Fifth Session, 41st Parliament (2020)

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services

Virtual Meeting

Friday, June 12, 2020

Issue No. 116

ISSN 1499-4178

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.


Membership

Chair:

Bob D’Eith (Maple Ridge–Mission, NDP)

Deputy Chair:

Doug Clovechok (Columbia River–Revelstoke, BC Liberal)

Members:

Donna Barnett (Cariboo-Chilcotin, BC Liberal)


Rich Coleman (Langley East, BC Liberal)


Mitzi Dean (Esquimalt-Metchosin, NDP)


Ronna-Rae Leonard (Courtenay-Comox, NDP)


Nicholas Simons (Powell River–Sunshine Coast, NDP)

Clerk:

Susan Sourial



Minutes

Friday, June 12, 2020

2:00 p.m.

Virtual Meeting

Present: Bob D’Eith, MLA (Chair); Doug Clovechok, MLA (Deputy Chair); Donna Barnett, MLA; Rich Coleman, MLA; Mitzi Dean, MLA; Ronna-Rae Leonard, MLA; Nicholas Simons, MLA
1.
The Chair called the Committee to order at 2:00 p.m.
2.
Opening remarks by Bob D’Eith, MLA, Chair.
3.
The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions related to the Committee’s terms of reference regarding the Budget 2021 Consultation:

1)Ecotrust Canada

Dylan Heerema

2)Innergex Renewable Energy

Julia Balabanowicz

3)Clean Energy Canada

Dan Woynillowicz

4.
The Committee recessed from 2:36 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.

4)FortisBC

Doug Stout

5)B.C. Sustainable Energy Association

Thomas Hackney

6)Cement Association of Canada

Michael McSweeney

5.
The Committee recessed from 3:09 p.m. to 3:20 p.m.

7)Ancient Forest Alliance

Andrea Inness

8)Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative

Tim Burkhart

9)Northern Confluence Initiative

Nikki Skuce

6.
The Committee recessed from 3:40 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.

10)Genome B.C.

Dr. Pascal Spothelfer

11)TRIUMF

Dr. Jonathan Bagger

12)B.C. Tech Association

Jill Tipping

13)AdvantageBC

Clark Roberts

7.
The Committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.

14)B.C. Cannabis Appellations Program

Clayton McCann

15)Consumer Choice Center

David Clement

16)Medical Cannabis Canada

Max Monahan-Ellison

8.
The Committee recessed from 4:52 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.

17)David Clarkson

18)Standing Water Nation

Robin Tavender

19)Professional Employees Association

Melissa Moroz

9.
The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 5:21 p.m.
Bob D’Eith, MLA
Chair
Susan Sourial
Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations

FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 2020

The committee met at 2 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bob D’Eith. I’m the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. The committee is a committee of MLAs from government and opposition parties.

I’d like to acknowledge that I’m joining you for today’s meeting from the traditional territories of the Katzie and Kwantlen First Nations.

I’d like to welcome everyone listening to and participating in the virtual public hearing of the Budget 2021 consultation. Normally, the consultation happens in communities around the province where we travel. Of course, due to the pandemic, we’ve moved the public hearings to virtual this year.

Our consultation is based on the Minister of Finance’s budget consultation paper that was released on June 1. We invite all British Columbians to participate by making a written submission or by filling out the online survey. They can find that on the website at bcleg.ca/fgsbudget. The consultation closes at 5 p.m. on Friday, June 26, 2020.

Of course, we will carefully consider all the input made and make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly as to what should be in Budget 2021. The committee intends to release its report sometime in August.

As far as format, the format of the meetings has changed a bit. This time we are presenting small panels based on theme. This afternoon we’re continuing with discussions on the environment and environment-related topics before shifting to panels on research, technology and cannabis.

Each presenter has five minutes for their presentation. Following the presentations from all panellists, there will be time for questions from committee members.

Today’s meeting is being recorded and transcribed. All audio from our meetings is broadcast live via our website, and a complete transcript will also be posted.

It would be great now to allow all the members to introduce themselves. We’ll start with Rich.

R. Coleman: Good afternoon. I’m Rich Coleman. I’m the MLA for Langley East.

I am in Kwantlen territory.

D. Clovechok (Deputy Chair): Good afternoon from the Kootenays. I’m Doug Clovechok, MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

I’m sitting today on the shared territories of the Shuswap and Ktunaxa Nations.

I look forward to your presentations.

D. Barnett: I’m Donna Barnett, and I’m the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

I’m on the territory of the Secwépemc people.

M. Dean: I’m honoured to be working on the traditional territory of the Songhees, Esquimalt and Scia’new Nations.

I’m the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

R. Leonard: Hello, everyone. I’m Ronna-Rae Leonard. I’m the MLA for Courtenay-Comox.

I am honoured, also, to be here in the traditional territories of the K’ómoks First Nation.

N. Simons: Hello. I’m Nicholas Simons. I represent Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

I’m speaking to you today from Tla’amin territory.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Wonderful. Assisting us today are Susan Sourial and Stephanie Raymond from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Dwight Schmidt from Hansard Services.

Let’s get started. First up we have Dylan Heerema from Ecotrust Canada.

Dylan, please go ahead.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 1 – Energy and Climate Change

ECOTRUST CANADA

D. Heerema: Thank you very much. Just let me know if you can’t hear me at any point.

My name is Dylan Heerema. I’m a senior analyst and engineer at Ecotrust Canada. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

[2:05 p.m.]

Ecotrust Canada is a B.C.-based charity with 25 years of experience working with rural, remote and Indigenous communities. Our community energy team focuses on projects and policies that reduce the cost burden for communities facing high energy bills due to the combination of poor-quality housing, low incomes and lack of access to affordable energy sources. Our work has included a range of activities from heat pump retrofits with the Heiltsuk Nation to policy development with the regional district of Mount Waddington.

Recent research shows that even before the COVID-19 crisis began, there were over 270,000 households in British Columbia facing energy poverty and, therefore, lacking affordable access to basic energy services like heating, lighting and cooking. Since that time, B.C. has lost over 350,000 jobs on net. We recently conducted a poll through Insights West back in May which showed that one in five British Columbians are now reporting that they are having a harder time paying their energy bills or are unable to pay their energy bills since the crisis began.

We do know that a lack of access to basic energy services can have profound impacts on human health and well-being and acts as a risk multiplier for illnesses like COVID-19. Inadequate heating, in particular, can lead to higher instances of asthma and respiratory illnesses, and in the context of the current pandemic, we think these impacts are extremely worrying.

We do applaud the steps that the B.C. government and utilities have taken thus far to provide short-term relief and flexible payment options for energy bills during the peak of the COVID-19 crisis. However, we know that we’re now entering the much-longer recovery and rebuilding phase, and without sustained protections, thousands more families will struggle to pay their household energy bills and face the threat of possible service disconnection. This issue is really the heart of my presentation today.

Our research has shown that existing programs that are designed to alleviate those high energy costs for low-income households have not achieved the kind of widespread adoption or significant savings that British Columbians are going to need as they restart their lives.

Just 5 percent of lower-income households eligible for the energy conservation assistance program, or ECAP, offered by utilities have participated since the program’s inception back in 2008. Of households that have participated in ECAP, the average bill savings amount to less than $100 per year. Similarly, although it is a necessary emergency relief measure, B.C. Hydro’s customer crisis fund and related COVID-19 relief fund were not designed to protect those facing more sustained financial hardship.

Therefore, the first priority we’re proposing today is the timely introduction of a basic energy rebate for qualifying low-income and at-risk B.C. households to immediately reduce the cost burden facing those customers. Several other provinces have introduced these programs, including Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, as well as several U.S. states, including California.

Such a program would provide a direct bill subsidy for electricity bills. Our polling shows that such a measure is supported by more than two-thirds of British Columbians. The total cost would, of course, depend on the amount of the rebate, which, for illustration, in other provinces is typically set at between $200 to $500 per year depending on household size and income.

Our second budget priority today emphasizes the importance of a provincial housing renewal strategy which will complement a bill subsidy over the longer term. In the face of emerging threats like COVID-19 and climate change, it is critical that all homes be brought up to modern ventilation, low-carbon and energy efficiency standards by 2050 at the very latest. In this transition, we must ensure that our low-income, vulnerable and rental households are not being left behind.

As a key part of such a strategy, we’re calling for Better Homes B.C. incentives to be expanded to include targeted rebates for low-income and energy-poor households. Such a program could take direction from existing provincial initiatives like the Indigenous community heat pump incentive, which offers up to $10,000 per household to switch to an efficient, healthy low-carbon heat pump.

Reaching all such households by 2040 would involve around 14,000 retrofits per year and would require a bold step change from current investment. It would also create up to 2,000 jobs per year and be entirely consistent with B.C.’s economic recovery, health, housing and climate goals.

We believe that this crisis presents a once-in-a-generation chance to rebuild B.C.’s economy in a way that is more resilient to future pressure and crises while creating thousands of jobs and improving housing conditions provincewide. Balancing the two interventions I’ve described here, we could essentially end energy poverty in B.C. within the next 20 years, ensuring that everyone has adequate heating, lighting and ventilation in their homes. We look forward to continuing our work with communities and policy-makers to make this goal a reality.

Thank you very much.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Dylan.

Next up we have Julia Balabanowicz from Innergex Renewable Energy.

Please go ahead, Julia.

[2:10 p.m.]

INNERGEX RENEWABLE ENERGY

J. Balabanowicz: Hello, everybody. I appreciate the opportunity to make this address today.

I’d like to begin by gratefully acknowledging that I’m speaking from the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Coast Salish people: the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

At Innergex Renewable Energy, we’re building a better world with renewable energy, focusing on innovation, value creation and balance with respect to people, our planet and prosperity. Innergex is a Canadian-grown company that is now a multinational renewable energy solutions provider with development and operation assets in Canada, U.S.A., France and Chile and with a total enterprise value of $6.6 billion and over 3,000 megawatts in wind, solar, storage and hydropower.

I want to first acknowledge the exceptional time we’re in and extend a deep appreciation to the government and Bonnie Henry for leadership and swift actions to keep British Columbians as informed and safe as possible. As identified in the budget consultation paper, now is the time to engage in dialogue about the future we want. From Innergex’s perspective, our priority is a resilient recovery from the impacts of COVID-19 that results in B.C. building back better.

It’s with that in mind that I want to be clear that I’m not here to ask for a budget spend today. I’m here to talk about the other side of B.C.’s budget — revenues — and the opportunity for B.C. to attract and retain private capital to secure a resilient recovery for this province. Innergex has invested $2 billion in the province. We’ve chosen Vancouver to establish our second-biggest international office. We pay over $20 million in annual taxes to B.C. and employ over 100 British Columbians, with one third of our staff employed outside of the Lower Mainland.

Innergex also has partnerships with 17 First Nations in B.C. that provide reliable, long-term revenues. A resilient recovery in the context of COVID-19 means thinking about durable jobs, a diversified economy, equity and innovation. To do this, many businesses are going to need government support, and the government is going to need business support.

As governments around the world look for paths towards recovery, B.C. is going to be in competition with other jurisdictions to attract and retain the private sector investment that’s critical to bringing about an economic recovery. Innergex believes that B.C.’s clean electricity system represents the single-biggest resilient recovery opportunity for this province.

So how can government leverage the competitive advantage we have to attract private sector investment in B.C.? I have three key points to make.

One, we need to think about incentives for new businesses. B.C. has a valuable commodity in a de-carbonizing world: our abundant renewable electron. Businesses around the world are committing to renewable energy targets and need cost-effective ways of achieving their goals. So 88 percent of companies in G20 countries have pivoted their investment strategies towards low-carbon energy in the past year alone. Marketing incenting these businesses to establish themselves in B.C. on the basis of their ability to achieve their renewable energy commitments will create jobs, drive innovation, diversify the economy and manage the current electricity surplus to the benefit of B.C.’s electricity ratepayers.

Secondly, I want to talk about valuing and retaining current investments. The existing investments by the renewable energy industry in B.C. are significant. These are long-term, capital-intensive assets that have the potential to provide B.C. value for decades to come. The value comes in the form of regional economic development, family-supporting jobs, long-term tax revenue and meaningful participation by First Nations.

In the coming years, how the government of B.C. holds up and values these investments will not only be a signal to our industry but also a signal to all private sector investors across all industries about the relative risks and rewards of investing in B.C. over other jurisdictions.

Furthermore, for an equitable recovery, the First Nations whose ownership and participation in the renewable energy sector provides long-term and dependable revenues for their nations…. They shouldn’t face uncertainty around their investment and partnerships.

[2:15 p.m.]

This is in respect to stabilizing the cost of doing business in B.C. and creating a strong market for continued operations. These investments should be a source of stability on which they can plan an economic future.

My last point, which is very short, is about consistent and clear signals. Businesses need the government to have consistency and certainty to support their investment decisions. With respect to CleanBC, this means continuing to provide clear long-term pathways and stable, funded programs to de-carbonize B.C.’s energy systems. From our perspective, this includes a clear mandate to B.C. Hydro to achieve CleanBC electrification targets.

Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions you may have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Julia.

Next up we have Dan Woynillowicz from Clean Energy Canada.

Please go ahead, Dan.

CLEAN ENERGY CANADA

D. Woynillowicz: Thanks very much.

I’m with Clean Energy Canada. We’re a program of the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University.

I’m personally based here in Victoria and want to acknowledge that I’m on the unceded Coast Salish territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ and W̱SÁNEĆ people.

I want to focus my comments today thinking beyond the stimulus that’s going to be required to help build back our economy coming out of COVID-19 and think about: what does a resilient recovery look like in the longer term? Specifically, what’s the role for CleanBC in that?

The first thing I’d like to draw your attention to is the commitment that the Premier made about a month ago acknowledging the importance of climate change as a crisis and the fact that, as we come out of the crisis of COVID-19, putting CleanBC and climate action at the centre of our recovery is not just the right thing to do from a climate change or an environmental perspective, but it’s also the right thing to do from an economic perspective. CleanBC really is as much an economic plan as it is an environmental plan.

Our first recommendation is to ensure that with Budget 2021, all ministries which have responsibilities for implementing the CleanBC plan remain fully funded to advance the legislation, the regulations and the programs that comprise CleanBC.

The next slide that you should have, slide 3, tries to paint a picture of this more graphically. The $1.5 billion that Minister James has spoken about for stimulus is going to take us through the next six to nine months — really just helping get the economy up and running. But then we need to think beyond that. I think that’s where Budget 2021 comes in, in terms of: what do we do beyond that to really solidify a resilient and sustainable recovery for the province so that we can transform and grow?

There’s been quite a bit of public opinion research that suggests that British Columbians and Canadians alike, when they think about what they want next…. COVID has really shone a spotlight on some aspects of our society that needed to come into the spotlight and need to be improved. There’s a real appetite not just to go back to the way things were but to actually do better and to embrace some transformative change in our society.

The next slide starts to get a little bit more into policy, but there is a budget aspect to it. That’s with respect to the challenges we face in B.C. with our transportation-related emissions. We have some really good policy on the books to encourage zero-emission vehicles — we’ve had incentives in place — but we’ve also seen a real uptick in sales of more polluting gas vehicles. At the same time that we’re selling more electric vehicles, the gas vehicles we’re selling are more polluting.

A feebate is a policy that imposes a graduating tax on vehicles based on their pollution. That creates your revenue stream that you can then use to provide your incentives for zero-emission vehicles. So it’s not taxpayer dollars going to those incentives; it’s actually coming from more polluting vehicles. It can be designed to be revenue-neutral, which lowers the cost to government.

It also allows government resources to perhaps go towards more targeted incentives that can be income-tested and help those British Columbians who, frankly, would really benefit from the lower fuel costs that electric cars offer. That could be applied to both new and used ZEVs. It could also be designed to equitably consider rural and remote areas and small businesses.

The second recommendation is to have Finance and the Ministry of Energy and Mines directed and resourced to develop such a policy with a focus on revenue neutrality as well as developing an income-tested and targeted top-up incentive to make ZEVs more accessible.

[2:20 p.m.]

The next piece is about public transit. We have Trans­Link and B.C. Transit which have both identified plans for swapping out their diesel buses for zero-emission vehicles, which will help them on fuel costs, help urban air quality and help reduce emissions. Certainly now, post-COVID, they face greater revenue challenges.

The third recommendation is that the Ministries of Transportation and Infrastructure and Municipal Affairs and Housing are directed and resourced to work with those transit agencies and the federal government to advance those electrification plans, which include both acquisition of buses as well as associated charging infrastructure.

Then the last piece is something that is more forward-looking and more transformative. That’s hydrogen, which is a key energy carrier that can enable decarbonization in B.C. It’s somewhere where we’re seeing a lot of competition now in other jurisdictions, both within Canada and internationally. B.C. is incredibly well-positioned to produce the world’s cleanest hydrogen, both for our own use as well as for export.

Our last recommendation is that the energy and mines department as well climate action secretariat be directed and resourced to prioritize the implementation of the forthcoming hydrogen road map, with a focus on developing an efficient regulatory framework and to develop and administer a $30 million fund over three years that would have specific allocations to support innovation through R and D and piloting as well as then a second fund that would support that first commercial deployment in the province.

Thanks. I look forward to your questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you to all of the presenters and your commitment to fighting climate change and improving our environment. It’s great.

I did have a question for you. I noticed, Dan, in your — what did you call it? — freebate…. We did already have some presentations, especially from rural and remote areas, because a lot of trucks, particularly work trucks…. They’re really not at the stage yet to…. I mean, I think there will be ZEV trucks that will work at some point, but right now people, especially in rural remote areas, really rely on their trucks, and many are paying a tax, a luxury tax, on their trucks because of the price of the trucks.

I see that you want to balance, have some equity, but I’m just wondering how that might work. Could you maybe just explain that a bit more?

D. Woynillowicz: Yeah, absolutely. That’s a great question.

First, to your point about how we don’t have zero-emission vehicle trucks yet, we will, in fairly short order. Ford’s electric F-150 should be out within the next couple of years. I actually think it’s an interesting opportunity for B.C. to try to position as an early adopter, both by engaging with Ford but also by engaging with individual citizens or with small businesses — to actually be some of the first adopters of those trucks.

To your point around equity, one of the design considerations in a feebate is to actually deliver it within a vehicle class. What that means is that if you’re required to drive a pickup truck, that doesn’t mean that you’re automatically penalized and you’re paying that tax. What it does is impose a graduating tax based on pollution within the truck class.

If we look at…. There are several dozen varieties of trucks that are available in the Canadian market. The difference between the most polluting truck and the least polluting truck is about 40 percent. There is significant variation just based on what truck is being selected. So you’re not preventing somebody from buying a pickup truck, but you are sending that signal to encourage them to buy the least polluting truck or a less polluting truck.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Very interesting.

D. Barnett: Thank you. Dan, in listening to your presentation — and thank you very much — you talk about electric vehicles and taxation, etc. What kind of a taxation do you think the government should put forward? Because if we don’t have fossil fuel, we don’t have that taxation which goes back to local governments for infrastructure. Where would we collect that tax that we are going to lose?

D. Woynillowicz: Well, when we’re looking at what kind of fossil fuel production we have in B.C. right now, it’s predominantly natural gas, both for our own domestic consumption and then for export as liquefied natural gas. It’s not actually used in any significant way within our transportation system.

By encouraging the electrification of transportation in B.C., that doesn’t have a direct impact on natural gas production or the ability of government to collect both royalties as well as taxes associated with that economic activity. There isn’t a direct relationship there.

[2:25 p.m.]

D. Barnett: Maybe I didn’t explain myself good enough. I’m talking about the fuel tax on gasoline, which we will lose. How would you recommend we replace that?

D. Woynillowicz: Oh, I see. Well, that’s something that some other jurisdictions that are switching to electric vehicles are having to look at, in terms of ensuring that, whether it’s done through the insurance system or registration, the taxes that right now come out of gasoline to pay for the roads…. If you’re using the roads driving an electric vehicle, you need to pay for the roads too.

As we see more of a transition of our vehicle fleet towards more and more electric vehicles, then we would have to address that directly by looking at other ways to collect that revenue to pay for things like roads and to make sure that other road users are paying for that, as well, even if they are driving an electric vehicle. It would require an evolution of the policy approach to collecting revenue to put towards those types of expenditures.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I guess there have been some studies on road tolling and other types of tolling to pay for those revenues that are lost.

I know in London, England, they have…. To drive into London is quite expensive. So it’s a disincentive for people to drive in, and it tends to push people towards public transportation. But I guess they have a very robust public transportation system compared to us. We have a wonderful transportation system, but we’re so much more spread out. So it’s difficult.

D. Woynillowicz: Yeah, there are a number of ways it can be done. Tolls is one way.

Another way is to actually do it through insurance. Of course, we have ICBC, as a Crown agency, administering insurance. So you can have pay-as-you drive insurance, which is, essentially, insurance by the kilometre. Now ICBC is offering that to ride-hailing drivers. So we know that the technology exists — the ability to collect that kind of information and charge accordingly.

That would be another way, similar to tolls, but even more specific. Those people who are using the roads…. Depending on how much you use the roads, you contribute a greater or lesser amount.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I just want to make it clear that I am not advocating for tolls. I just got the tolls off my bridge.

Anyway, any more questions from members?

Donna, just let me ask Dylan one thing.

I wanted to ask, Dylan, about the…. I appreciate what you’re saying. I mean, I know Hydro has had some programs for people who have difficulty paying their electrical bill. But I think your plan seems a little more ambitious.

I’m just wondering…. I think one of the challenges that we’re going to have is the economy shrank, which means we’ll have less revenue for the government, which means while we may want to do a lot, it may stop us from being able to do these kinds of programs. I’m just wondering if you see this as a priority or whether or not there are other parts of your presentation you feel are a priority?

D. Heerema: I do. I think that the two elements of it work hand in hand, especially when it comes to working through the question of revenue generation.

Quickly addressing the point on existing programming. I definitely don’t want to detract from those programs, because they do exist and they exist for a specific purpose, which is when a utility is about to, actually, issue a disconnection to a customer.

What we found, at least in the communities we work with, is that that tends to happen kind of at the end of a long period of folks struggling to actually meet the monthly bills. There are specific criteria for qualifying for the crisis fund. We actually saw that, provincewide, 64 or so percent of applications being made to B.C. Hydro for that particular fund are being denied for whatever reason.

This is, yes, more sustained long term. It is something that would be rolled into the broader suite of income assistance and social assistance programming.

I think, quickly, the two points that I want to make is that if you couple that with the energy efficiency programming, that is a very powerful economic stimulator and jobs creator. Energy efficiency is one of the most efficient, if I can use that word, sectors in terms of creating jobs. It usually creates about 13 jobs directly and indirectly for every $1 million invested. So there is a kick from that.

In terms of directly funding the low-income programming, specifically, we’re just doing some research looking into the ways that different provinces and jurisdictions are doing that. In some places, that does come from general revenue, but not always.

[2:30 p.m.]

For example, in Nova Scotia, it’s actually funded through a combination of…. The utility kicks in a little bit through a rate rider, a little bit comes from the province, and some — a significant amount, actually — comes from donations and is administered through the Salvation Army, in that case in Nova Scotia.

There are different models out there, in terms of finding the different sources, and they don’t all have to come from taxes.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s good to know. Thank you so much, Dylan.

R. Leonard: I just want to acknowledge the innovative way that Dylan is participating. I’m guessing that he had to look for enough bars to be able to have nice clear reception.

D. Heerema: Yeah, you’ve caught me in transit from Vancouver to Victoria. So I’m making do here.

R. Leonard: Very good. I do have some other questions related to the topic.

B.C., like a lot of other jurisdictions, has a carbon tax and also has a carbon tax rebate that acknowledges the burden for low-income people. I’m just wondering if you factored that into your calculations.

I also was wondering if you have tracked the success of the program that was under CleanBC with the retrofit for windows and doors and how much uptake there is? You mentioned another program, but I was curious if you’re catching this latest round.

D. Heerema: Yeah, certainly. I’m definitely keeping track with the uptake of the existing CleanBC rebates. A couple of, I think, gaps remain to be filled in those programs, although they are starting to see some good uptake now, especially as the interest around heat pumps starts to take off, as well as the more traditional insulation, window and door rebates.

First of all, the rebate, as attractive as it is…. For a lot of folks, particularly the low-income folks heating perhaps with baseboard heaters or natural gas, the incentive is good, but it’s not necessarily enough to get them over the capital cost hurdle. Certainly, having a combination of a rebate and additional financing programs…. I know folks might be familiar with the financing options that could be coupled with that, such as PACE, on-bill financing, loan guarantees and things like that.

The long and short of it is that for a lot of low-income households, even if it’s $3,000 off of a heat pump, it’s going to have to be more. It’s going to have to be more like 80 percent of the cost of the system, so more like $8,000 or $9,000. Then they’ll realize the bill savings, which is really the benefit we’re trying to drive to. That capital cost remains a hurdle for sure.

The other gap that we’re noticing is that because the CleanBC rebates are explicitly tied to carbon objectives, a lot of folks who are currently heating with electric, especially electric baseboard, aren’t able to access the same level of incentive for switching out to a more efficient heating system, like a fuel pump, because the utility incentives are quite a bit lower than the CleanBC incentives, which require you to be switching from a polluting fuel.

That’s something that I think of also from an equity perspective, particularly for low-income households, looking into ways to get more of those efficient systems into those homes that are heating with baseboard electric and having very, very high heating bills because of that, particularly in rural areas where there is no alternative fuel.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Dylan.

Julia, I just want to make sure you have a chance to comment. There have been a number of questions and comments. I want to make sure you have a chance to respond to anything you’ve heard up to date, or anything you’d like to add before we stop.

J. Balabanowicz: Yeah, I wasn’t expecting that opportunity. Thank you very much.

No, I just think this is an interesting format. Last year was my first time presenting to the committee. Compared to last year, I really do appreciate that we are kind of grouped into a like topic.

One thing that I’m hearing between what Dan, Dylan and I are talking about is that theme of equity and addressing social and economic inequality or injustices through how we’re implementing these programs. So while I didn’t get into policy ideas and ways in which we could achieve that, I just wanted to acknowledge the specific things that Dylan and Dan raised that do get to that and just acknowledge that Innergex really does support that approach.

[2:35 p.m.]

I think COVID-19 has really highlighted to us who our vulnerable populations are. I think it’s fair to say, in the context of climate change and what we know about the top risks that are going to impact business and societies moving forward, that we have more shocks coming. It’s imperative that we think about how to recover from this economic shock and this societal shock in a way that reduces the vulnerability of the people that have been hurt the most this time around.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you for that. It’s resiliency as well — building in that resiliency for the future. As you say, we may have a second round of COVID infection or spikes. How are we going to respond to that?

Then equity within the system so that especially the people…. In the U.S., we’re seeing a lot of low-income people who are having a disproportionate effect from things like the pandemic. Definitely the pandemic is sort of shining a light on some of the issues within our community, and it gives us an opportunity to respond to that.

Thank you, all three of you, for your presentations. I just want to make sure all the members have had a chance to ask questions.

Seeing none, thank you so much again for your presentations. We really appreciate all your advocacy and everything that you’re doing and also wanted to thank you for your own personal efforts and the efforts of your organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic. We’re all working together, and we appreciate everyone thinking about possible opportunities that come out of adversity.

Thank you so much, everyone. We will recess until 2:45.

The committee recessed from 2:36 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): First up we’re continuing on energy and climate change.

If we could have Doug Stout from FortisBC.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 2 – Energy and Climate Change

FORTISBC

D. Stout: Thanks very much for the opportunity to be here today. I really appreciate that.

Just a little background on Fortis. We’ve been delivering energy in British Columbia for over 100 years, starting in 1862 with our first gas streetlight in Victoria and then the establishment of our electric utility, what was West Kootenay Power, in 1897. Today we serve more than 1.2 million customers with natural gas, electricity and other energy forms across the province.

COVID-19 has had a big impact on all British Columbians and on our customers, and we’ve responded with programs to ameliorate the impact of bills on them over the near term here and to work with them as we recover through this over the next number of months. We are cognizant of the need to work with our customers and make sure they have affordable energy.

We think we have an important role to play in helping B.C. recover from the economic impacts of COVID-19. Over the next five years, we plan to spend approximately $3.8 billion on projects that are planned and underway, and we have a number of other projects in the planning and development stage to roll out over the next few years. We’re committed to investing in projects that make life more affordable, improve efficiency, reduce greenhouse gases and drive innovation. We’re among the first utilities in the world to set an absolute GHG reduction target: our 30BY30 goal of reducing customers’ emissions 30 percent by 2030.

In developing the 2021 budget, we’re advocating for the government to follow up on three key items: to position B.C. as a competitive LNG provider to lower global greenhouse gas emissions, to support increased investment in energy-efficiency programs to generate employment across B.C., and to support the creation of policies to enable increased investment in renewable gas development, including hydrogen.

Our Tilbury LNG facility in Delta has been creating LNG since 1971, and it produces some of the cleanest LNG globally available. The facility is powered by renewable hydroelectricity from B.C. Hydro, which significantly reduces emissions, compared to other facilities around the world. It is the lowest-emission facility in the world — about one-third of the global average — due to its electric-drive technology.

Originally used to store gas to provide service to our customers in the winter months, we have been providing transportation fuel to trucks and to B.C. Ferries and Seaspan for a number of years. We were the first facility to export natural gas from Canada to China, and we continue to do some of that. When used as a marine fuel, the LNG from Tilbury can reduce ship emissions by up to 27 percent. It also provides a gain in air quality, reducing NOx, SOx and particulate matter.

We’re looking to take advantage of the significant opportunity to diversify markets for natural gas by expanding our Tilbury LNG facility to meet rising demand, and we’re supportive of the B.C. government’s throne speech commitment to support the development of LNG marine fuelling in B.C.’s ports. We encourage the government to continue this work and support the development of policies and infrastructure that realize the environmental and economic benefits of this opportunity to establish a global marine fuelling hub in Vancouver.

We support the expansion of energy efficiency investments across the province. We currently have an approved budget for $369 million from 2019 through 2022 to invest in those programs, and they span industrial, commercial and residential customers. Investments in energy efficiency are known to create significant economic opportunities. For every $1 million invested in those types of programs, 16 to 30 jobs are created. There is a net benefit of $4 million to $7 million for each $1 million invested, and we drive reduced bills for all the customers who participate in those opportunities.

We’d also like you to take into account the development of renewable gases across the system in British Columbia. That’s the development of renewable gases from biomethane as well as hydrogen. These provide zero-carbon drop-in fuels into the natural gas system and allow customers and end users to get to a zero-emissions goal without changes to their infrastructure and their systems.

[2:50 p.m.]

We have projects underway across the province, and they provide a unique opportunity to partner with communities, Indigenous groups and businesses across B.C. We recently announced a project with REN Energy in the southern Interior to turn biomass, wood waste, into renewable natural gas in our systems — the first in B.C., a significant help for the forestry industry.

That’s an example of the types of things that we see out there. We think the province has a role to play in continuing to encourage that sector and put in place guidelines to make that come together.

With those things said, I am available for any questions or comments from you as we move forward.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Doug.

Next up we have Thomas Hackney from B.C. Sustainable Energy Association.

Please go ahead, Thomas.

B.C. SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION

T. Hackney: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you very much for this opportunity to give a presentation. My name is Tom Hackney. I’m the policy adviser for the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association.

BCSEA is committed to promoting a shift to a sustainable energy system in B.C. As well as public outreach and education, for the past 15 years, BCSEA has intervened in B.C. Utilities Commission proceedings on reviewing B.C. Hydro’s plans and those of other B.C. energy utilities.

BCSEA is on B.C. Hydro’s technical advisory committee for its upcoming 2021 integrated resource plan, and we provided extensive comments to the government’s phase 2 comprehensive review of B.C. Hydro, which addresses B.C. Hydro’s role to implement the CleanBC climate and clean growth plan.

Our overarching budgetary recommendation is that the government should strongly support the CleanBC plan. We recognize that the COVID crisis demands government’s immediate attention to get people back to work and protect jobs, but the climate emergency is still here, and we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lay the foundations for a future low-carbon economy.

Low-carbon electrification is a key part of this. We expect the phase 2 comprehensive review of B.C. Hydro to confirm a strong mandate to B.C. Hydro to pursue low-carbon electrification, but the government must also play an important part.

Successfully electrifying B.C.’s industries, for example, will require investments in new technologies and processes. B.C. Hydro is already piloting initiatives with industry, but Hydro is limited by tight budgets and a stringent cost-effectiveness constraint imposed by the government. The government should provide additional support for pre-commercial technology development, and it should also provide additional incentives for capital investments.

In transportation, the government should give special attention to electrifying both heavy- and light-duty freight and also electrifying B.C.’s public transit fleet. The government should continue to support the development of a provincewide electric-vehicle-charging network.

We commend the government for its oil to heat pump incentives and the better buildings B.C. program. The government should expand this to a plan for a general energy efficiency upgrade for the whole B.C. building stock. This would be a truly green infrastructure investment creating green jobs that really contribute to a sustainable future.

BCSEA urges the government to shift tax dollars away from urban highway expansions and to electrifying buses, building sidewalks and building bike lanes. This would support CleanBC’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, and it would align with the principles of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

[2:55 p.m.]

Avoid projects that would induce increased traffic volumes. For example, replacing the Massey Tunnel with a ten-lane bridge would undermine CleanBC’s objectives.

Finally, BCSEA recommends the government implement a green screen for all infrastructure spending — an objective and transparent assessment of a project’s compatibility with the CleanBC plan and B.C.’s legislated greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. There needs to be public accountability for the effects of taxpayer spending on B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Thank you again for this opportunity. Happy to answer any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Tom.

Next up we have Michael McSweeney from the Cement Association of Canada. Michael was actually my first meeting as an MLA three years ago. I can’t believe it’s been three years. And it’s our fourth Finance Committee report. Time flies when you’re having fun.

We also have Ken, as well, from the Cement Association of Canada.

Please go ahead, Michael. Nice to see you.

CEMENT ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

M. McSweeney: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for embracing this technology, which certainly will reduce our carbon footprint immensely. There’s no question about that.

Just as a quick reminder, we have two cement plants in British Columbia — the Lafarge Richmond plant and the Lehigh Hanson plant in Delta; about 135 ready-mix concrete facilities throughout B.C.; 17 precast concrete producers. We employ more than 23,000 people directly and indirectly and have over $3 billion of investment in the British Columbia economy. We want to see and have the government support of locally produced, low-carbon cement and concrete which will be used in your infrastructure across the province.

We’re big believers in corporate responsibility. Fighting climate change is society’s greatest challenge. We want to make sure that we’re investing in keeping jobs in B.C., and we support open, transparent, science-based collaborative solutions to the sustainability challenges.

Major factors confronting us. Aside from recovering from the shock of the global COVID-19 pandemic and, most recently, the long-standing injustice of racial inequality, climate change continues, as I said, to be society’s greatest challenge. Like other issues, it needs strong leadership by elected officials, as well as actions by all citizens working together, and that includes industry.

We’re responsible in Canada for about 1.5 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions, and we want to be leaders in doing our part to reduce greenhouse gases in British Columbia and across the country. We want to thank the government of B.C. for the CleanBC program, which has and will continue to provide funding that will reduce greenhouse gases across the province.

No carbon tax on alternative waste-based fuels is one of our asks of you today. Each of our cement plants pays about $8 million a year in carbon tax, and we support the carbon tax and carbon pricing. However, there is a lack of fairness when imported cements pay no carbon tax. We’re hovering now around 20 to 25 percent of imported cement from Asia. That number rose as high as 42 percent about four or five years ago.

When you import cement from Asia, it creates another 25 percent of greenhouse gases through transportation. So we really think that imported cement needs to pay a carbon tax somehow rather than, through a loophole, not paying any carbon tax.

Originally, in last year’s budget, there was going to be a tax on combustible waste — a new category for tax purposes — although it has not yet been implemented. Right now much of the materials that we could replace coal with would be taken from landfill. We want to see those combustible wastes — like construction demolition waste, carpets, shingles, non-recyclable plastics — used to replace coal.

For example, a new category in the Ministry of Finance’s tax schedule had proposed to put a carbon tax of $89.87 a tonne on shingles, and that would make them uneconomic as an alternative fuel to replace coal and have less greenhouse gases. Those materials would continue to go to landfills. So we want to make sure the government does not apply the B.C. carbon tax to any alternative or waste-based fuels that will reduce greenhouse gases.

[3:00 p.m.]

We want to see the ban on landfilling of municipal solid waste. Metro Vancouver is still landfilling over 700,000 tonnes of garbage each year. This has to stop. If we’re able to process some of that waste as an alternative fuel, we will be able to create jobs and produce low-carbon fuel and then reduce greenhouse gases.

Finally, we want to see the government implement Portland-limestone cement for all public infrastructure. This is a new cement that we manufacture. When you use this cement, you actually reduce greenhouse gases by 10 percent at no cost to the taxpayer. Imagine a cement that reduces, as I said, greenhouse gases by 10 percent, at no cost to the taxpayer.

The Cement Association, Lafarge Canada and Lehigh Hanson are here to continue working with the B.C. government to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop effective public policy on waste-based fuels.

These are unprecedented times, and we appreciate the work of the B.C. Legislature in using new technologies such as Zoom. We also want to congratulate Dr. Henry, Premier Horgan, Minister Dix and all the MLAs for all the work you’ve done and for the leadership you have provided to fight COVID-19. B.C. is certainly a leader across the country.

Thank you very much.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Michael. I appreciate that I think we were talking about very similar things in that first meeting we had. I am interested, a little bit more, as to how you would see taxing the imports that are creating that competitive advantage. How do you see that working?

M. McSweeney: We have met several times with the Ministry of Finance and Minister James, and with the previous government as well. We’ve suggested….

In fact, the department of Finance and the old climate action secretariat came up with an input tax credit that would see cement taxed when it goes into the concrete industry. So we would pay one carbon tax when we manufacture the fuels that we use to manufacture cement. Then the domestic industry would pay a second carbon tax when cement was sold into the concrete industry. When imports from Asia, through the United States, were used in concrete, those cements would be taxed at that time. That means the domestic industry would be paying two taxes on carbon.

What the government, the civil servants, had suggested was that there be an input tax credit applied to the domestic producers. When you do that, you are compliant with the WTO trade obligations. That’s the number one thing we have to make sure we are compliant with. We can’t tax just importing industries. We have to tax everybody the same, but you can apply an input tax credit and give that tax credit to domestic industries.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you, Michael.

M. Dean: Thank you to you all for your presentations.

Michael, you said at the end there, about creating this new cement that reduces GHGs…. How does it do that? Is it just a one-off reduction at one point, or is it an ongoing…? Is it because of how you build the buildings that it reduces GHGs, or is it how the cement is produced?

M. McSweeney: It’s how the cement is produced. You grind up limestone at the end of the process, and you use electrical energy to do that, which is a lot more environmentally friendly than coal, pet coke or natural gas. You add 15 percent limestone to the clinker that comes out of the cement-making process, and you end up with a net savings of 10 percent greenhouse gases. When you use that cement on a project, you can actually say that project, when you use this new cement, reduces greenhouse gases, for that project, by 10 percent.

Fifty percent of all cement sold in British Columbia today, in the private sector in the Lower Mainland, is using this cement, but very few governments — whether it’s municipalities, the provincial government or the federal government — are going to use this new cement. We forecast that if all governments mandated the use of this new cement, we would reduce one megatonne of GHGs across the country. As you know, we’re about 60 megatonnes short right now of meeting our 300-megatonne-reduction commitment.

M. Dean: What’s the barrier, then? Is it the price point, or is it that there isn’t enough of it? Why isn’t everyone using it?

[3:05 p.m.]

M. McSweeney: It’s sold at the same price, and sometimes it’s sold at a discount. If you’ll allow me to be cheeky for a moment, I always say the barrier is white male engineers between 55 and 65. They don’t want to change.

Now, that would exclude Rick Glumac.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I’m not sure he’s 55.

M. McSweeney: That’s what I mean. It excludes Glumac because he’s not at the 55.

Engineers are risk-averse, Ms. Dean. It’s terrible, across the country, that you…. When every government has embraced climate change…. In fact, we were big supporters of the B.C. government raising their target to 40 percent reductions. Then we can’t get governments to use this, especially when it’s the same price as the general use cement.

B. D’Eith (Chair): There is, I think, 25 percent. There’s still a gap that has to be made up in terms of CleanBC.

M. McSweeney: Absolutely.

B. D’Eith (Chair): One would think that would be a logical step towards doing that.

M. McSweeney: All governments have found a portion of the way to getting to their target — in this case, 40 percent in B.C. — but they’re hoping there will be new technologies developed as we move along over this next decade. We’re saying, in this case, that we have a solution today. Governments — municipal, federal and provincial — buy about 50 percent of all concrete produced across Canada.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Doug, did you have anything to add? We have a little bit of time. Was there anything else you wanted to add?

D. Stout: Just generally, looking across…. Thomas mentioned the CleanBC program, which we’re very supportive of. We think there are lots of opportunities, energy efficiency overlaps. Thomas was talking about the buildings and driving down and reducing bills for people while you get greener, balancing off the inputs and the outputs so that we can make things affordable for people. I think there are lots of opportunities here to move along in, in various areas.

We’ve done a study. Guidehouse, formerly Navigant, did a study for us looking at different opportunities for using the natural gas system across B.C., along with the electric system, to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets. We think there are ways to do that in a much more cost-effective way than just electrifying everything. We don’t think that makes sense in the long run, overall.

We’ve shared that with some of the ministries. We’re just getting a public copy of that finalized. We’d be happy to share that with anyone who’s interested in seeing that. It’s the abridged lay engineer’s version of things to get it down to where we can all wade through it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Doug.

Tom, did you want to add anything?

T. Hackney: I agree substantially with what Michael and Doug said.

It’s not specifically a budgetary comment, but in our view, B.C. Hydro’s upcoming integrated resource plan and their whole contribution to the climate action of the B.C. government in B.C. is a critically important opportunity. We’re really looking forward to seeing some, hopefully, very innovative approaches coming up there, and we hope that the government will support them strongly.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thanks, Tom.

Well, thank you very much. I don’t see any other questions from members. We appreciate everything that all of you have done during the pandemic, both individually and with your organizations. We appreciate your comments.

I always like to tell the story, Michael, of my first meeting with you. I really didn’t expect my first meeting with an industry organization to be talking mostly about environmental protection. I learned a lot, and I continue to.

Thank you so much, all of you, for your presentations.

We will recess until 3:20.

The committee recessed from 3:09 p.m. to 3:20 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we are continuing on the topic of the environment. We have Andrea Inness from Ancient Forest Alliance.

Andrea, would you please go ahead.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 3 – Environment

ANCIENT FOREST ALLIANCE

A. Inness: Good afternoon, committee members, and thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.

We are currently facing unprecedented public health, climate and biodiversity crises, both in B.C. and across the world, all of which are bringing into sharp focus our dysfunctional, unsustainable relationship with the natural world. Decades of shortsighted resource management decisions have placed natural ecosystems, the services they provide and our own well-being and the well-being of future generations at risk.

At the same time, we’ve learned from our COVID experience here in B.C. just how much British Columbians value nature and access to the outdoors for their mental and physical well-being. Concerns for the health of our environment are becoming increasingly connected with concerns for the health of British Columbians, and it’s imperative this government prioritize both in its budget. I want to, therefore, propose three priority funding programs that will help the province achieve its stated goals of building back better after COVID, reconciliation with First Nations and improving the way it manages old-growth forests.

Our first recommendation is for the province to allocate funding in Budget 2021 to a provincial land acquisition fund for the purchase and protection of endangered ecosystems on private lands. Many of B.C.’s most endangered and biologically rich ecosystems, including ancient forests but also many others, are found on private lands, which make up 5 percent of B.C.’s land base and which, in order to be protected, must be purchased outright from willing sellers.

B.C. Parks operates a skeletal land acquisition program, but there is no current dedicated annual funding to acquire and protect major tracts of endangered land. The burden typically falls on local and regional governments, private land trusts or community groups to raise the money. While these efforts are important, they’re simply not enough to raise enough money to protect all the endangered private lands before many are destroyed.

In the ’90s, the NDP government introduced a substantial land acquisition fund, but this program was reduced under the Liberal government and then finally scrapped in 2009.

We strongly recommend the B.C. government reintroduce this program in Budget 2021 by establishing a dedicated $40-million-a-year fund to systematically purchase private lands of high conservation, scenic, cultural and recreational value and add it to B.C.’s park system. Ideally, this $40 million fund would increase by $10 million a year until it finally reaches $100 million per year. However, any amount of funding would be a welcome start in order to initiate momentum towards what would eventually be a larger land acquisition fund.

Our second recommendation is for the B.C. government to commit dedicated funding to Indigenous protected and conservation areas, or IPCAs. In recent years, IPCAs have gained considerable recognition as innovative, effective and socially just mechanisms for conserving lands and waters while also supporting the languages, cultures, health, well-being, jobs and economies of Indigenous communities.

In 2018, the federal government committed $1.8 billion to meet our international obligation to protect 17 percent of Canada’s lands and inland waters by the end of this year. Of that, $175 million was allocated just last year to supporting proposed IPCAs across Canada. In B.C. alone, about 60 IPCA funding proposals were submitted.

With a new protected area target of 25 percent by 2025 set last year, it’s likely even more federal funding will be allocated this term. This brings a tremendous opportunity for the province to step up and support IPCAs in B.C. by committed dedicated annual funding for projects, starting with Clayoquot Sound, where both the federal government and the Nature Conservancy have committed funding but where the province has yet to commit.

Our final recommendation is for the province to fund conservation financing solutions to support First Nations sustainable economic development as an alternative to old-growth logging, similar to the $120 million, including $30 million in provincial funds, provided to nations in the Great Bear Rainforest. This is a fundamentally important precursor for the large-scale protection of old-growth forest ecosystems in B.C. and for the NDP government to effectively implement its commitment of applying ecosystem-based management to old growth in B.C.

[3:25 p.m.]

All conservation solutions in the province, whether on private or public lands, must respect the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and provide opportunities for First Nations to regain management and decision-making authority over their unceded territories.

The province should support First Nations’ economic, cultural and social well-being by championing new conservation financing mechanisms built on solutions deve­loped and already successfully implemented in the Great Bear Rainforest.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have Tim Burkhart from Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative.

Please go ahead, Tim.

YELLOWSTONE TO YUKON
CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

T. Burkhart: Good afternoon, and thank you so much to all committee members for hearing us today.

I’m joining this meeting from the unceded lands of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples of the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations and the W̱SÁNEĆ people.

I’m B.C. program manager with the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, or Y-to-Y. Y-to-Y is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and connecting habitats so people and nature can thrive.

We appreciate the province’s focus on taking historic action to help British Columbians facing hardship as an immediate result of the COVID-19 outbreak. Let me take this opportunity to thank you all for your leadership and for soliciting the input of diverse stakeholder voices in this Budget 2021 process.

As our province plans for how to manage and recover from this crisis, I would like to highlight today some opportunities to support communities in recovering from the pandemic and strengthen the natural world we rely upon. Y-to-Y is recommending that government examine stimulus measures that include support for green infrastructure, that support Indigenous-led initiatives to conserve wildlife and habitat and that work to repair ongoing and legacy impacts of industrial pollution, resource extraction and associated habitat degradation.

I want to talk today about making highways safer for people and wildlife. Y-to-Y supports green infrastructure projects, and we’re working with the province, First Nations, local communities, industry and researchers to do just that — to make B.C. highways safer for people and wildlife. For example, the current rate of collisions involving large mammals along British Columbia’s Highway 3 has raised concerns among agencies and the public regarding motorist safety and barriers to wildlife connectivity. The cost of wildlife-vehicle collisions in this area alone may be as high as $3 million per year.

A five-year integrated project has been designed for implementing infrastructure solutions in the highest-priority area, the Alexander-Michel linkage corridor just west of the Alberta border. The project consists of eight underpasses and one major wildlife overpass, which would be the largest in B.C. Funding is in place for year 1, and the first installations are planned for this fall. The overpass is slated to begin construction in year 2, should sufficient funding be acquired.

Y-to-Y recommends that B.C. take the opportunity to put people to work making our highways safer and include infrastructure funding to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions along transportation corridors, including funding for year 2 of this shovel-ready project in the Rockies.

Y-to-Y supports Indigenous-led conservation. In 2019, we saw overwhelming interest from Indigenous communities for advancing conservation through Indigenous-protected areas, as demonstrated by the 60-plus applications from B.C. First Nations to the federal government’s Canada nature fund.

Y-to-Y recommends that the province provide financial support to Indigenous communities and organizations to help them develop projects that make a significant contribution to conservation and nature-based climate solutions. Through the province’s land use planning modernization program, B.C. can fund projects that put people to work while supporting Indigenous leadership and conservation and contributing to meaningful reconciliation with First Nations.

We also know that investment in a green stimulus must also emphasize the restoration of resilient natural systems that deliver valuable ecosystem services, such as clean water and carbon sequestration, while buffering against wildfires, catastrophic flooding, drought and further loss of biodiversity. There’s an opportunity to support jobs in rural communities in ecological restoration to bring back functional habitat for endangered species such as mountain caribou.

A recent report raised concerns about the state of old-growth forests in B.C. The loss of these forests puts biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, carbon storage and rural economies at high risk. We encourage the province to be bold, to stop logging rare old-growth ecosystems and change the way we manage our forests, to focus on value over volume and ensure benefits to local communities and more diverse employment opportunities for forestry workers.

In closing, much has been said about what the COVID-19 crisis has revealed about our society’s relationship to the natural world. Along with the pandemic, the interlinked catastrophes of biodiversity loss on a global scale and climate change have created uncertainty for businesses and industry, uncertainty for communities and uncertainty for wildlife. This uncertainty about the health and security of nature and of our economies is a major problem for British Columbia.

[3:30 p.m.]

As we look to invest in shovel-ready projects today, we must also seek opportunities to build resilience into the natural infrastructure that protects society and preserves biodiversity for tomorrow. By investing in a cleaner and healthier future for people and nature, we know that B.C. can come out of this crisis, building back better with a stronger and more resilient economy.

Thank you for your time today.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Tim.

Next up we have Nikki Skuce from the Northern Confluence Initiative.

Please go ahead, Nikki.

NORTHERN CONFLUENCE INITIATIVE

N. Skuce: Thank you so much for the opportunity to make this submission to the B.C. budget. I hope you’re all managing well through the ups and downs of life in a pandemic.

I’m the director of the Northern Confluence Initiative, which is based out of Smithers and focuses on land use decisions in northern British Columbia. We strive for the greater conservation and protection of wild salmon watersheds.

“Beautiful British Columbia” is more than a slogan on a licence plate. It’s the place we call home, and I think British Columbians are really valuing nature even more since COVID hit. Funding support for nature conservation and green infrastructure, such as from the previous couple of proposals on this panel, will be broadly supported and can help build B.C. back better. I’m going to touch on two recommendations around increasing funding for land use planning and restoration stimulus.

Over 25 years ago, strategic land use planning processes began that covered most of British Columbia. Several areas of the province were not covered, such as Merritt, the upper Nass, Upper Skeena and the Sunshine Coast. Other regions engaged First Nations only as stakeholders and failed to recognize their rights and title. Then in several plans, many issues weren’t considered when identifying management objectives or conservation areas, including climate change and mountain pine beetle infestations.

Later in the process, sparked by court cases, plans resulted in more collaborative decision-making and economic benefit–sharing, including the Coastal First Nations, the Gitanyow and Taku River Tlingit. These land use plans provide clear processes for Indigenous engagement and identify no-go zones that provide more certainty to development opportunities.

The B.C. government has mandated the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources to modernize land use planning to sustainably manage B.C.’s ecosystems, rivers, lakes, watersheds, forests and old growth. In line with my MLA’s mandate, a small budget has been allocated towards this end, but it’s insufficient — just over $16 million over three years, which is less than a district received during the original LRMP process.

Implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, particularly free, prior and informed consent, is now law in British Columbia. As argued by Roshan Danesh and Rob McPhee in a paper last summer, a revitalized approach to land use planning is one way of applying the consent standard and furthering implementation of Indigenous title and rights. Land use planning, essentially, can breathe life into DRIPA.

Renewed land use planning can also bring better stewardship and result in more informed management decisions, given the impacts of climate change, increasing devastation from wildfires and the cumulative effects from resource extraction.

We’re asking the budget committee to commit to more funds toward land use planning that helps the government achieve multiple commitments. We’d also like to see some more funding for monitoring through Indigenous guardians programs.

Another budget area for more medium- and long-term stimulus is toward the restoration economy. Restoring degraded lands can provide multiple benefits, including carbon sequestration and erosion control. It can improve water quality. It’s also labour-intensive. Jobs created by restoration activities are located mostly in rural areas and communities hard hit by the economic slowdown.

Federal funds were recently given to B.C. to clean up abandoned or orphaned oil and gas wells, and there are also over 1,800 historical mine sites that need clean up. B.C. did not require reclamation fees until 1969 for mines and still lacks full bonds for current operating mines. In the last report by the chief gold commissioner, we were at a $1.2 billion liability for mine reclamation, and we have a legacy of contaminated sites from mining.

While we strongly believe that the rules need to change to ensure that the polluter actually pays and the public stops subsidizing the mining industry for environmental harms, this is also a good time to deal with legacy sites and start a mine rehabilitation fund, while also changing our mine reclamation bond policy.

In addition, salmon are critical to B.C.’s cultures, ecosystems health and economy. Every action to support B.C.’s dwindling wild salmon stocks is critically important. One of the things that we can control to improve their future prospects is habitat protection and restoration. There are many opportunities and shovel-worthy projects, such as habitat restoration up here in the upper Bulkley for sockeye recovery.

Lastly, restoration is also needed for damaged ecosystems, as mentioned by Tim — in particular, from linear disturbances in critical habitat.

[3:35 p.m.]

The three recommendations around this restoration economy. Create a mine rehabilitation fund to restore abandoned mine sites that creates real jobs and has multiple benefits, although with the condition, I think, that we improve our policy for the future.

Increase the B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund over the next five years, which is a 30-70 funding model with the federal government with the feds paying up to 70 percent.

Also, there are some proposals around watershed security funds and to support some habitat restoration. Thank you very much.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much, Nikki and all three panellists.

Questions from members?

M. Dean: Thank you for all the presentations.

Tim, I heard you talking about shovel-ready projects, and you were also talking about partnerships with Indigenous communities as well. I’m just conscious of the fact that many Indigenous communities at the moment are in survival mode. Once things start opening up, the opportunities for Indigenous people to, maybe, retrain or be recruited into shovel-ready projects…. They might not be ready, or the timing might not be the same for different communities, because the impact of the virus is unequal on different communities.

Thinking back, people in construction…. Construction has continued. It’s a male-dominated area. Our government has been trying to make sure we can open up access to that sector for women and provide more training for women and support for women in trades, making construction sites more culturally safe for women as well.

How do we create that balance between making sure those opportunities and access to the recovery investments are not only equal but that we’re actually trying to close gaps rather than just creating opportunities for people who are already able to take advantage of those opportunities?

T. Burkhart: Thank you for the question. That’s a really good question.

I think, as you mentioned, that different communities have different priorities and needs at this time. But I do believe that investment in the planning — the land-use planning process — and support and capacity building for First Nations communities can ensure that they are shovel-ready. I don’t mean that just in a construction sense, but projects that are ready to move forward that can employ community members in numerous fields.

That could include ecological restoration work. I know the Twin Sisters Native Plants Nursery and Twin Nations ecological restoration, two First Nations–owned businesses in the Peace country, are eager to get work going out on the land.

At the same time, there is opportunity to support the planning, surveying, monitoring and guardian programs and other processes associated with Indigenous protected areas and building the capacity for First Nations to manage and plan for those as well.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Nikki or Andrea, did you want to comment on anything in terms of access and ability to take part in some of the ideas that you have, from Mitzi’s question, at all?

N. Skuce: I will just briefly. I am going to also make a written submission.

I do think that there are multiple mechanisms that the government has to help support and/or revive programs that have already existed, like ones for unemployed forestry workers which happened around 2009 that helped to build some trail and back-country ski places around here. It had tourism benefits as well.

I do also think, on your point, that things like moving ahead with the $10-a-day daycare and those sorts of things will be really beneficial to help women in particular.

B. D’Eith (Chair): One thing that has become very apparent from this new format, that we’re finding, is having these discussions where like groups get together and have a discussion like this…. One of the things I’ve noticed today, for example, is that with different groups, whether you’re talking about watershed protection, salmon restoration, old-growth forests or any other things, there are so many overlaps.

I’ve noticed in past reports that sometimes we’ll sort of compartmentalize many of these issues instead of looking at them a little bit more holistically. I think part of the benefit of this type of format is actually shining a light on that.

I mean, we’re talking about child care when we’re talking about the environment. So many of these things are connected. So thank you for that.

All right. Any other questions from members? Okay.

Well, thanks so much for all your work and your passion in regards to protecting the environment and all of the things that you do. And also thank you very much for everything that you’ve done during the pandemic. We want to make sure everybody is aware of our appreciation for everyone’s efforts. So thanks.

We will recess right now until 3:50. Thanks, everybody.

The committee recessed from 3:40 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have a panel on research and technology. First up we have Dr. Pascal Spothelfer from Genome British Columbia.

Please go ahead.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 4 – Research and Technology

GENOME B.C.

P. Spothelfer: Thank you very much, and good afternoon, members of the committee and committee Clerks. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about how research and innovation help strengthen our society and grow the economy, and how Genome B.C. is contributing to British Columbia’s future.

For 20 years, Genome B.C. has been supporting world-class genomics research and innovation projects with the aim of growing globally competitive life sciences sectors and delivering sustainable benefits for B.C., Canada and beyond.

We manage a cumulative portfolio of over $1.1 billion through more than 425 research projects, technology platforms and innovation initiatives. We have engaged in over 1,000 collaborations with international partners in 42 countries, advanced more than 100 B.C.-based companies and 700 patent applications and attracted over $850 million in co-funding to B.C. These numbers are significant, but the real value of our work is in the profound positive impacts that our projects have on the lives of people every day, including advancements in health care, forestry, agrifoods and environmental stewardship.

This is a special time for British Columbia, as the field of genomic innovation is increasingly making practical differences daily, both socially and economically. The most recent demonstration of this was during the COVID-19 crisis. B.C.’s investment in health research helped to enable information-gathering to inform public health policy and accelerate mitigation strategies in the fight against this global pandemic.

For our part, Genome B.C. leveraged our organizational fitness and nimbleness, reacting immediately by proactively reaching out to our partners. This resulted in funding to the B.C. Centre for Disease Control to identify where new cases of the novel coronavirus in B.C. were originating and monitoring spread within the community.

Likewise, our recent COVID-19 rapid response funding program provided funding to projects addressing challenges, with a focus on short-term impact. We reviewed and evaluated 185 applications and selected 13 projects for funding. This entire process took two weeks, resulting in a faster response to COVID-19, where we know every day counts. Our agility and ability to fund emerging issues of importance to our region will continue to be key to our strategy and a competitive advantage for B.C.

Since the inception of Genome B.C., our team of researchers and innovators has garnered 28 percent of funds available through Genome Canada competitions. This is the highest per-capita federal investment in genomic research in the country. Such results are the consequence of the systematic strengthening of B.C.’s genomic research ecosystem over consecutive strategic plans by successive B.C. governments. These are just some highlights of the initiatives that were made possible through the continued support of the B.C. government.

We were very grateful that in March 2019 we received $29 million as part of the province’s supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Health. From this funding, $14 million enabled Genome B.C. to complete the final year of its 2015-2020 strategic plan and deliver on our commitments. We leveraged the five-year total provincial funding of $85 million into over $384 million in investments for B.C. I’m pleased to report that we achieved or exceeded all targets in that plan.

The remaining $15 million was the first provincial contribution to our new 2020-2023 strategic plan, building on our capability to progress and align with the priorities of our stakeholders, including the B.C. government. Ongoing support for this plan will enable Genome B.C. to capture $136 million in co-funding from industry, federal programs and international organizations over the next three years.

The provision of provincial support through secured early funding has been a critical element of Genome B.C.’s success and has allowed us to partner internationally, attract co-investment and retain top talent. This ongoing support allows Genome B.C. to capitalize on the critical first investor dollar that drives funding partnerships.

[3:55 p.m.]

The COVID-19 pandemic shows, in dramatic ways, that science, research and innovation cannot be an afterthought. They’re essential for the well-being and success of our jurisdiction. As the go-to expert in the field, convener, thought leader, ecosystem builder and funder, Genome B.C. plays a significant role in British Columbia’s ability to mobilize the benefits of research and innovation. We very much appreciate the support to Genome B.C. to date, and we look forward to continuing to advance B.C.’s health care priorities and contributing to the province’s economic recovery and future growth.

Thank you for your time. I’m happy to take any questions you may have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much.

Next up we have Dr. Jonathan Bagger from TRIUMF.

Please go ahead.

TRIUMF

J. Bagger: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I’ve had the pleasure to speak to you before, but this year is different. The pandemic hangs over us all. So I’d like to start by thanking you for the tremendous leadership you have shown during this crisis. We are all stronger for it.

Budget 2021 presents a golden opportunity to help British Columbia recover, while also shaping the future. It is clear and supported by several recent studies that the province’s long-term prosperity hinges on a transition to a knowledge-based economy. My message today is that government must seize this moment to build upon B.C.’s strong foundations and make investments that foster innovation, addressing both immediate needs and positioning the economy for future success.

I am here representing TRIUMF, a world-class subatomic physics centre located in Vancouver. We are a university-owned facility with a network of academic and industry partners that circles the globe. We house about 600 staff and students and, in a normal year, about 1,200 scientific visitors from over 40 countries. Our core operational funding is provided by the government of Canada.

For 50 years, our laboratory has answered questions about the birth and evolution of our universe, while at the same time providing British Columbians with life-saving isotopes and cutting-edge medical diagnostic technologies. We serve as a platform for attracting, training and retaining talent. We have a proven track record of connecting science and society to the benefit of all.

Most recently, during this pandemic, TRIUMF was a lead partner in an international project that developed a novel low-cost ventilator in less than three months. Our expertise was critical, as was our partnership with the federal government. The project received USFDA emergency use authorization in May. Health Canada approval will soon follow. The government of Canada has ordered 10,000 of these ventilators to be produced by Canadian manufacturers.

Also, when the pandemic massively disrupted the global supply chain, we worked with industry and health care partners to ensure a stable supply of critical medical isotopes for the people of our province.

As B.C. develops this plan for recovery, TRIUMF stands ready to assist in whatever way is most useful. We are prepared to work with you on a range of projects and initiatives to support your vision for a resilient health system and economy.

Examples include advancing STEM education, skills training and talent development with a new visitor and education centre to help supply B.C. with the workforce it needs for a knowledge economy; enabling new medical innovation capacity to unlock new treatments for critical illnesses, including promising new therapies for patients with late-stage metastatic cancers; or fostering emerging technology clusters in areas including the health and life sciences, advanced materials development or the quantum and data sciences.

While each of these projects would serve a different need, they all provide both immediate and legacy impacts that will improve life and increase prosperity in British Columbia, both today and for years to come.

We look forward to working with you. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today.

[4:00 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much.

Next up we have Jill Tipping from the B.C. Tech Association.

Please go ahead, Jill.

B.C. TECH ASSOCIATION

J. Tipping: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Jill Tipping. I’m the CEO of B.C. Tech. B.C. Tech, if you don’t know us, is the largest member-based organization of tech companies in B.C. We have over 500 members who employ many of the 114,000 tech workers in B.C.

We do a number of things. We run the innovation centre hub in Vancouver. We’re the largest tech accelerator in the province, providing programs that help companies grow from small- to medium-sized companies and to export and scale. We also provide a suite of programs to students and to teachers through school boards to help them explore careers in technology and understand tech trends.

Most recently, in response to COVID-19, we massively expanded the programs we run that help small and medium-sized, non-tech companies adopt technology and pivot. Our programs are all now delivered on line, and attendance is up. We’re delighted to be able to be helpful at this time.

I’d like to focus on four things today. First, let’s focus on who has and hasn’t been hardest hit by this economic recession in response to COVID public health measures. It’s small business more than large business. It’s services’ businesses more than goods businesses. It’s tourism. It’s retail. It’s restaurants. It’s barbershops. It’s main street. It’s our neighbours. It’s women. It’s underrepresented groups. And above all, it is youth. So as we start to think about economic recovery and, later, about economic growth, we must make sure that our response helps those who have been most hurt.

Second, it’s essential that we rebuild the government revenues that support services. Government revenues are diverse, but the single most stable source of revenues is people and their jobs. Those good, well-paying jobs in resilient, growing industries — they’re essential to support government revenues and even more essential to build solid, thriving communities.

Third, I’d like to talk to you about the role of infrastructure spending. I’d like you to consider that infrastructure is not only the roads and the bridges and the construction projects that support the goods economy — important, though, those are. There is also infrastructure that supports the services economy. The same services economy that has been so badly hit in this downturn.

Connectivity is infrastructure. Skills and re-skilling training for individuals is infrastructure. Skills and innovation training for businesses, especially small business, is infrastructure. This is the infrastructure that supports the service economy. It supports people to find new roles, perhaps even better roles. It supports small business to digitize and not just recover but become more agile and more resilient.

In tech, we have jobs, and we need people. We need your help to equip the people available with the skills needed. In tech, we have knowledge to share. We need your help to equip the small businesses that are struggling with the skills and training that they need. Technology can help with all of this, and organizations like ours are already getting started. With your help, we can go further and faster.

Fourth and finally, speed is important. We need to use established networks, like our ScaleUP B.C. partnership, that can deploy quickly. ScaleUP B.C. is a collection of 11 partners that touches every corner of this province and leverages all the skills and knowledge of the tech sector to support the wider economy.

[4:05 p.m.]

We already work with educators, with local chambers of commerce across the province to deliver our programs today. We can use that same network to deliver the needed economic recovery programs.

Use the innovators in your midst. We want to help, and with your help, we can. Thank you very much for the time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Jill. Unfortunately, our timer didn’t work, but I think you’re right on time. So well done.

Next up we have Clark Roberts from AdvantageBC.

Please go ahead.

ADVANTAGEBC

C. Roberts: Good afternoon, hon. Members, committee Clerks and the colleagues that I’m presenting with today. I’m quite honoured to be included in this very prestigious group.

My name is Clark Roberts, and I’m with AdvantageBC. We are a non-profit society that has long advocated for British Columbia to play a larger role in the international community.

I am here to advocate for two key economic sectors that are growing quickly throughout the world but that may not be getting the attention and the support they deserve. I am speaking of sustainable finance and clean technology. We believe that these two sectors are critical opportunities for British Columbia in the coming years. As we rebuild our economy from recent events, we believe these two sectors will help British Columbia not just rebuild the economy but rebuild the economy on a more sustainable footing.

For our purposes today, I’ll define sustainable finance as financial services, like green bonds, that use environmental and social factors as a means to promote sustainable economic growth and long-term stability.

With respect to clean technology, I would say that they are firms that are involved in the provision of services and products that reduce negative environmental impacts through energy efficiency improvements, sustainable use of resources and environmental protection activities.

With respect to sustainable finance, it is estimated that in order to comply with the COP 21 Paris climate targets, the world will need to invest hundreds of billions of dollars every year until 2050. While the world appears to be stepping up, there is more to do. Just last year over $250 billion in green bond issuances were made, which is a growth of over 50 percent.

If you haven’t done so, I would encourage you to read the report of the federal government’s expert panel on sustainable finance, which was chaired by Tiff Macklem. Put simply, living up to our climate change commitments will require an enormous capital-intensive transition to rebuild our infrastructure, such as energy, building, retrofitting and transportation networks. I think it’s important to note that Mr. Macklem, after finishing this report, is now the governor of the Bank of Canada, and I think that indicates an increased profile of this new sector.

Tiff Macklem spoke to AdvantageBC this summer and talked about the incredible leadership role that British Columbia and Canada can play in sustainable finance. If B.C. becomes a green finance capital, badly needed investment funds will be located right here in British Columbia and available for use by other companies in British Columbia, including clean technology companies.

With respect to clean technology, there are a number of key advantages that already exist for the clean technology sector. They employ over 14,000 people in British Columbia, and these employees earn an average of $82,000 a year. They’re clean, good, strong, sustainable jobs. If we invest in a sustainable recovery for British Columbia, anchored in sustainable finance and driving growth and clean technology, we stand to gain over 30,000 clean tech jobs in British Columbia by 2030 and up to 19,000 sustainable finance jobs as well. These estimates are from a report that we commissioned from KPMG, and we’re happy to provide that to you.

This sustainable growth can be done by taking a focused approach that builds innovation, clusters in sustainable finance and clean technologies. While recovery from the pandemic may be the challenge we confront today, climate change and all of its consequences are our generational challenge. It is an opportunity that we need to plan for and that we need to take advantage of — the guarantee of shared prosperity for all British Columbians.

Thank you so much.

[4:10 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much to all of the panellists. I appreciate it.

It’s such an interesting time that we’re living in. I wanted to first show my appreciation to all of you for being able to pivot your organizations and the things that you do to be able to help out in the pandemic.

It’s quite amazing how industries or scientific areas that are not necessarily related were able to do completely different things like ventilators and whatnot. Thank you so much for that. It’s so important. It’s part of us all working together, and we really appreciate that.

It’s also — I don’t know — ironic, in some respects, that a little microscopic virus is impacting the entire world when you’re looking at quantum physics and we’re sending people out into outer space. Anyway, I’m a tech geek. I love this stuff. So you’ll have to forgive me.

First up we have Mitzi.

Please go ahead.

M. Dean: Thank you, all, for your presentations and for being able to continue good work during these times.

Jill, I wanted to ask you something. I can only imagine how crazy busy you must have been over the past few months. Thank you so much for offering all of those services and being such a crucial service to so many small businesses and communities and lots of people, I’m sure.

As you rightly said, this isn’t an equal virus. You know, certain groups of people are much more impacted by COVID. Women and marginalized people in community and youth are much more impacted. And as we move forward, certain sectors are going to be able to recover faster than others. So part of our recovery is going to need to be training displaced workers so that they can enter other sectors and also motivating them to start their own businesses perhaps, as well.

What would you say should be the kind of priority areas, just from your knowledge of so many other sectors? And what is the capacity in the tech sector if people actually wanted to retrain and move out of where they’re from and then look to a forward-looking sector like the tech sector?

J. Tipping: Thank you for the question.

We create about between 6,000 and 10,000 jobs every year in technology across the province, both in tech companies and tech roles in non-tech companies. And our survey of our members tells us that even at this time, 50 percent of tech companies are still hiring. We’ve seen companies from small to large continuing to recruit. We are still creating jobs, and we still need people.

It is actually a smaller task to retrain than people sometimes think it is. We often think of…. You don’t need to have a four-year electrical engineering degree to do every job in tech. You need to have good understanding of problem-solving, and there are plenty of faster programs that can equip you to get a good job in technology. Tech also needs marketers and sales people and finance people, the same as every other industry.

We are one of the areas that we expect will recover fastest and will continue to be resilient and grow. Tech has been impacted the same as everyone because our end customers are impacted, but the fundamentals are really strong. So we expect to be able to come back.

There’s one…. You were reading my mind, because my new idea is to provide entrepreneurial training to those who may have lost a full-time role and be considering various options. We know that coming out of recessions, there’s actually a real uptick in interest in entrepreneurship and in franchising and various other forms of self-employment, and we know that women feel more confident taking those steps if they’ve got appropriate training and they feel equipped with the expertise to take those steps.

Watch this space. Next month that one will be arriving.

Thank you for the question.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Jill.

Other questions from members?

Okay, well, thank you so much for your presentations. Of course, it’s quite amazing, the accomplishments of British Columbia in terms of research and technology — something we should all be very, very proud of.

I can certainly speak, I’m sure, for the whole committee in thanking you not only for all of the work that you have done during the pandemic but all of the amazing work. You make us proud. So thank you so much, everyone.

With that, if we could have a recess until 4:35 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have a panel on cannabis. First up we will start with Clayton McCann, who is with B.C. Cannabis Appellations Program.

Please go ahead, Clayton.

Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 5 – Cannabis

B.C. CANNABIS APPELLATIONS PROGRAM

C. McCann: Good afternoon. Thanks for having me.

The Champagne region of France is an appellation worth approximately $7.6 billion annually in generated value. Appellations are a type of label of origin which provide consumers information about where a product was produced. One common characteristic is that appellations’ use and protection are often accompanied by additional requirements such as the product meeting specific standards or being produced by specific methods in order to use the appellation.

The central question, for me, is that cannabis production in British Columbia is an amassed social wealth. This is describing the legacy sector and other forms of production. The fundamental question would be: how should cannabis farming be organized and protected? Because, for starters, an industry worth somewhere between $4 billion and $11 billion to the province annually should be protected.

The answer, according to the central architect of California’s Department of Food and Agriculture, is cannabis appellations. Ryan Stoa, author of Craft Weed: Family Farming and the Future of the Marijuana Industry, notes that the best way to organize cannabis farmers is by creating appellations.

The example I cited earlier, the Champagne region, is a geopolitical designation of origin that also regulates cultivation requirements. These are significant, as they can mandate sustainability requirements that are currently unenforceable in B.C.’s cannabis production context, such as protection of water systems, soil integrity and the use of renewable energy resources.

Cannabis production produces three forms of runoff pollution: pesticides, fertilizers and sedimentary runoff. Through water quality control regulations, renewables and soil integrity, these can all be flagship items of protection that B.C. agriculture can vouchsafe for future generations. Cannabis production is largely inefficient. It takes about 45 kilograms of crude oil to produce one kilogram of cannabis. The CO2 footprint is considerable.

Appellations create mandatory distinctions in produce, frustrating efforts to commoditize. This is the craft or boutique sector. They provide economic benefits by promoting rural development and consumer protection, by conveying authenticity and valid information concerning cultivation and production. They bestow a terroir on a region — the environmental conditions that affect flavour of produce, soil aridity, temperature of production, context, etc. They provide brand control and name recognition and promote agritourism.

That’s why I’m asking that a cannabis appellation project or program for British Columbia be included in the 2021 budget considerations. The starting point could be B.C. The end goal would be a national appellations program, the office centred somewhere in British Columbia; job creation; rural development; and rural economic opportunity.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Clayton.

Next up we have David Clement from Consumer Choice Center.

Please go ahead, David.

CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

D. Clement: Hello, members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Obviously, thank you for having me present here today and represent the voice of consumers across British Columbia. I’m David Clement, the North American affairs manager for the Consumer Choice Center.

As a representative for a consumer advocacy group, I am here mainly on two topics: first, to urge the government to repeal its 20 percent vape tax and, two, remove the PST from medical cannabis purchases.

[4:40 p.m.]

The justification, from our point of view, on removing the vape tax in its entirety is from a harm reduction perspective. We know, from mountains of evidence from very credible public health agencies, that vape products are significantly less dangerous when compared to their alternatives that involve combustion. Because vape products are a reduced risk, we feel that additional tax is counterproductive from the perspective of harm reduction.

Having additional taxation on cannabis vape products wrongly signals to consumers that these products are more harmful than the alternatives, when we know that the opposite is true. Taxation should be applied based on a continuum of risk, and the way in which the tax is set up actually runs in the opposite direction of that.

The second reason why we would urge the province to remove its vape tax is that we know that black market alternatives exist. We know that the illegal market has long provided consumers with vaping products. Unfortunately, we know that many of these illicit THC black market products contain dangerous thickening agents like vitamin E acetate. Vitamin E acetate is known to be one of the main causes of vaping-related illnesses throughout North America. That is something that is not present in legal products, nor is it allowed to be in legal products.

The 20 percent vape tax makes legal, regulated and safe cannabis vapes considerably more expensive when compared to their black market alternatives, which incentivizes consumers to purchase dangerous, unsafe and unregulated products. It’s also important to remember that this 20 percent tax is added on top of a variety of other taxes that already exist in Canada’s taxation model, which include the federal excise tax, the federal portion of the sales tax, application screening fees, security clearance fees and the annual regulatory fee.

The cannabis vape tax should be repealed because it simply piles on to the overtaxation of legal cannabis in this country and only benefits those in the illicit market, whose products now become more attractive in terms of price. In order for the legal market to be able to compete with the illegal market, it has to be able to offer products at comparable price points. The vape tax makes that nearly impossible.

On the topic of medical cannabis, we would urge that the province remove the PST from medical cannabis products. The PST should be removed, firstly, because it is the consistent thing to do. Other prescription medications in British Columbia do not have the PST applied to them. Thus, removing the PST from medical cannabis purchases is simply giving parity to medical cannabis.

Beyond that, it is incredibly unfair to have additional taxes specifically for medical cannabis patients. In many instances, patients are on a fixed income or even disability. It is disproportionate and punitive to add additional taxation to the medicine that these patients have been prescribed by their doctors. It was a mistake for the federal government to allow for a sales tax to be applied to medical cannabis, but luckily, the province of British Columbia can somewhat right that wrong.

Thank you very much for hearing my concerns. I look forward to your questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, David.

Next up we have Max Monahan-Ellison from Medical Cannabis Canada.

Go ahead, Max.

MEDICAL CANNABIS CANADA

M. Monahan-Ellison: Hi, everyone. Actually, I have some similar points to David Clement to discuss today.

First of all, I’d love to introduce myself. I’m a board member with Medical Cannabis Canada. We’re a national non-profit, volunteer-run organization with 16,000 patients, allies and stakeholders in our network. Our core objective is to improve access to legal medical cannabis and also encourage oversight and support from health care professionals.

We clearly see an opportunity for B.C. to continue to take a leadership role and remove the PST from medical cannabis. We are also aligned with removing taxation on vaping products for medical cannabis patients as well, similar to what David mentioned. What I’m going to be focusing on is the broader tax structure on medical cannabis generally.

Last year, in August of 2019, this committee endorsed this regulatory change for the 2020 budget. I just want to take a moment to say thank you. This meant a lot to patients, even though it wasn’t enacted. That endorsement alone was very important. It showed a thoughtful consideration for the patient community.

[4:45 p.m.]

To start off, I want to go over some of the challenges and costs for patients. According to Health Canada’s Canadian cannabis survey, only 3 percent of patients have access to full insurance coverage. That’s 3 percent of all medical cannabis patients. In B.C., there is no PharmaCare coverage for cannabis-based therapy. Basically, most patients are paying all of their treatment costs out of pocket.

Price is one of the primary factors, as David mentioned, driving patients to the illicit market. It’s a challenge, because there’s no regulatory oversight of the development of these products. Consistency, being able to dose the same product regularly, is challenging, and there’s little to essentially no oversight from health care professionals. This is a medicine, and it’s incredibly important to have that oversight to ensure that you can manage that treatment properly.

There’s also a challenge with the use of other, potentially more harmful medication being taken in the absence of affordable medical cannabis. As David mentioned, many patients are on a fixed income or on disability. Many dealing with pain — we have seen personally and also through survey data — have found success weaning themselves off opioid therapies with cannabis when using for medical purposes. Seeing how May was one of the most tragic and unfortunate months in terms of illicit overdose deaths in B.C., we thought this was a priority to mention on this call.

According to the Health Canada Canadian cannabis survey, 35 percent of patients reported that use of cannabis for medical purposes allowed them to decrease their use of opioid pain relievers. That’s 35 percent of patients. On top of that, 61 percent say they were able to reduce their use of other medications in general.

With many British Columbians struggling due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen these situations get worse. We’ve heard from patients who have tried to manage weaning themselves off opioid therapies, many of whom have told us that unfortunately, due to costs, they’ve had to go back to those that are covered by their benefit providers. That includes opioid therapies and other therapeutic options that have much more substantial risk and side effect profiles.

We see this as an opportunity. Last year you took the initiative and the leadership role in endorsing the removal of the PST on medical cannabis, and we really want to see you to do that again. We’re also here to support those efforts. As you’re making those claims, as you’re making those recommendations, we’re happy to provide additional literature and statements from patients in your region — anything you need to help to make that claim and to see that endorsement actually end up with regulatory change.

Just to end, I want to emphasize that patients who access medical cannabis to manage their health conditions should be treated equally to others who are using medically authorized medications that are already exempt from the PST in the province.

It’s also important to note that removing the PST for medical cannabis would not preclude the B.C. government to stop levying the PST on rec, which is the majority of your cannabis-related revenues in the province. In fact, it would underscore a clear and important distinction between the two markets and give patients validation that they need the support and guidance of a health care professional and the respect of their government, similar to others.

Thank you so much for your time. I look forward to your questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Max, and thank you to all the presenters.

Questions from members?

One of…. I did have one question. I guess we can talk about vaping a bit. Obviously, there’s a certain amount of research that’s being done, especially because of the deaths — in the States, particularly — in regard to the use of vaping. I understand what you’re saying in regard to its use for medical cannabis, but of course, it seems like the jury is still out.

I know you had said, David, that there’s quite a bit of research on it being safe. I just wanted to maybe get a little bit more information on that, because I’m not convinced that vaping is safe. I need convincing, so maybe you could help me with that.

[4:50 p.m.]

D. Clement: I think it really depends on the products that we’re talking about. In the context of cannabis, I think the justification in terms of saying…. I would maybe avoid using the word “safe” and prefer to use the words “less harmful” or “less risky.” These products all carry various risks.

In terms of cannabis, we’re simply talking about products that do not involve combustion, which is what makes them less harmful or less risky when compared to the alternative of actually smoking cannabis products. The same goes for edibles and the distinction between edibles and actually smoking cannabis.

In terms of nicotine and those vapes, which is very much part of where some of the legislation has come from, the very serious concern of illnesses of those who are vaping…. When the Centers for Disease Control in the United States evaluated the products that people were using prior to actually becoming ill, I think the percentage of those that were illegal THC vapes was above 95 percent. Those were products directly linked to vitamin E acetate.

As with any substance that’s dealt on the illicit market, there are all sorts of creative ways to try and make a product go further or look more appealing that have serious consumer risks and are very harmful to consumers.

In terms of vaping in general, as a concept, I would argue that the jury is not out in terms of those products being less harmful, but I would agree with you that they are not to be deemed safe. They do carry risks, and we have to evaluate those risks, I think, as research comes in.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. I appreciate that, David. It is a complex issue, because it’s not just cannabis. It’s also nicotine products and black market products. Certain products are getting compared to products that are illicit versus legit.

I think, especially in the world of legalization of cannabis, it’s still pretty early days. I think there’s still a lot of public awareness and a lot of research. Now a lot more research can be done, I think, because it is legal. And it should be. As time goes on, people will understand it a lot more, and we’ll see how that goes over the coming years.

Thank you very much for your advocacy.

Any questions from members?

Okay. Well, thank you very much to all of you for your presentations. We appreciate it and wish you all the best.

We stand recessed until 5:05.

The committee recessed from 4:52 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): We are in our five-minute presentation section. Just to mention, we’ll go through all three presentations, and then that will be it for the day.

First up we have David Clarkson.

Please go ahead.

Budget Consultation Presentations

DAVID CLARKSON

D. Clarkson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the members of this committee, for the opportunity to support your work in developing the next provincial budget.

By way of introduction, I’m currently employed as an outreach worker based out of a modular housing program in Vancouver where I support people living with mental illness, substance use disorders and other complex health issues.

My first recommendation concerns the fentanyl epidemic in British Columbia. Many of us were shocked to learn yesterday that there were more deaths attributable to illicit drug toxicity in the month of May than the cumulative death toll of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia.

You may be familiar with naloxone, the drug which is capable of reversing the effects of opioid overdoses. In B.C., hundreds of thousands of take-home naloxone kits have been distributed in recent years. However, as this crisis has evolved, so have the tools available to first responders. In Ontario and Quebec, for instance, internasal naloxone kits are available. These work on a similar basis to conventional intermuscular kits but are easier and safer to use. Internasal naloxone kits are capable of delivering a bioavailable dose that is three to six times greater than the standard ampule of naloxone.

My first recommendation, therefore, is to fund internasal naloxone kits for distribution at community pharmacies, to be offered alongside intermuscular kits, as part of B.C.’s take-home naloxone program. I estimate that this would cost $68 million over three years and will provide the methodology for this in a written submission that will be supplemental to this presentation.

I believe this recommendation is consistent with the expectations set out in Minister Judy Darcy’s mandate letter to develop an immediate response to the opioid crisis. I also believe that this recommendation is so important that it cannot wait for the report of this committee and respectfully ask that you consider referring it to cabinet where it can be dealt with on an expedited basis.

My second recommendation concerns public funding for psychiatric medications. In 2018-19, PharmaCare plan G provided 100 percent coverage of 81 different psychiatric medications to approximately 48,000 people who met the criteria for clinical and financial need. The program cost $49 million in that fiscal year. A recent Canadian study found that in the past 12 months, 21.4 percent of people had experienced cost-related non-compliance of medications used to treat mental health conditions.

I’m certain that every one of you or someone close to you is currently prescribed a medication that is a benefit under plan G. In fact, 12 of the medications on the plan G formulary are among the top 50 most frequently prescribed medications in the United States. In fact, more than 20 percent of the drugs are listed in the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines, which is a list of minimum medicine needs for a basic health care system, including the most efficacious, safe and cost-effective medicines for priority conditions.

The easiest way to reform plan G is to make these benefits universal. However, this would also be the most expensive. My next recommendation, therefore, is for this committee to direct its research staff to investigate the costs associated with this recommendation so that we can have a more informed conversation about it in the future.

I believe that universal coverage for psychiatric medications is consistent with the expectations set out in Minister Adrian Dix’s mandate letter to work towards a national PharmaCare program and to implement an essential drugs program.

Improving plan G benefits is also consistent with many of the priorities identified in the budget consultation paper, including improving mental health supports and streamlining government processes and regulations.

There are two other ways that we can improve plan G. First, we can eliminate the need to reapply for benefits every year by amending the Drug Plans Regulation to delete section 43. The consequence of this provision is that doctors currently waste thousands of hours every year having to reapply for these benefits for their patients, and the failure to do this can leave patients unable to pay for their medications.

[5:10 p.m.]

Second, we need to eliminate the income qualification to receive plan G benefits and can do so by amending the Drug Plans Regulation to delete section 42(3). The fact is that with serious mental illnesses, prior earnings are not a good predictor of current ability to pay. Even if they were, making these benefits income-contingent creates a disincentive to work, and perhaps more importantly, it’s fundamentally unjust.

Thank you for considering these two proposals, which I’m confident would improve the mental health of British Columbians.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, David. Thanks for the work that you’re doing in our community. We really appreciate it.

Next up we have Robin Tavender from Standing Water Nation.

Please go ahead, Robin.

STANDING WATER NATION

R. Tavender: Hello. Bonjour. Je m’appelle Robin. Je viens de la Nation de l’eau permanente. Thanks for having me again. Today I’m appearing for my nation, the Standing Water Nation, an Indigenous Canadian nation.

As I have said for a few years now, according to our oral law, we have never made any treaty with the Crown, nor have we disposed of our Aboriginal right to hunt, to fish and to camp as we like in Canada, including the building of fires and the taking of wood for fuel and temporary dwellings, as well as the use of waters, flora and minerals. Prior to contact, we moved freely throughout America without tax, toll or custom.

Now, last year Mr. Coleman asked me about our traditional territory. We didn’t have a box we lived in. We lived in one place, then moved to another. Our nation was nomadic. We didn’t necessarily settle until the Crown’s system of land tenures was introduced and settlement became a necessity. We camped, hunted, fished, built fires and built structures wherever we went. If someone opposed us, that was an act of war. We didn’t have any tradition of going into someone else’s camp and taking over their fire. We built our own.

An English case, Walsingham’s case, gives a good statement of the Crown notion of land tenure: “The land itself is one thing, and the estate in the land is another thing, for an estate is a time in the land, or land for a time, and there are diversities of estates, which are no more than diversities of time, for he who has a fee simple in land has a time in the land without end, or the land for the time without end.”

This concept of eternity and eternal possession…. We used land for a time, so we had estates. This fee simple business is another matter. Our notion of estates and land was that they are all temporary. We might be paid to move on, or threatened to the same effect, but that wasn’t us transferring the tenure to anyone. We simply abandoned our occupation and went somewhere else.

We see land titles as treaties or agreements. I think too much has been made of Indigenous Nations as frozen in time prior to Crown sovereignty. Indigenous Nations may acquire lands and control them. This is reflected in the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Article 26(2) states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.”

Here we have the right to own, use, develop and control lands, territory and resources which we have otherwise acquired. I take this to mean that if members of our nation have acquired fee simple estates from the Crown, those would count as lands otherwise acquired, and we would have ownership, use, development and control of those lands.

Subsection (3) of the same article says: “States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the Indigenous peoples concerned.”

Our custom was that we enjoyed our land tenures without paying taxes, and we were not subject to any development controls like municipal zoning or a fire code. This is of pressing importance for my nation. We have members who are homeless. We actually possess some land in fee simple, but municipal zoning makes it impractical to house our nation on these lands. We have a freehold in Vancouver that we could easily build a ten-storey tower on, but municipal zoning does not allow that.

The way I read UNDRIP is that we are allowed to build on our lands as we see fit, and government must respect that our traditional law allows for unrestricted development. Certainly, there are negotiations, but these are to be done nation to nation, not on the premise that the Crown has a veto over Indigenous development.

Now to education. I reiterate that there’s a very serious problem with access to academic degrees in British Columbia. To get into UBC Law, you have to register with an American corporation and write a law school admission test. You have to send your vital statistics out of province. That’s a very big deal. The lack of access to legal education frustrates the ability of Indigenous Nations to set up their own probate, family and other courts to deal with their lands and their members. Obviously, one must obtain some skill and knowledge to do this.

Ideally, Indigenous Nations could form their own universities and law schools and grant their own degrees. I think that’s something Indigenous Nations are allowed to do. But to even think, “What is a probate court? Why don’t we have our own probate court?” one requires some legal education. Indigenous courts would have their own call and admission ceremonies, their own oath to uphold the law of their nation, similarly to how members of the Law Society of British Columbia take an oath to uphold the law of British Columbia.

[5:15 p.m.]

I don’t see this as an overnight process. I see it as an intergenerational process. But getting the first generation into law school so that there’s not total, abject dependence on colonial lawyers seems to me a big deal. The same for medical school as well. Those are two very important aspects of the colonial system: law school and medical school.

Just a very brief comment on something that the Chairman mentioned about vaping. I’m pretty sure that inhaling any particulate matter, however fine, into your lungs is probably not healthy. So if I understood the Chairman correctly, I concur that the jury is still out on whether vaping is healthy, and it probably shouldn’t be encouraged. It’s probably not good to inhale any particulate.

Thank you for your time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Robin.

Next up we have Melissa Moroz.

I believe — correct me if I’m wrong — you’re representing the Professional Employees Association. Is that correct?

M. Moroz: That’s correct.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Please go ahead.

PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

M. Moroz: Hello, everyone.

Before I get started, I’d like to acknowledge, with respect, the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples and the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations on whose traditional territories we live and work.

My name is Melissa Moroz. I’m here today on behalf of the Professional Employees Association, also known as the PEA.

The PEA is a labour union. We were certified in 1974 to represent licensed professionals working in the B.C. Public Service. The PEA also represents nine other bargaining units of professionals across B.C. in the education, legal, union and health care sectors.

Our members, who work in the B.C. Public Service, include agrologists, engineers, registered professional foresters, geoscientists, pharmacists, psychologists and veterinarians. These scientific professionals are the provincial government’s in-house experts when it comes to things like creating regulations, keeping our province connected, conducting research and performing services in support of public health, the environment, our economy and public safety.

Before I jump into the report that you’ve been provided with, I’d like to give you some history on some of our issues. In 2001, there were over 1,500 scientific professionals in the B.C. Public Service. Today, 20 years later, despite our province’s growth, we have just over 1,200. We saw our membership cut under the regime known as professional reliance, which is code word for contracting out. We’ve never recovered from this outsourcing.

What this has meant on the ground in the various ministries where our members work is that there’s a lack of capacity for scientific professionals to meet their mandates. To make matters worse, the province has a hard time filling vacancies for professional positions, and the province loses good employees because the wages being offered in the private sector and the local and federal governments are significantly higher.

This brings me to our more recent history. In the wake of environmental disasters like Mount Polley and with the dawn of a new government in 2018, an independent review of professional reliance in B.C. was released that recommended improved regulation and oversight of non-government professionals. But only a couple of these recommendations have been acted on, which brings me to the focus of this presentation.

The PEA and an organization called Evidence for Democracy, a national non-partisan not-for-profit that promotes the transparent use of evidence in government, are set to make public an updated report called Spotlight on Integrity, based on a new survey of B.C. scientific professionals. This report indicates that there are still challenges to science in government in B.C., and 49 percent of respondents feel they lack sufficient research capacity to meet their ministerial mandates. Roughly half believe that professional reliance compromises scientific integrity, and 43 percent still feel political interference compromises the use of science in policy.

That’s why I’m here today — to ask that we ensure that B.C. has sufficient capacity for research and evidence-informed decision-making. In the wake of COVID-19, building a foundation of science will be especially important for effective government science advice, addressing public health concerns and keeping the public informed.

[5:20 p.m.]

We’re recommending that the government take the following steps: implement effective policies for improved oversight of external contractors; increase the number of scientific professionals, such as career laddering and professional development; and promote scientific integrity similar to the federal scientific integrity policies that support science communication to the public; improve transparency of how science is used in policy; and protect scientists that speak out.

It’s clear from this most recent report and from previous data three years ago that further steps need to be taken.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Melissa, Robin and David. We really appreciate your presentations today.

With that, we are at the end of our day today. So thank you very much.

Could I have a motion to adjourn, please?

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 5:21 p.m.