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

Below I reproduce the text and slides of my speech.

Text and Slides of Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Implement a climate action strategy to meet our targets”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Weaver: Sorry, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point of Order

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

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

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

Point of Order
(Chair’s Ruling)

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

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

Debate Continued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today in the legislature I rose during budget estimate debates for the Ministry of Finance to ask about the growing liability that British Columbia is incurring through the deep well royalty credit program. Last spring I extensively canvassed the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on the same topic. It was revealed that that as of December 31, 2017 there are $3.1 billion in unclaimed credits. It turns out that another $383 million was added last year.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange. The BC Green Caucus remains profoundly troubled by the generational sellout embodied in the BC NDP corporate welfare aimed at trying to attract LNG to BC.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: This is for the benefit of the children in the gallery from, I believe, Surrey Christian School. What we’re doing here in the Legislature is we’re debating estimates for the Ministry of Finance. It’s a time for opposition MLAs, the Liberals or the Greens here, to pose questions to the minister about various budgetary issues that are related to her file. I’ll be asking about some finance questions with respect to natural gas royalties.

The reason why I’m posing these to the minister is that I did ask last time: the deep-well royalty credit program is actually administered by the Ministry of Finance. The qualified wells receive these credits automatically, and they don’t need to apply separately.

The credit was first created in 2003, expanded in 2014, and in last year’s public accounts, the unclaimed balance of deep-well credits totalled $2.59 billion. A further $3.5 billion has already been cashed in to reduce royalties that would otherwise have been payable. This program has reduced gas producers’ existing and future royalty liability to the Crown by nearly $6 billion.

My questions in this area are this: how many deep-well credits were issued over the past year and to whom?

Hon. C. James: The member asked how many deep-well credits. We don’t have the information around the breakdown of which are new credits and which are continuing credits with us, but I’m happy to get that information for the member of which are new. We don’t have that breakdown with us, and we’ll get that information.

On page 120, it identifies the number for new, and that would be $383 million. Then the identifier — the member asked how many and who got them — is personal tax information so we can’t provide that. But we’re happy to get the information and get it back to the member around the number of new credits for this year.

A. Weaver: Further on…. I suspect I’ll get a similar answer, and I welcome the information at a later date. How many deep-well credits have been issued since 2014 and to whom?

Hon. C. James: We’ll add that to the information for the member. We don’t have that information with us.

A. Weaver: My question, then, is: why is there not a standard public disclosure of these credits and royalties that are received? There is, for example, for stumpage fees in the province, under the harvest billing system. Why are we not making public the royalty credits that are being claimed here?

Hon. C. James: This credit, the deep-well credit, fits under FOI, and under FOI, we can’t release taxpayer information. I can’t give an explanation around why it would be different, as the member talks about, in stumpage. But the requirement is under FOI to protect individual taxpayer information, which would include, of course, the names and the identifiers.

A. Weaver: The inconsistency, as was noted, is with respect to the harvest billing system, so perhaps we could explore that at some other date.

What’s the total value of deep-well credits that are still outstanding and that could be claimed against?

Hon. C. James: As the member pointed out, $2.6 billion in ’17-18. The ’18-19 numbers get reported out in Public Accounts. That tracking is just being done now, and they get reported out in Public Accounts.

A. Weaver: My final question is with respect to FOI, freedom-of-information, requests that went to the Ministry of Finance. The file number, for reference, is FIN-2019-90584. This was a freedom-of-information request put in by an independent person outside of the Legislature. What was being requested there was a list showing the total royalty credits granted to each company that applied for such credits in the most recent fiscal year.

Now, the freedom-of-information requests from the Ministry of Energy and Mines and from the Ministry of Finance provided completely different answers. The Ministry of Energy and Mines had no issue and provided, actually, the detailed credits, by whom and to whom, whereas the Ministry of Finance withheld all information.

So my question to the minister is: why is there a discrepancy between information we’re getting from the Ministry of Energy and Mines versus the Ministry of Finance?

Hon. C. James: The FOI request that the member is referring to was asking about the infrastructure royalty credits. The infrastructure royalty credits actually have a provision where when someone applies for the credit, they give permission for their information to be shared. That’s why Energy and Mines was able to share the information, because the infrastructure royalty credits have that application for the individuals when they apply. So that’s, obviously, a different program than the deep-well credits

Today in the legislature I rose during Question Period to ask the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations two distinct questions. In the first, I asked how he reconciles his Ministry’s efforts to preserved at-risk caribou herds while at the same time issuing more hunting permits for the same caribou.  In the second question I ask him what he plans to do to preserve the last remaining old growth valley-bottoms on Vancouver Island.

Below I reproduce the text and video of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: I’ve just been walking around with a smile on my face today from ear to ear, and I continue to ask that question in that spirit.

There are 54 caribou herds in British Columbia, 30 of which are at risk of extirpation. Fourteen have less than 25 animals, and the B.C. Government website lists that one of these herds has precisely one individual, whereas another has three. Since the information was posted on the site, it’s likely that they’re gone as well.

British Columbia’s caribou herds are in crisis, and scientists have been raising the alarm for many, many years. After nearly managing the species into oblivion, we’re now desperately trying to save them by any means possible. Yet, at the same time as we try to avoid extirpation in one area, in a neighbouring area, the government issues and permits a legal caribou hunt.

To the Minister of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations: aside from the First Nations’ food, social and ceremonial hunt, how many caribou is he permitting to be hunted in British Columbia in the 2019-2020 limited area hunt and general open season in management units 617 to 620 and 622 to 627?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question to talk about an important animal, an iconic species in B.C. and across Canada and internationally. That is the caribou.

I think it’s been pointed out already in question period so far that unlike the old government, we take the decline in caribou populations very seriously. Going back to 2003, the previous government ignored calls for action to protect caribou habitat for over a decade and kept in place a patchwork of measures that don’t meet federal standards, putting jobs at risk and caribou at risk.

As far as the hunting of caribou that the member asked about, we know that the Chase, Wolverine and Itch-Ilgachuz herds are classified as threatened, and the herd populations continue to decline. That’s why we closed the caribou hunt for these three herds this past March, and this hunt will remain closed until further notice. There are some herds that are still available for hunting, and those are the Carcross and Atlin herds in my constituency, in the northwest corner of B.C. Both herds have in excess of 800 animals.

The member is right. When it’s based on the best available science, and when conservation is the top priority, followed by First Nations’ food spiritual and ceremonial needs, only then is hunting allowed. There are very few animals available for hunt — approximately ten.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Well, that’s inconsistent with the information I have here, where it looks like 268 permits have been issued for caribou in Skeena region 6, which would be ironic in light of the fact the minister just mentioned 800-some animals in and around that area.

The point I’m making here is we’re hunting caribou while we try to save caribou. There’s no overall strategy. Caribou, as we know, are dependent on old-growth boreal and mountain economic systems. For many herds, their main food source is lichen that grows on old trees, and cutblocks and logging roads make them much more vulnerable to predators, as we all know.

Yesterday the United Nations released a landmark study reporting that over a million species are now at risk of extinction, and habitat loss is the driving factor. In B.C., we only act when it’s already too late. For example, our invaluable Vancouver Island valley-bottom old growth is globally rare and is an essential habitat for many species.

My question is again to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Will this government stop its Loraxian approach to resource management and step in to protect the last intact, productive valley-bottom old growth on Vancouver Island?

Answer

Well, I understand we were talking about caribou. There are no caribou on Vancouver Island. I’m sure the member knows that. As far as old-growth forests go on Vancouver Island, we’re committed to creating an old-growth plan in consultation with industry, in consultation with environmental NGOs and in consultation with communities.

We know that old-growth forests provide incredibly important habitat for biodiversity. There are over 500,000 hectares of old growth already protected on Vancouver Island through protected areas and parks. We also know that old-growth forests provide important revenue for communities and important jobs for forestry workers. We’ll continue to manage old growth in a sustainable way, and we’ll continue to work on the caribou file to protect jobs and to protect caribou.

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

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange

Video of Exchange

Question

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

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

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

Answer

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

Supplementary Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

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