaining unit.

As part of our roll out strategy, we had prepared a letter that we planned to submit to the Minister of Labour today. The timing was designed to coincide with the Annual General Meeting of the paramedics union (CUPE Local 873). To our delight, the BC government proactively announced precisely this today.

There will be no need for me to introduce the Bill. Instead, our health critic, Sonia Furstenau, issued the Media Release reproduced below.

Media Statement

B.C. Greens statement on new bargaining unit for paramedics and dispatchers to improve patient care
For immediate release
October 23, 2017

VICTORIA, B.C. – Sonia Furstenau, B.C. Green Party spokesperson for the Ministry of Health, welcomed the government’s establishment of a new bargaining unit for paramedics and dispatchers.

“I applaud this move to give standalone bargaining to the paramedics and dispatchers working tirelessly to serve our communities,” said Furstenau.

“Paramedics and dispatchers provide an essential service on the front lines of responding to medical emergencies. Now more than ever, we are indebted to them as they have shouldered the additional weight of a horrific drug overdose crisis. This bargaining unit will enable paramedics and dispatchers to advocate for issues such as response times, serving rural and remote communities and the opioid crisis.

“I also thank my colleague, Andrew Weaver, for his diligent work advancing this file. Andrew introduced the First Responder’s Act in February and has advocating for the bargaining rights of paramedics and dispatchers ever since. I am proud this important B.C. Green initiative that will make a difference in the lives of British Columbians has been adopted by government.”

-30-

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