PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF CITIZENS’ SERVICES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Routley in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 19(S): ministry operations, $50,000,000.

The Chair: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. J. Sims: I do. Thank you very much.

Good morning — or good afternoon, everyone. The morning just flew by. First, I would like to acknowledge the territory of the Lekwungen peoples, including the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I would also like to acknowledge ministry staff that are here today, led by my deputy minister, Jill Kot, and thank them for the amazing work they have done to prepare for estimates and also for the ongoing work they do each and every single day to make sure that the ministry operations run smoothly.

I’m honoured to be here today to introduce the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. Supplementary estimates are a normal government practice. Up until a decade ago, they were common in B.C., but they ended while our province maintained an operating debt. For the first time in 40 years, I’m proud to say we’ve eliminated this debt, and our fiscal picture is strong. We have the highest GDP in the country and the lowest unemployment rate. This is good news for British Columbians. It means we have additional resources to help more people in our province.

Our government knows that investing in the people of B.C. and tackling the hard problems are the best ways to build a strong economy and a more secure future. Every day our government delivers the services British Columbians rely on, and the engine powering this is the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

My ministry is both the face and backbone of government. From front-end representatives at our 65 Service B.C. centres to our back-end cybersecurity engineers to our procurement specialists, from our staff managing provincial buildings to those helping drive connectivity investments, we are the centre of where service excellence, transformation and innovation are happening within our government.

As the need for services expands across government, so does the work of this ministry. The ministry’s budget for 2018-19 was $524 million, which was revised to $580 million. Due to our government’s prudent fiscal management, we’re now able to do more for British Columbians.

As the 2018 fiscal year comes to an end, my ministry has been allocated an additional $50 million to further expand high-speed Internet services throughout British Columbia. This will benefit people living in approximately 200 rural and Indigenous communities in this province. The broadband service speeds will align with the new CRTC standard of a minimum of 50 megabits per second.

[1:40 p.m.]

This investment is an important step in achieving our government’s commitment to true, lasting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. It will help ensure Indigenous communities have the technologies they need to participate in the digital economy and are better able to access health services and educational opportunities. This funding will also help government leverage the new CRTC broadband fund, which supports a wide variety of connectivity projects.

I’m pleased to say that my ministry has had great success working with our federal partners and the private sector to expand connectivity in our province. We’ve been able to leverage funds from our connecting B.C. program and work collaboratively with our partners on behalf of rural and Indigenous communities. This approach means our dollars go further and benefit more people. We will also continue to work with local governments to help them maximize the potential of high-speed Internet so they can achieve greater economic, social and environmental benefits in their communities.

Working to connect all British Columbians to affordable high-speed Internet, regardless of where they live, is a priority for me and my ministry. I’m incredibly proud of our staff and the progress we have made so far. Since we formed government, projects to improve broadband are underway or completed in 417 communities, including 74 Indigenous, which is about 43,000 households. I’ve seen firsthand the positive impact of high-speed Internet in communities, towns and cities throughout the province.

In Trail, new digital technologies are helping reduce the environmental impact of manufacturing and create more innovative local companies. By acting on the community’s desire to live sustainably and working with local entrepreneurs, Metal Tech Alley is creating high-value products from what would previously have been manufacturing waste. The result? High-paying jobs, environmental benefits and economic growth.

To help innovative companies grow, Selkirk College in the West Kootenays is creating new programs so students can develop digital and entrepreneurial skills and young people can get good-paying jobs closer to home. Connectivity is helping many B.C. communities transition from resource-based economies to economies that are diversified and growing.

I’m proud to be part of a government that is focused on making life better for people in our province. Our investments in connectivity are opening doors, bringing people together, providing new opportunities and creating local jobs. Our government is charting a path to a more affordable, balanced and hopeful vision for all British Columbians.

Now I look forward to taking your questions.

S. Thomson: I appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions here. Thank you, Minister, for the opening statement, and welcome to all the staff that are supporting.

First, I want to send appreciation for the briefing that was provided to us the other day on the preparation for overall estimates. I see today kind of as a bit of a warm-up for the main estimates, because we’re dealing with a specific supplemental to the estimates here. But there certainly will be some questions around that.

I think I do need to make a comment to begin with. The minister commented that this is a normal procedure. We went away from it for awhile, while the operating debt was retired. I think I just need to comment that the reason we’re here and the ability of the minister to be here even for supplemental estimates is because of operating debt being retired, but it was really the foundation that we provided to the government when government changed that allowed the government to be in that position — the years of balanced budget, the focus on repaying and retiring the debt.

[1:45 p.m.]

I recognize the government opposite has completed that process and can be back here for supplemental estimates, but it was really the foundation that we provided that allowed them even to be here to be able to do this and to look for a significant addition to their budget through a supplemental estimate process, something that hasn’t been used for quite a while.

I have a number of questions. But firstly, the members of the Third Party, the Green Party, contacted and asked if they could ask a couple questions. We agreed that we would, in a spirit of cooperation, slot them in and get those first couple of questions in the few minutes at the beginning here. Then my co-critic, my colleague from Kelowna West…. We’ll have our questions. We look forward to the discussion.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the members from Kamloops, although they did steal a bit of my thunder, frankly. I was going to….

Interjection.

A. Olsen: Kelowna, sorry. Wow. I was thinking in my head just a few minutes ago: “Make sure you get this right, because you’re going to crack a joke.” Anyway, we were going to take credit for all of the stuff that the member just took credit for, but the joke doesn’t work now because I messed that up.

Thank you to the members and, as well, thank you to the minister and to the ministry staff for giving me this opportunity to ask a few questions about these supplementary estimates. We’ve had a number of conversations with the ministry and minister with respect to the southern Gulf Islands. My questions here are around….

Maybe I’ll start with a higher-level question: we’ll get to the specific locations, but is there a plan overall to help to connect communities, and what does that look like?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. I’ve really appreciated the engagement we’ve had over the last little while because there’s a lot going on in trying to get a handle of what is happening where.

Absolutely, there is a strategy. Our strategy is part of the national strategy that exists. As you know, there’s the Connected Coast, which we announced last January. In that announcement, the Gulf Islands were picked up as part of it. But I’m also very conscious of the fact that you’re looking for additional landing points in that area, and that will all be part of this plan. We’ll carry on having those discussions with you and with the community.

I’m very proud of the resources that we have developed to work with communities to identify what their specific needs are. It’s not just about getting broadband; it’s about how we are going to use it. How is it going to benefit that community? We have a tool that we, I would say, released at UBCM last year. We’re using it here, and we are encouraging communities to work with us as well.

Just so you know, funding has been made available for smaller communities that may not have the funding or the resources to do some of the planning so that they do get support, not only from the ministry staff but through additional funding where they qualify to do a plan.

A. Olsen: Excellent. That’s correct. I think three of the five southern Gulf Islands that I represent were included in the Connected Coast. The two, Galiano and Mayne, that are not…. I just want to clarify: are those two islands part of this program, or is that part of the discussion that you were talking about that we will be continuing to have? Has it been determined that they will be included?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: It would be a very foolish minister that started to spend the money before it had gone through the process and had been approved, so that’s why we’re here today. But I will say to you that there were some of the Gulf Islands, the ones you’ve identified, who didn’t qualify under the Innovate Canada criteria that were established. But we are working with those regions, with those islands, to see how we can augment using some of the provincial funding.

A. Olsen: That’s a point well taken. Thank you for that.

Should this money be approved, would you consider the discussions around the last-mile aspects of the Connected Coast, or is that part of a future discussion that needs to be happening? Once these communities get connected…. One of the challenges with rural communities, with the Gulf Island communities, is the last-mile aspect of it. It’s very expensive to be connecting these neighbourhoods with broadband. In many respects, they’re not neighbourhoods. They’re just single homes that are up the side of a hillside somewhere. Is that part of the idea in this plan or…? I’ll leave it at that.

Hon. J. Sims: We are, as you know…. I’ve shared this with you, and I think my colleagues across the way know as well. The CRTC is about to make a major announcement, a funding announcement, and we’ll be working with them on those projects. But just to reassure you, we’ve started to work on last-mile concurrently — we’re not waiting till broadband is in before we’re talking about that — and supporting last-mile where it fits in with the business plans and also with the needs of the communities.

A. Olsen: Mr. Chair, I’ll do my best to remind myself that I need to be speaking through the Chair. Too many “yous.”

One final question before I turn it back over to my colleagues in the official opposition. One of the issues that my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head has been talking about for a number of years is broadband redundancy connecting other parts of rural British Columbia. I’m just wondering. This seemed like a good opportunity to at least ask the question: whether or not the minister and the ministry consider or are considering broadband redundancy in northern and interior British Columbia as part of this plan should this money be approved.

Hon. J. Sims: We are very, very concerned about redundancy, and we know from the files we had a few years ago how on tenterhooks everybody was. Just so you know, the announcement we made last January, the Connected Coast…. Once that project is completed, that will give us redundancy and will provide another loop right back into the exchange. So that is being addressed through the Connected Coast, but absolutely, resiliency and redundancy are the foundational pieces.

S. Thomson: I wonder if the minister, to start with here, could provide an understanding, for the record, if this money is approved through this process, how it is planned to be administered.

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you for that question. As you know, what we use is our provincial funds to leverage the CRTC funds and other funds that will be announced. All of this will be done through the criteria that are established in Connecting B.C. Specifically, we know that the CRTC criteria are going to be looking at underserved rural communities, and our focus is that as well.

[1:55 p.m.]

S. Thomson: To be a little bit more specific, then, this supplemental estimates process is asking for the funding to be in the current year’s budget. The fiscal year ends March 31. How does the ministry plan to utilize those dollars within their budget before that time frame? If you say you’re waiting for funding announcements coming from the CRTC, criteria, all of those things…. Really, the focus of my question is: how is this funding that’s in your budget going to be managed and administered?

Hon. J. Sims: The money will be allocated or assigned and transferred over to NDIT. As you know, that is the process, and as you know, there’s $16 million that was assigned in that area already. If there is an oversubscription to that application, it will be applied here. But it will remain with NDIT until the new projects come on line. We look to doing some provincial projects as well.

S. Thomson: Could the minister then explain…? In terms of the transmission over to the NDIT, which is an independent organization that, as advised, will be managing the fund…. In terms of managing the funding, what conditions are put on it? Is there a transmittal letter? How does the minister ensure that the funding will be used to meet the provincial priorities? Is there a set of initial priority communities that have been established, which the funding would support? How do the provincial objectives in this get assured to be met when the funding is moved into the independent agency?

Hon. J. Sims: To my colleagues across the way, the $50 million will be granted to NDIT. There is a memorandum of understanding that is signed. They do provide management services.

[2:00 p.m.]

There is reporting done to government, but as to qualifying communities, that is determined by the CRTC. Communities, in concert with private service providers, make applications to the CRTC and to ISED, and they approve those projects. Plus, we have the option, as we did with the $16 million last year, of setting up our own criteria, inviting invitations from communities and narrowing those criteria.

Last time we did last-mile. We also put money in for planning purposes, for communities that didn’t have the resources, as well as for broadband. If there is money left over after the CRTC has already made their announcements and we’ve done our matching, then we start looking at where we as a province can help to augment.

S. Thomson: Maybe just help us understand this, then. In terms of decision-making on projects with the provincial investment here that’s moved over to NDIT, into an independent agency, who makes the decisions around the utilization of those dollars? I know that applications would need to meet CRTC criteria, but who makes the decisions around whether or not the province is going to participate in that decision? Obviously, the intent is to leverage the provincial investment with additional projects, but how does the decision tree work in that case to ensure that the programming meets provincial objectives?

Hon. J. Sims: I’m going to use the $40 million as an example of how the system has been working over the last number of years. What happens is that the CRTC and ISED set their criteria. We set our criteria, and we’ve mirrored our criteria on theirs, because it meets our goals, which are to focus in on rural and making sure our Indigenous communities get the broadband they need. Our staff provides technical advice and works with the CRTC, and will be working with ISED as well.

Once a project is chosen, the decision is made at the federal level. Once the decision is made, then the project goes towards the Northern Development Trust, and from there, then, the funding is allocated. Our staff is fully engaged both in providing technical advice and in setting the criteria. The whole goal is to simplify it — if our criteria don’t match the federal criteria, then we’re going to end up going all over the place — and to leverage as much money as we can. I’m very, very proud of the leveraging that we’ve been able to do over the last two years.

[2:05 p.m.]

S. Thomson: Could the minister advise us what current funding to support this overall initiative of addressing communities — remote communities, rural communities and things — currently remains or is in NDIT at this time, from the initial funding that’s been provided through to them? She mentioned that some programs oversubscribe, but is there current funding still available in the NDIT, or is this a replenishment and new funding going forward?

Hon. J. Sims: Just to go over, a total of 417 communities have benefitted from the connecting B.C. program. From the original $10 million, 224 communities are benefiting. However, many of these projects were not at the CRTC standard and qualifying for upgrading under the new programs.

From the $40 million, $24 million has already been allocated. Nine projects are approved; 193 communities, including 69 Indigenous communities, will benefit, with multiple service providers — City West, Strathcona regional district, Gwaii Communications, Shaw, ABC Communications — a total project value of $84 million. Four projects have their agreements signed with Canada.

Remaining agreements are waiting to be signed by the end of March, and $16 million was remaining last fall. Out of that $16 million, 13 projects were received. Three were approved for $473,000, five were being evaluated, for $3.4 million, and five proposals were deemed incomplete and are being updated by proponents, for $9.8 million. Plus, ten projects are being discussed with ministry staff and communities, of more than $10 million. Those are the kinds of things that are already being done and that are in the pipeline.

S. Thomson: I wonder if the minister could provide details on the…. We talked about the number of communities that benefited. I know the CRTC has set a target of 90 percent of rural, remote First Nations communities meeting the new standard — I think it’s 50/10 up and down — by 2021. Can the minister advise, for the record, the current statistics or baseline now for British Columbia here — the number of communities, the number of First Nations communities? How many currently meet the standard?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: I’m really glad my colleague asked this particular question, because currently, according to the CRTC rules, we are sitting at 92 percent connectivity for the population of British Columbia. Those of us who live in British Columbia know that we have a beautiful province, geographically, but it’s also a very challenging province.

Let me also tell you that 70 percent of our rural communities at this moment do not meet the CRTC requirement, and 75 percent of First Nations communities do not have high-speed Internet.

When we look at it as a part of a total population, which is the way that the CRTC does the assessment, then the CRTC can say that, well, we have 92 percent of our population that has high-speed Internet. However, because of our geography and the diversity of the distribution of the population that we have in British Columbia, and the number of remote, tiny communities both in the First Nations and in our rural communities, we only meet the standards for….

Seventy percent of our rural communities do not have it, and 75 percent of our First Nations communities do not have access to high-speed Internet. That is very disturbing to us. That is why we have been so focused on this and advocating at the federal level. I want to take this opportunity to thank the federal ministers involved with this, Minister Bains, and their staff, because they have been very accommodating with looking at the way that we are looking at our province — as communities, rather than as a total population, because for B.C., that system of evaluating connectivity just doesn’t work.

You just have to get as far as Mission and the Fraser Valley and we know the challenges we face, never mind getting out to more remote areas — especially when I think of Vancouver Island.

That is why the Connected Coast project that was announced last year, which comes out of the $40 million, was such a significant project, because that means communities right around the Vancouver Island coast are going to get connected, which is a good thing for both having high-speed Internet and having connectivity, as well as for economic growth, for education, for health care and, I would also say, for emergency preparedness.

S. Thomson: The numbers and the focus are certainly important. I guess, just for the record — 70 percent or 75 percent of what number? What’s the specifics? The number of communities that are being tracked, the number of First Nations communities that don’t meet that…? Just so we have a quantum of how many communities we’re dealing with here.

Hon. J. Sims: Just so you know, we have been aligning our data, including community counts, with the federal funding programs and Indigenous Services Canada as well. Of the 873 rural communities in B.C., 70 percent of them can’t participate in the digital economy. And 75 percent of the 203 rural First Nations don’t have enough Internet access.

The approved project, to date, will improve the situation.

[2:15 p.m.]

Rural communities will go from 70 percent underserved to 56 percent — a big reason to celebrate, and I’m sure my colleague will agree. Rural Indigenous communities — with the approved projects, once completed — will go from 75 percent underserved to 49 percent. We still have work to do, and the $50 million that we’re here debating today, or we’re being asked questions about, will improve services to another 200 rural and Indigenous communities.

B. Stewart: I just wanted to better understand the definition — I’m taking it that it’s the CRTC’s definition — of a community. These 873 communities that are currently at about 30 percent connectivity — I just want to clarify the population. When the minister gave those numbers, Chair, it’s confusing because the 92 percent, I’m assuming, has some level of high-speed Internet connectivity. That’s the population, not just communities, right?

When we switch to communities, where we’re talking about a different set of numbers, metrics and criteria, you’re suggesting that the 70 percent that don’t have high-speed Internet connectivity at the 50/10 standard by CRTC and that with this $50 million that we’re working on, it’s going to go down to 56 percent, from the 873 communities.

I guess what I’m really trying to ask is: what is a community? Tell me: what’s the population of that? How does that come into the criteria of what the overall connectivity for the entire population of British Columbia is?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to make it a little bit clearer for my colleagues across the way. How the CRTC measures the overall connectivity for a province is by total population. But just like we are very focused on rural and Indigenous communities, so is the federal government. So what the CRTC does…. ISED and CRTC use the same definition as we do for communities. For program eligibility, what they use is a hexagonal area to define eligible areas and communities. “Eligible” is defined as hexagons without 50/10 Mbps for fixed broadband services, communities without high-capacity transport infrastructure, and where homes or major roads are without long-term evolution mobile wireless service.

[2:20 p.m.]

That’s how the CRTC defines it, and we define it in a similar way. We take specific areas that they have, and we just model after that. We have not gone out and created a new rubric for ourselves. We use the one they have, because we know where their focus is going to be, and we want to maximize the funding that is coming in.

The numbers I was using earlier…. According to the CRTC, 873 rural communities is what we have; 70 percent of them do not have the required broadband they need. We have 203 First Nations communities, and out of those, 75 percent don’t have the high-speed Internet access that is necessary.

With the projects that have already been approved — and we’re not taking the $50 million into consideration here — rural communities…. Right now they’re 70 percent underserved. Once the funding is used up that’s already been allocated, it’ll go down to 56 percent. For rural Indigenous communities…. Once the approved projects have been fully implemented, we will go from 75 percent underserved to 49 percent underserved.

The $50 million we’re asking for today is additional moneys that will leverage additional moneys out of the CRTC. With that, our hope is that we will be able to improve services to another 200 rural and Indigenous communities.

B. Stewart: Well, that was very helpful. This is a challenging problem. I hadn’t heard that word before: rubric or whatever. Hopefully, I pronounced that right. It does sound like a Rubik’s cube, in a sense.

Anyways, one of the things that the CRTC has put out there, which obviously you’re aware of, is the goal of having these underserviced communities with 50/10 service brought on line. I believe it’s by 2021.

I guess the question is…. This funding that you talk about. You hope that another 200 communities will be taken off that list. Okay. I’m not quite certain. It’s 56 percent of communities of 873. The $50 million, you said, would take off another 200 communities. What’s the percentage going to get down to that you see with this extra funding that you’re asking for?

Hon. J. Sims: Just to be clear, the CRTC hasn’t changed their targets for communities, even though we’re using their version of what communities are. Their targets are still for the total population.

Really, when the Connected Coast project was approved, I couldn’t have dreamed that that many communities could benefit from that one project. It will depend upon the projects that are submitted to the CRTC and to ISED and the ones that meet the criteria and get selected. If we have any money left over after that, we will, of course, augment here in B.C., as well, because we use the same criteria.

B. Stewart: Just to be clear, the 59 is not going to get us to 100 percent, as the CRTC has mandated or asked for in its objective of 2021.

Hon. J. Sims: The CRTC mandate is to connect 90 percent of the population by 2021 and then work for the next ten to 15 years to cover the rest. If we were to take a look at the CRTC standard they set for 2021, they would say British Columbia has already met that because we’re at 92 percent of the population.

[2:25 p.m.]

We’re actually well ahead in moving into that next phase at an accelerated rate. We were hoping if we could get more money in this ministry, then we could leverage more funds. But we’re very, very grateful for the $50 million that has been allocated, because this actually shows our government’s commitment to rural development and to truth and reconciliation for our First Nations people.

As you’ve heard me say before, having a digital footprint, having the digital highways, which broadband fibre is, is the new railroad for the 21st century. We cannot even think about tourism these days. We cannot think of the fishing industry, our traditional industries, attracting the workforce, growing the new digital economy, without this foundational piece. That is why I’m so proud of the fact that the Premier and our whole government have made this such a big priority.

As I said previously, we already meet the CRTC standards when you think of total population. For us, it’s not about the total population, just people who live in the Lower Mainland or in big centres. We are very focused on providing services to those who support this province, who built this province and who live in many different parts of this province — and some of them very remote.

Just think of the savings in the long term in the area of education, in the area of health care and in the area of emergency preparedness when we can. Our goal is to go much higher than the standards set by the CRTC and in a much shorter time frame.

B. Stewart: I guess the big question on everybody’s mind is, and if I’m in that last 8 percent of the population….

I’m glad that the team is still plugging away at this and the standards keep getting higher. What is it going to take in terms of dollars? What’s the estimate to connect 100 percent of British Columbia’s population? Do you have an estimate that it would take to bring us up to that standard?

Hon. J. Sims: We are working on cost estimates as part of the national broadband strategy, and we co-chair that committee that’s taking a look at that.

Once again, I really want to say that British Columbia does meet the total population targets as set by the CRTC. We as a government have been very, very focused to make sure that we have economic development and economic opportunity in every corner of this province.

When I look at how the numbers will improve just in a matter of two years or when these projects that have been announced actually get completed, to go from 70 percent underserved to 56 percent in such a short time and for the rural and the Indigenous communities to go from 75 to 49 percent…. Is any percentage of communities being underserved acceptable? I would say no. We are working at, I would say, breakneck speed in order to do this work way ahead of the targets set by the CRTC. After 2021, they see another ten to 15 years to be able to achieve where we’re already going.

Once again, I always want to give credit where it is due. I want to thank the federal minister, Minister Bains, and his team in Ottawa for making this such a priority for First Nations as well as for our rural communities. The kind of cooperation we’ve had from them, as well as from the private service providers, has led us to leverage our funding in some cases 2 to 1, in other cases 3 to 1. We’re going to continue to do that, because we know how to eke out the maximum for the least number of dollars.

[2:30 p.m.]

S. Thomson: I understand the challenge here, and I understand and agree with the fact that having federal government programming available is an important resource to leverage and make maximum use of.

I guess it would surprise us and surprise many, then, if we look at the current budget process for this. We are getting the new dollars here as a supplementary estimate to the 2018 budget. So in 2018, there was no funding for this. The opportunity came at the end of the year to have a supplemental estimate process that added some resources here.

If you look at the three-year fiscal plan for the ministry, in the out-years, no funding is identified there for this initiative in any of the out-years, including the current year’s budget, the estimates that we’ll be dealing with shortly when we get into the regular estimates.

My question is: given the passion that the minister displays for this, the need to get there, the importance of it for all of the reasons that the minister outlined, why is there nothing in the 2019 budget for this, nothing in the fiscal plan going forward?

The minister mentioned that they sit on the national committee for this — the national strategic committee. They co-chair it. They know the funding that’s becoming available. They know the CRTC commitments and announcements that are going to be coming forward. They know that the funding is there. Why is there not any budget in the regular budget of the ministry for this purpose, either in 2019 or going forward, at all?

Is the minister’s ongoing approach to this going to be kind of a hopeful approach — that maybe at the end of each year, we’re going to find some resources for this? We’re going to come in with some supplemental estimates again? Maybe if we don’t have a rough fire season, there might be some contingencies that could be accessed for this.

Given the need to get there, the apparent plan, the fact that this will get 200 more communities…. But what next? There’s not anything in the budget now or going forward that would address this.

Hon. J. Sims: I think those of you who have seen me at different meetings know what a passionate advocate I have been for connectivity. I never actually thought when I got the portfolio that I would get so excited about connectivity or knew too much about it, to tell you the truth, or the lack thereof in B.C.

Once I got into the ministry, I realized that this was the foundational piece. It doesn’t matter what work we want to do in whichever ministry. What we need, the foundational piece, is always that digital railroad. So that’s why we have been advocating so hard, and as you know, there was $40 million. That’s why we were able to get the Connected Coast, and that money was with NDIT.

This year, as you know, the $750 million fund that is going to be released by the CRTC — it hasn’t been yet. We knew it was coming, but once it got announced, we would have gone through the normal hoops of the budget process and through the treasury.

[2:35 p.m.]

We would have gone and approached about that, and we’re delighted now that we do have $50 million already assigned that will be granted. That’s $750 million we will be able to leverage.

Going forward, I absolutely agree with you that…. This is where the work is going on at the federal level — on a ten-year strategy. As soon as that ten-year strategy, the ten-year plan, has been fleshed out — and I’m hearing it’s very, very close; we’re working with ISED on that as well — then we will be coming back to our internal structures to see what the needs are over the next little while.

S. Thomson: The minister commented around this being the foundational piece, and I think we would agree with that. Again, it is concerning, I guess, that the fiscal plan, including the budget that’s just been tabled, doesn’t include funding for this purpose in the budget.

Given the knowledge of $750 million coming from the CRTC — the process there, the ongoing participation and relationship it appears the province has at the federal level in terms of co-chairing the national committee — it would seem that some further commitment would have been made in order to achieve the purpose.

I look at the service plan of the ministry, tabled as well. Even the performance measures for the service plan under this area…. It doesn’t have any targets or numbers in the service plan. There’s a fiscal plan, or the out-years going in that one, which simply says those are to be determined in the service plan. So maybe…. Why are there not targets or goalposts set in the service plan for this particular performance measure?

Hon. J. Sims: It is because of our government’s commitment to connectivity that we’re here to discuss the supplementary $50 million that is going to be allocated — so we can utilize and leverage off the $750 million that is going to be announced. As I said, we are working on a ten-year plan which will go through all the rinse cycles as we get around to it.

We have been very, very clear that of 873 rural communities in B.C., 70 percent of them could not participate in the digital economy. With the work we have done over the last two years, that number is going to be reduced to 56 percent. Those are the kinds of targets that have real meaning. That’s what it means when you’re actually achieving a significant difference.

We have made an improvement of a significant amount. When you look at the First Nations, to go from 75 percent that were underserved — that’s using the criteria that is the CRTC’s, in collaboration with them — and now being down to 49 percent, when the current projects have been completed…. So whenever I hear of targets, I would say those are the targets. And our targets say that with the $50 million, another 200 rural and Indigenous communities….

We really don’t want to fall into the trap of doing the total population, because that does not serve our rural or Indigenous communities well. Because if we were to go with the total population criteria that the CRTC uses, then we’re already above the 90 percent; we’re at 92 percent. We actually know that it’s our communities, our rural communities, whether it’s Gold River or…. I don’t want to start naming communities. Then others will be saying: “Why didn’t you name us?”

[2:40 p.m.]

It’s those small communities that have been the backbone of our economy at certain times but now need these new tools in order to diversify, even communities that are saying: “We could do so much more in the area of tourism if only we could have connectivity.” So our focus has been: let’s delve in and look at the communities, whether it’s First Nations or our rural communities. The targets — I would say that we’re doing very, very well. Here we are for the $50 million. The target is 200 more communities to be completed.

S. Thomson: I guess it begs the question, though. The minister has talked glowingly about the targets they’re hoping to meet with the funding they’ve got. My calculations show that that would leave, if those targets were met, 342 communities still not having that level of up-and-down capacity. And 75 First Nations communities, I think, might be the calculation. I’m not sure whether I’ve got the calculations quite right. You said those very quickly.

Back to the question again. In the service plan to the ministry, going forward, the real question is why those kinds of goalposts or those kinds of targets aren’t set out in the service plan. It’s a performance measure that…. The service plans are meant to have an accountability for the minister as far as delivery of initiatives and programming. It is a performance measure and target that is clearly in the service plan. But in terms of detail around how many communities, over what time frame, over the next three years in the fiscal plan, they simply aren’t there. It has a number that says: “To be determined.”

I guess the question is: why are those numbers not there at this point? Why are they to be determined? If they are to be determined, when might those numbers be put into the targets? Do we have to wait until Budget 2020, I guess, before we see any further targets in the service plan? Is it something that will come in partway through the year, maybe when things become a little clearer with the CRTC and those processes?

So just an explanation. I think we’d like to know why the current service plan doesn’t have targets in it, at least to set goalposts and to set accountability for the minister in this foundational piece of her ministry.

Hon. J. Sims: I think, as I’ve said a couple of times…. I really want to make sure we all understand it. The CRTC — the performance measure they’re using is total population. We moved to different performance measures. We’ve moved from total population to measure by community. I think I explained that earlier. We are in a transitional mode right now. We’ll be evaluating for the next service plan the next time we do one.

Let me say…. My colleague sort of said that at the end of this $50 million, even with our best projections, we’re looking at 300 communities still going to be left without service to these standards. Well, it’s very hard, after so many years of this area not being a focus, to suddenly say we can make up for everything in two or three years.

[2:45 p.m.]

I’m very proud of the fact that we’re going to be reducing the number of communities that are underserved to around 50 percent or even below, compared to where the numbers were, at 75 percent and 70 percent. Those are big numbers. I would say, and some people would say, that’s almost a tectonic shift.

We also know what happens in our beautiful British Columbia. Laying down some broadband might be fairly straightforward in, let’s say, Saskatchewan. Laying down the infrastructure, they don’t have the same challenges that we do with our geography. We have mountains that get in the way. We have a rugged coastline. We have big trees that get in the way. We’re so grateful for them, but that also has created some challenges. But at the end of the day, there will be numbers in the service plan as we refine the new model. We’re very proud of the tracking we’ve done, community by community.

As I said previously, how we define “community” is exactly the same way as the federal government defines community. It’s not that we’ve created another definition. Chair, may I just add something — if I may, please — which will help? The definition of communities are the official names of populated places and administrative areas. The sources we use to pull those communities from are Natural Resources Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, as does the federal government.

S. Thomson: Maybe I can just ask it a little bit more specifically, then. I recognize we may be in a bit of a transition, and the current service plan doesn’t have those targets in there. Maybe the question I can ask the minister is: when might those targets show up in the service plan? Would the minister be making some of that information available through the year? Will we not see those targets until this time next year in a service plan? “To be determined” — when do those get filled in?

Hon. J. Sims: As I said, we are in transition from using the total population model to using a model that’s community by community. We are recording — and it’s all on record — that we have managed to reduce the rural communities’ 70 percent underserved down to 56 percent. For the First Nations communities, 203 of them, from 75 percent underserved to 49 percent. This is also a number we’re not hiding.

With the $50 million…. At the time that you do your planning, we did not realize the extent of the moneys that were going to be announced by the CRTC. We know now. We’re looking at the $50 million being able to leverage enough funding to cover 200 rural communities.

When you add up those numbers, I think it’s a good-news story for our rural communities. I know when I’ve met with First Nations communities and with our rural communities right around this province, they are very happy with this. When we were at UBCM, we ran workshops there to help people to make an economic plan for their communities so that once they have the high-speed Internet, they can actually make economic use out of it and grow good-paying jobs in every corner of British Columbia, not just in the large centres.

S. Thomson: Maybe just another question, and then I’ll turn to my colleague for a couple of questions, I think, and maybe some other comments.

[2:50 p.m.]

Currently — and I know this is not the place to question legislation, and things like that — there are some amendments in front of the House under the Local Government Act amendments related to high-speed Internet. I just wanted to ask whether that is linked at all to this supplemental estimates funding request. If so, how is it linked? What are the linkages between that and the legislation? If you can’t answer it…. I’m not sure, but I just wanted to flag that.

Hon. J. Sims: I agree with my colleague; it would be foolish of me to get into discussing legislation at this stage. What I do want to say is that this money that is being made available and that we’re here to request, is the moneys that will be spent on improving digital services for our communities — digital infrastructure. It will include broadband, last mile. Our hope is — and, certainly, the CRTC has indicated — that cellular will be covered in these project proposals as well.

B. Stewart: The reason that that legislation is relevant and important…. I know from experience that there were gaps in service because of the way that local government — regional districts and cities — haven’t seen the necessity to being able to put in the requirements and development plans in many areas. It’s falling back on the British Columbia provincial taxpayers to pick up the gaps and the lack of, perhaps, their long-term planning. I mean, you can’t fault them, because, of course, high-speed Internet — or whatever the Internet was, even — wasn’t as big a priority as it is, and you’ve mentioned that.

I think that we’re very much in support of your goals. However, what appears to be kind of showing here is that this $50 million that’s being asked for as a supplemental contribution to your budget is not part of any kind of real plan that’s concrete. You know exactly where you want to…. I mean, you’ve demonstrated that there are all sorts of benefits to it. The question really is: how do we get to those underserved communities? Some of those underserved communities are places like Prince George. We heard from the Green member today about the Vancouver islands. They’re not going to get that benefit of the coastal pipeline, or whatever it is, when it’s not an Internet highway going through the middle of the province.

I guess the question really, in our minds, is that this is important, it does require a plan, and it does require that municipalities and local government are part of the solution in this. Too often, they’ve been pushing it aside and making it the other taxpayers’ problem. We’re looking for how we got here today, because, of course, there was nothing in the budget, and now we have $50 million that’s being asked for, without a plan.

Hon. J. Sims: First of all, thank you for raising that issue. I’m very proud of the work we’ve done, and we’ve received nothing but accolades back from the municipalities and the regions for the work we’ve started to do around connected communities. That’s the tool we did release last year at UBCM.

[2:55 p.m.]

Where we’re actually sitting down with communities, whether it’s communities that already own their broadband, like New Westminster, or others that are right at the baby steps — they don’t have anything, or hardly anything — what we’re asking and what we’re working with, with each community, is for them to develop a plan that works for them, that works for their region. We’re asking for them to work regionally on that.

We do have a plan. We’ve identified, along with the federal government, the underserved communities. We’re sitting on a federal committee where we’re coming up with a strategy over the next number of years. In the meantime, we have put in significant funding already and covered over 400 communities that now have high-speed Internet. We’re setting targets, like the 200 out of this $50 million. It was very hard to go and ask for $50 million when we did not know the magnitude of the fund the CRTC was going to be announcing.

My friends on the other side, you’ve been in government. If you go asking for money for something that’s just out there and there isn’t something concrete on the table, like from the federal government…. Now that we know it’s $750 million, it’s much easier for us to say: “We really need this.”

Once again, it’s our government’s commitment to improving high-speed Internet. We see it as the foundational piece for growing our economy, for growing our rural communities. I always love to tell the story of Rossland. Rossland was a community where the numbers were going down. The school had shut down. But with a few blocks of fibre, they have been able to attract multi-million-dollar businesses. The last time I was there, they told me that their school was opening again. This is a success story when small, isolated communities are given the resources and the tools they need in order to grow the economy in that area.

Did we do that on our own? Absolutely not. The federal government played a part; the community played a part. Communities have to come up with a plan. It’s like having a railroad that goes through your town. If it’s just a railroad — the train just goes through your town and doesn’t even stop there, or you don’t even put any trains on that track — then that’s all it is: railway lines. In the same way, we are working with communities that are at the beginning of their digital journey and those that are more mature in their digital journey, to work out what is best for them.

Let me also clarify that the $750 million that the CRTC is going to be announcing — and the matching we will be providing, the leverage money we will be providing — is for underserved communities. Their definition is “underserved,” not communities that already have high-speed Internet. There are other opportunities for cities, especially larger ones, to work with us to grow their digital footprint or their digital journey.

B. Stewart: I understand the way the CRTC is looking at it, and I understand that the metrics that Citizens’ Services is now using have changed from population-based to community-based.

Is there going to be direction or specific criteria on priority communities? Now, you mentioned places like New Westminster, which I wouldn’t have thought was underserved by high-speed Internet, but I could be wrong. I cited Prince George and particular geographic issues, as you cited yourself. I think the question is: is there a priority list? In rural British Columbia, in many cases — and you speak to it yourself — it is absolutely imperative that they have the ability to connect and be able to connect with the world.

Now, I know there was a program with, I believe, Barrett satellite, and we put in last-mile technology when I was the minister, to make certain that the people could actually put in that option. I’m not certain it gives 50/10. Anyway, my question is: with the $50 million, is there a priority list that’s going to be addressed?

[3:00 p.m.]

I mean, if I happen to have a business and I’m in the Cariboo or Chilcotin or up in the northeast or something like that, am I going to have any indication, or is it the luck of the draw of the people that apply — the people like ABC Communications or Telus, or whoever the providers are? What’s going to set the priorities for these communities, as you’ve referred to it?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. J. Sims: Let me say that the tool we have, the connected B.C. tool that we are using, the connected communities….

When I was saying to use New Westminster as an example, I was not hinting that New Westminster, with their own broadband, was underserved. What I was saying is that we’re encouraging communities, at all points of the spectrum of connectivity, to do an assessment that will best further their own economic, social and environmental goals for themselves.

When we are talking about…. We, as a province, cannot set priorities for communities. Communities do that. They work with service providers, and they put applications in. When I talk to communities and when my staff talks to communities, we encourage them to work regionally, with others around you, to get the best bang for your buck.

The reason the Connected Coast project was selected by the federal government is because they got to announce a huge number of communities — 156 communities. Out of those, 60-plus were First Nations. They got to do that out of one announcement and because the communities and the service providers had worked together to come up with a plan that could be economically sound and be supported.

Individual applications that come in have a much harder time because of the cost-effectiveness. We know that both the federal government…. They’re going to be using criteria that are ours and theirs, and they’re going to be doing the selection. They are going to be looking for the best bang for their buck. How can they take their millions of dollars and give service to more and more people?

That is why we are spending an incredible amount of resources on helping communities do their plan, whether it is through them working closely with our professional service experts in my ministry or whether they are working with private service providers by making grants available where they don’t have the consultants and the kind of planning that needs to be done.

We’re not leaving this. We’re absolutely not leaving this to just a haphazard approach. We want to support communities. We heard from small communities, as I travelled around the province. “It’s okay for Vancouver. It’s okay for Surrey. It’s okay for Richmond. It’s okay for Prince George. They can afford to hire a consultant who will go and write a proposal for them and work with a service provider. But we don’t have those resources. We can hardly make ends meet.”

For that purpose, we have allowed access to the $16 million that was announced last year so people can hire the supports they need in order to do a comprehensive plan. One thing I learned as a teacher a long, long time ago is that when the students are in charge of designing and having a real say in their learning and what they are going to be using it for, they are far more focused.

We want our communities to be focused and to get the resources they need for the development plan that is unique to that area. One area may be interested in attracting the high-speed tech industry to come and locate there. Whereas for another area I talked to, all they wanted to do was focus on their tourism. They wanted the kind of broadband that would allow them, the grandparents, to FaceTime their grandchildren and for people to make bookings and keep connected. Every community has a different need, and our job….

[3:05 p.m.]

A big, big thank-you and shout-out to my amazing team that works on the connectivity file. They spend an incredible amount of time, both from here and travelling to local communities — and then supporting them with additional resources.

By the way, I would encourage my colleagues across the way. This tool is on our website. Go and play with it. It absolutely blows you out of the water to say: “Oh my god, this is such a fascinating tool to do an assessment that is so, so necessary.”

B. Stewart: I guess, you know, we’ve had a good dialogue on this. I think the point that my colleague and myself have been asking about is how this plan is going to play out in the future — the fact that the federal government announced this funding in September and the fact that there wasn’t money in the budget. This is an additional almost 10 percent increase in the budget to invest in something that we believe in. On the other hand, we believe strongly in a plan or a road map as to how we’re going to get there.

I think that for many of the MLAs that sit in this House, the people that we represent…. There are all of these complicated things. I know that. I do realize it’s a different time today, and the federal government has made its commitment that it wants 50/10 service. That’s the standard that they are expecting today.

What’s it going to be in five years? I don’t know. Let’s make certain that we’re not thinking too short a window. I can recollect when Network B.C. was out there with the point of presences that Telus put across the province. It was a service that people were anxious to have, and not everybody got it. But maybe the people that have been waiting have got the new option, especially this Connected Coast project. It sounds like a wonderful project.

We do want to emphasize that we are going to look forward to having further discussion on this with you, I’m sure, at the estimates coming up for 2019-2020. We certainly believe that some sort of goal and plan should be sought out to help support this type of request. I mean, any type of…. I guess, having been on Treasury Board, a walk-in for $50 million is not a small ask.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

Hon. J. Sims: Let me make a correction first. When I said our website, it’s the NDIT’s website that has the connected communities’ tool.

I really do appreciate the questions that came across today. Let me assure you that as a minister and as a government, we are very, very committed to improving connectivity. As I said, we are using new metrics, moving away from the total population into community. I can say that we’re feeling that we’re well ahead of many other locations in the progress that we have made and are very, very grateful that we got this lift to the budget, which means that we can leverage the money that the federal government has.

I also need to reassure you that we are working on a ten-year plan at the national level, and we are co-chairing the committee that’s working on that. As that plan rolls out, we will gladly share it with you, as it gets completed. I agree that all of our goals are the same, which is to improve connectivity. We see it as the foundational piece — the economic, social and environmental benefits.

I will also say to you that I’m so proud of the work that we’ve been able to do in such a short time, and it would be remiss of me if I didn’t do another shout-out to my amazing, amazing staff, who make me look good and do such an awesome job and have such passion.

They share my passion for the foundational piece that connectivity plays for every other ministry, for all the work of government, and how it is a game changer when we’re looking at rural economic development.

Vote 19(S): ministry operations, $50,000,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will take a short recess while we prepare for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

The committee recessed from 3:10 p.m. to 3:14 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES
AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On Vote 21(S): ministry operations, $32,400,000.

The Chair: Minister, did you have an opening statement?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: I prefer to just jump right in, but I will introduce some of the staff who are with me here at the moment. We have my deputy minister, Dave Nikolejsin. We have — this is when I don’t remember titles properly; it happens — our finance guy, Wes Boyd.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Mungall: ADM of corporate services. That sounds much more official than finance guy, although finance guy sounds cooler. We have our ADM for the energy division, Les MacLaren, and our ADM for the mining division, Peter Robb. They are all excellent public servants, and we are all very lucky to have them working for us in B.C.

T. Shypitka: Just to start, I would like to thank the minister for the time, and obviously the staff. She has highlighted that they are very valuable servants to the province, and I couldn’t agree more. As I go into this role a little bit more, I see them all over the place. They’re at every event. They represent the ministry well. Very valuable, for sure. I’d like to see more of them, and I’m sure I will here in the coming few months.

We’re going to jump into this. There’s $32.4 million that’s in the supplementary here, and we are going to chunk it out into a couple of pieces: $30 million going towards more of the B.C. Hydro, the CleanBC side, and also it overlaps into environmental bits. I’ve got some colleagues here that will speak to that piece. I’ll jump in on the $2.4 million.

I guess I’ll start it and get some clarity on the $2.4 million portion of that, and how much money was originally allocated. I’m sure this is on the Mining Jobs Task Force section. How much money was originally allocated to the Mining Jobs Task Force in the 2018-2019 estimates?

Hon. M. Mungall: In the original budget of 2018-2019, there had been no funding allocated to the Mining Jobs Task Force, so the $400,000 that you see here in the supplementary estimates came from contingencies.

T. Shypitka: To get this clear, there was $400,000 in the estimates in contingencies that were taken out for the Mining Jobs Task Force. Is that what I’m hearing?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes.

T. Shypitka: Of the $400,000 that was taken out of contingencies for the Mining Jobs Task Force — I might just call it the MJTF; we’ll be saying that a lot here — what was that money spent on?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m happy to break down the total expenditure for the member. Facilitation costs, which were to Elevate Consulting, were $75,000. Task force meeting costs, including task force travel and expenses and First Nations per-meeting remuneration, were $25,000. Reports, the actual development of the reports…. We had two reports that facilitated the overall conclusions for the recommendations.

[3:20 p.m.]

The first report was the B.C. Mining Industry Assessment: Performance and Competitiveness Report — that was $210,000 — by Ernst and Young. We had a geoscience report that involved various consultants. That was $50,000. The total spending was $360,000. That was actually the total spending that we had for this task force.

I’m going to highlight really quickly for the member that the Ernst and Young report, which identified the performance and competitiveness of our mining industry here in B.C., was critically important to having a good understanding of where we fit in the overall global picture for mining and of some of the issues that we have to deal with to ensure that B.C. remains a competitive jurisdiction on that global scale. This report helped us and helped the jobs task force in terms of the recommendations that they delivered on that very topic.

To give the member opposite fulsome detail, when I talk about the costs for meetings, the task force met in person for ten full-day sessions. They also had regular teleconference calls between March and December 2018. The task force members came from across B.C., and we also had some from outside of B.C. bringing in their expertise. The highlights of these working sessions included the development of the strategic framework and vision, the constituent engagement strategy and implementation, and the intertwined suite of actions forming the final report.

T. Shypitka: Can the minister tell me when the estimates of 2018 were tabled?

Hon. M. Mungall: We had the distinction of being the last ministry in estimates for the 2018-2019 fiscal year. Our estimates concluded on May 31, 2018.

T. Shypitka: I’m just trying to get this clear here. You had $400,000 come out of contingency to pay for the Mining Jobs Task Force in the latter part of 2018. But in July of 2017, you’ve got a mandate letter that clearly states: “Establish a B.C. Mining Jobs Task Force to create and sustain good jobs in this important industry.” I’m just wondering, given your mandate, why you would not have that built into your 2018 budget.

The Chair: If I might remind members, we do not use the “you” in this. It would be “the minister,” please. It’s been a couple years now, and hopefully folks will learn this one day.

Hon. M. Mungall: Thanks to the member for the question. The way it works is that for a one-time government activity like this — a consultation that’s very specific, very defined in time — it doesn’t get built into the base budget. It’s actually something that you would normally pull from contingencies for. That being the case, with the jobs task force being identified as a government priority within a very limited time frame — that is, a one-time activity — we wouldn’t have put it into that base budget. It would have automatically gone for contingencies, which is exactly what we did.

So the Ministry of Finance, noting that this was a government priority, a distinct activity with a limited time frame, gave us notional access to those contingencies.

[3:25 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: We’ve got a combined allotment now of $2.4 million: $400,000 in contingency, $2 million coming up here now. What will the $2 million be spent on?

Hon. M. Mungall: We talked about the $400,000, but there’s the other $2 million, so there are two components to that that actually come from a direct result of the recommendations of the Mining Jobs Task Force.

There’s $1 million for our mining innovation roadmap — which the member will know, being the critic for mining, was a recommendation coming from the task force — and also to continue and expand our Regional Mining Alliance. That’s the other $1 million.

T. Shypitka: So $1 million to the Regional Mining Alliance. This was a direct recommendation. Was this something from the Mining Jobs Task Force that was recommended — $1 million for the B.C. association?

Hon. M. Mungall: The answer to the question is yes, and I would just direct the member’s attention to page 41 of the final report of the jobs task force. Right there is a recommendation from the task force, and they do define a particular total amount for this activity.

T. Shypitka: If the B.C. Regional Mining Alliance was afforded this $1 million on a recommendation from the Mining Jobs Task Force, is it comfortable to say that any association or any group could have asked for money under the recommendation of the Mining Jobs Task Force?

Hon. M. Mungall: Perhaps the member isn’t aware of what the Regional Mining Alliance is. It’s not a group or an association outside of government. It’s actually a partnership that government has with First Nations and industry for the direct purpose of promoting our mining industry at a global level, and it has been incredibly successful.

The response that we’ve received from the Regional Mining Alliance — from investors, for example, in London, where they first presented — was incredibly positive, and it’s really putting B.C. on the international map in reference to our competitors. Once investors at these financial conventions, and so on, are able to see what B.C. is able to offer, they become even more interested than they were in the past, and this, of course, is very good for our industry.

Like I said, to characterize it as just some random group from wherever would not be appropriate. This is a partnership, and it is a very successful partnership.

T. Shypitka: I understand that. The alliance was struck in 2018, I believe — great partnerships with the Tahltan and the Nisga’a, IDM Mining and a few other people as well. Within the $1 million, what will this money go towards? How is that going to be broken down?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The process for this $1 million has literally just completed in the last couple of days. That means the money hasn’t even been actually released yet. So how it is going to be spent is yet to be determined, but what I can tell the member is how it is determined. The Regional Mining Alliance — the three partners — come together, and they develop a business plan. We’re looking for a three-year business plan from our Regional Mining Alliance.

They are going to be focused, obviously, on the first year right now, in terms of what that business plan is going to be looking like and what activities they are to take on over the next year. Once we have that business plan, I’d be able to communicate, probably in broader estimates, what exactly their activities are going to be.

At this stage, considering that letters were just signed off literally in the last couple of days, we haven’t had a chance to get together with our partners and even start, much less finalize, that business plan.

T. Shypitka: Is it safe to say that the $1 million is an arbitrary amount? We don’t know what the plan is. We don’t know how it’s going to be divvied up or don’t know where we’re going with it, but $1 million should take care of it.

Hon. M. Mungall: I want to emphasize the importance of the work that the Jobs Task Force did and the value of their work, because I feel like this line of questioning might be heading it down a path that could be interpreted — and I don’t think the member wants that to be the case — as somehow negating their recommendations and that they didn’t do their due diligence when they absolutely did. I was so thoroughly impressed with the Jobs Task Force’s dedication to working on behalf of all British Columbians for this foundational industry. I say that all the time because, well, both the opposite member and I come from the Kootenays. So many of our communities were founded because of mining.

The Mining Jobs Task Force was very adamant that we need to have an envelope of $1 million go to the Regional Mining Alliance so they would have the flexibility and the budget to actually do what we need them to do on behalf of all British Columbians, so that they would actually be able to take our story and what we offer the world in our mining sector and show the world what it is. We wanted to make sure, as a government, that the Regional Mining Alliance had that budget.

Now, the Mining Jobs Task Force identified that $1 million after a lot of consideration. Some of the things, the activities, that they identified would be for, as I said, the continuation and the expansion of the Regional Mining Alliance.

Sorry, let me just make sure that I get there. I have been talking about what they’re doing in terms of a global scale. We want them to be promoting B.C. as a leading mining jurisdiction in Canada in which to invest through a collective presence at international investment conferences and other promotional events.

[3:35 p.m.]

The $1 million over three years will enable the mining alliance to consider expansion options, including mine operators, other regions of B.C., additional Indigenous governments. For example, from our area, the Ktunaxa have been living with mining in their backyard for a very long time. Would we want to be expanding to include the Ktunaxa or other Indigenous nations as well?

They are looking at, again, that expansion. In terms of every single detail and what they’re going to be looking at, as I said, the business plan has yet to be developed.

T. Shypitka: No, I am not trying to undermine the alliance in any way, shape or form. I understand that they’re a very important piece of the golden triangle, a very lucrative and rich area of the northwest part of our province. The minister speaks of due diligence and a lot of consideration for this money to go forward, yet nothing is really identified on what the money is going for. Is there going to be more down the road? That’ll be something I’ll be asking a little later.

I guess the first question would be: given the announcement of the B.C. Regional Mining Alliance initiative last May, when it was struck, why didn’t this ministry know that it would be funding such an initiative before estimates were drafted?

Hon. M. Mungall: There’s no way to know what’s going to be in a report a year in advance of the work taking place. For example, we concluded estimates on May 31, 2018. The jobs task force just got together in March 2018 and was nowhere near done. I already mentioned that they completed their work in December 2018. Specifically, it was December 19, 2018, that I met with the Mining Jobs Task Force to receive their final report.

That’s when we had these recommendations, and that’s when we were able to start acting on them. The fact that we were able to turn around and do that by applying to contingencies and receiving those contingency dollars to get going on this right away I think is a testament to how much this government prioritizes their work and how much this government wants to see mining succeed on a global scale for this province.

T. Shypitka: I’m just trying to understand it. An alliance was struck in May of 2018. There must have been some conversation or some discussion to say: how will this be funded? How will we be moving forward with this?

I’m asking the minister: why were those conversations not brought to estimates? There’s a lot of time between May and November of 2018. Surely there must have been something more than taking a $400,000 contingency. I know it’s going towards the Mining Jobs Task Force, but the mandate letter from the minister in 2017 is to start a mining jobs task force. So a lot of wheels were in motion already, before. To take it out of contingency in 2019 supplementary estimates seems to be….

This should have been done a long time ago. Why wasn’t it known a long time ago? Why couldn’t we have put this funding in place for the 2018 estimates?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m a bit confused by the member’s questions. Is he wondering why we didn’t have money funded for the Regional Mining Alliance in 2018, although the recommendation didn’t come till December 2018? I’m just not too sure what he’s trying to get at here. If he can maybe collect his thoughts.

T. Shypitka: At the time that the budget estimates were produced, did the minister have no plan for the fiscal year to fund the BCRMA?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The Regional Mining Alliance was funded in the 2018-2019 budget for a one-year period as a pilot project. And lo and behold, it was very successful, and the Mining Jobs Task Force then took that information from the activities done by the Regional Mining Alliance and said: “This needs to continue.” They made that part of their recommendation, and we have now acted on the recommendation.

If the member is concerned why we didn’t talk about it during budget estimates in May, again, it’s his time to ask questions, and I answer those questions. So the choice to talk about it is not up to me, but it’s actually up to members opposite.

T. Shypitka: So, of the $1 million, we’re not quite sure what it’s going to be spent on. But it’s an act of faith to kick-start the alliance and make sure that they’ve got some money in the kitty to do the things they are going to do. I get that it’s good.

Now, I heard the minister say something about competitiveness and keeping it competitive and making sure B.C. is looked upon as a good place to invest and a good place to do business. Is that part of the plan for this money for the alliance?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes.

T. Shypitka: I’m looking at the B.C. Regional Mining Alliance website. This was done in 2018. It says: “Our advantage.” “Mining Journal’s World Risk Report 2017 ranked B.C. as the least risky jurisdiction in the world for resource investment, largely on the back of its world-leading mining code. World-class mineral deposits combined with distinct competitive advantages make the province a top destination for mining investment.” Would the minister agree with that?

Hon. M. Mungall: One of the reasons that B.C. is considered a low-risk jurisdiction for investment is because of the stable government that we have. That’s a long-standing reality that is attributable to all political parties and all governments, because Canada…. Although question period can get quite raucous, and it might look like we are all about to maybe jump over our desks and so on, we actually don’t. We have a very stable government, stable changes in government, and so on. So that’s one of the reasons, for example, that we have a low-risk jurisdiction.

Another one is that we have, actually, good permitting processes and also an openness to always improve them, as we are doing. We have transparency in our government, and we have good environmental protection. Again, always room for improvement, as we are doing. Good health and safety standards — always room for improvement, as we are doing. We have a stable workforce as well.

There are a variety of factors that go into these types of reports that look at risk level. The reasons why B.C., and Canada as a whole, is considered low risk are many of those factors.

T. Shypitka: Hallelujah for that, because I believe that B.C. is the best jurisdiction in the world. In the 2017 risk report, it said that B.C. was one of the least-risky environments in the world, and that’s great.

However, with the setup of the alliance, we’re going to try to do better, I guess. Rob Stevens, for the AME, vice-president of regulatory and technical policy, said about this $1 million that’s now going into the B.C. Regional Mining Alliance: “The impetus for forming the alliance was, in part at least, to combat negative perceptions about B.C. in the international investment community.”

[3:45 p.m.]

The minister is saying we’re very competitive, yet the $1 million is to reverse the view that B.C. has as not being competitive — from what I’m reading here. I’m just wondering if the minister wants to comment on the somewhat contradictory sentiments that are going on here. Are we competitive? Are we not? Is this what this Mining Jobs Task Force is all about? Why is it that the B.C. Regional Mining Alliance needs this $1 million? Is it to address competitiveness, or is it something else?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’d like the member to not get too confused between the concept of competitiveness and then least risky for investment. Competitiveness involves many more factors than risk management or risk status. Competitiveness will involve pricing and so on. It also involves time, though. Time is money, particularly in mining. It’s not just in film and theatre, as the Chair knows, but time is money.

One of the things that concerns a lot of investors around the world who may not have a lot of experience working with Indigenous nations is their concern in terms of: now there is an added consultation, right? How much time is that going to take? This is why we are having a tripartite relationship with Indigenous nations, government and industry.

We want to go and show the world that this new era of reconciliation is beneficial; it is competitive; it is very, very important and creates, actually, greater stability going forward. Unfortunately, a lot of investors who don’t have experience working with Indigenous communities need to be told the story of how valuable it is to be working with Indigenous communities. That’s precisely why the Regional Mining Alliance was struck, and it is being very successful.

T. Shypitka: I guess the last question on the B.C. mining alliance is: why was $1 million funding for the BCRMA in the 2018-19 supplementary budget instead of the 2019-2020 budget?

Hon. M. Mungall: We had the money available within the 2018-19 budget, so as a government, we prioritized this recommendation from the Mining Jobs Task Force. As I said earlier, we wanted to get going on these recommendations. They are fantastic recommendations. They are very doable. Some are going to be more long term. This was something that we knew we needed to get on right away.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister. We’ll go on to the innovation road map piece of it. It’s $1 million there. Did the minister have any plan to develop a mining innovation road map prior to the recommendation within the Mining Jobs Task Force Report?

Hon. M. Mungall: No, we didn’t, and this shows exactly why we get people together. The 12 people that we had on our jobs task force came together, and they identified several items that our government was not planning to do. That’s exactly why we brought them together, to get that outside perspective. Thank goodness we did, because they were fantastic.

T. Shypitka: Is the funding a one-time injection of cash, or will the minister commit to funding the sustainability of the road map beyond the 2018-2019 fiscal year?

Hon. M. Mungall: The $1 million is to build that road map. That road map no doubt is going to direct us in a particular direction. What that ultimately is and what kind of funding will be needed for that will have to be decided at that time.

[3:50 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: The Mining Jobs Task Force explicitly notes that the implementation of innovative practices and tools that come as a result of this road map will require an “agile regime.” That’s from page 49, I believe, of the Mining Jobs Task Force Report.

Will the minister commit to reviewing the regulatory regime to provide the flexibility necessary for the adoption of new technological innovations?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’re going to be reviewing any type of recommendations or ideas that come from our development of the road map. I should also let the member know that we actually have been able to retain several of our Mining Jobs Task Force members to be part of a steering committee to make sure that these recommendations — there are 25 recommendations — are implemented. That’s how dedicated we are to implementing their recommendations, how dedicated this government is to following through on the work that they’ve put before us: we’re asking them to hold us accountable.

T. Shypitka: Okay. Has the work on the innovation road map already begun? I think you might have said something about that. If so, who’s involved?

Hon. M. Mungall: To answer the member’s question on if work has begun yet, the answer is no, for the exact same reason as with the Regional Mining Alliance. Literally, just in the last couple of days, the letters required to transfer the money have just been signed, so the work is just going to be getting underway over the next little while. The member should note that we have members from the Mining Jobs Task Force who are engaged in this, and they will be working with us as we move forward.

T. Shypitka: One last question before the break here — I’m trying to time it for you as close as I can: when will this submitted road map be produced, and when will it be made public?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The $1 million is one-time funding. It doesn’t have a specific end date, but my ADM is very adamant that he wants to get this completed within the next year.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister. I’ll now bring my colleague in.

G. Kyllo: I just wanted to confirm a couple numbers. From the 2018-2019 budget — it’s my understanding that the budget for the ministry is about $58 million and the request under the supplemental estimate is at $32.4 million, which is a budget lift of 56 percent.

Hon. M. Mungall: That sounds about right. We can get a calculator, and we can compare notes, but we’ll say that about there sounds good.

G. Kyllo: Of the supplemental estimate request of the $32.4 million, can the minister confirm if any of the funds set out in the supplemental estimates have already been spent or otherwise committed at this point in time?

The Chair: Just to remind the member, please come through the Chair, as opposed to speaking directly with the form of “you.” It goes against the standing orders.

Hon. M. Mungall: The $30 million of these supplementary estimates has been committed to the New Car Dealers to deliver the EV program that we have. The $360,000 for the Mining Jobs Task Force has already been spent. Then the remaining $2 million has been announced but, as I canvassed earlier, has not been spent yet. It’s just working its way through the system. That has just been completed in the last day or two.

With that, I’ll just let the member know that we’re going to have to take a recess. I’ll take another question, and then we’ll have to take a recess because I have a seven-month-old whose needs have to be met.

G. Kyllo: Just a bit of clarity on that. Of the funds that have been committed to the EV dealers, have any of those funds been spent to date? If so, what is the quantity of the dollars that have actually been spent to date on that particular program?

Hon. M. Mungall: There’s approximately $13 million remaining of that $30 million. The reason is that our EV program has been so popular, so successful. British Columbians are ecstatic to be getting on board with zero-emission vehicles.

[4:00 p.m.]

We actually have the highest adoption rate of zero-emission vehicles in Canada. This program that we’re talking about right now, for the, I’m sure, incredible number of people who are watching at home, is all about supporting people transitioning to electric vehicles. It’s been incredibly popular. Just well done, British Columbia, for doing that. That’s why we actually increased the financial supports for our zero-emission vehicle program. It’s because it was so popular that by September, we had been fully subscribed.

We wanted to keep this program going. We were able to access money from contingencies to do just that, and people have been jumping on to access it and get their EVs. We have $13 million remaining to take us to the end of the fiscal.

The Chair: I would like to suggest we have a recess — 15 minutes.

Hon. M. Mungall: A 15-minute recess, please.

The Chair: We’ll begin again shortly after 4:15.

The committee recessed from 4:01 p.m. to 4:25 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re looking at the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources supplemental estimates.

G. Kyllo: Of the $17 million that has actually been spent to date, would the minister be able to provide a list of specifically where those funds have been spent and for which specific programs?

Hon. M. Mungall: The entire $30 million, including the $17 million that’s already been spent, is solely for the incentives, the point-of-sale incentives for zero-emission vehicles. If the member wants more detail in terms of where those incentives are being disbursed around the province, whether they’re for a Nissan LEAF or for a Kia Soul or for a Chevy Volt, we can get those details. We don’t have them at the moment, but we can certainly get them and share them with him at a later date.

G. Kyllo: I do not require, actually, the specific details. I just wanted to make sure and just provide some clarity and confirmation that the $17 million was actually for the electric vehicle program in the province.

Can the minister just confirm: what is the current contingency which her ministry is supposed to be operating within?

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. M. Mungall: The decision on how to allocate contingencies is that of Treasury Board. So what we did is we applied to acquire these extra dollars through contingencies. We were successful in doing that, and it’s been allocated to our base budget, hence the reason for us being here in supplementary estimates.

G. Kyllo: If I could ask, just for some clarity…. What I’m hearing is there is not a specific contingency available for the specific ministry, that there is a set of contingencies that the ministry has to make application to Treasury Board.

[4:30 p.m.]

If that is the case, might I ask when the ministry made the request through Treasury Board to access a contingency that has already been accessed and utilized and spent today?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’ll share with the member opposite a little bit of the story of how the approvals came to be. With the zero-emission vehicle program, the original allotment was $40 million over a three-year period. That’s what we anticipated would meet the demand for EVs out there, in terms of supporting people to make EVs more affordable.

We underestimated the demand that British Columbians have for zero-emission vehicles. We were actually seeing, in the summertime, that we would be fully subscribed for that $40 million in September of 2018. So we went back to Treasury Board, and we were approved for $10 million in September and then another $20 million in November, to top up our zero-emission vehicle program. We had every intention to continue going forward with it for this fiscal year, and we didn’t want to have a gap where it would suddenly not be available, because it was just so massively popular. Beyond any anticipation, it was just so massively popular.

For that, hon. Chair, let me just say: hats off to British Columbians for being so interested and so dedicated, in terms of their personal choices to reduce their impact on climate change by moving to zero-emission vehicles and taking this program opportunity up.

G. Kyllo: As a bit of follow-up, if I could ask the minister, were there any other programs that were already fully subscribed or were already under pressure at the time that the decision was made to allocate — as the minister has indicated — first, $10 million in September and a further $20 million in November of those $30 million in total requests that went through?

Were there any other pressures on any other programs in the ministry? If there was…. I guess also, then, if the minister is able to share under what criteria the minister was able to establish the need and necessity to put that full $30 million into this electric vehicle program.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: There were two programs that were fully subscribed under our broader EV package. They were two charging programs: the residential charging station — we were supporting people to develop charging stations within their residences — and then multi-units, so for example, a large condo development and incentivizing those developments to also have charging stations.

Those two programs had been fully subscribed by the fall of 2018. The reason why we chose to just focus on the point-of-sale vehicle incentive program was because…. A little bit two different beasts, almost. If we had lost momentum with the point-of-sale incentives and with the actual purchasing of vehicles, we would be concerned that the demand would start to drop when we actually want to see the demand increase. We have put forward a mandate, for example, for all new vehicles to be sold by 2040 to be zero-emission vehicles. We want to see that…. We want to….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. M. Mungall: We want to see the momentum for that continue, so that’s why we focused on that. You will see additional funds for the charging stations in future years of this program. Just the pressure was not as acutely felt for the charging stations.

G. Kyllo: If I might ask the minister if she could just provide some clarity. On the initial budget that was established for the clean energy program, it was fully subscribed by September. Then we had the additional $30 million lift, of which $17 million has been spent. So of the initial budget plus the $17 million spent, would the minister be able to provide some clarity on how many vehicles in total that would represent? If that’s something that has to be provided at a later date, I’m fine to take that.

Hon. M. Mungall: Of the $30 million that we were able to access through contingencies, we anticipate that the $10 million was able to support an estimated 2,295 zero-emission vehicles added onto the road. That’s roughly about 2,300. The $20 million that was provided in January 2019, which is going to take us to the end of the fiscal, would deliver another 4,500 zero-emission vehicles on the road. So for a total amount, we’re anticipating that, in this program, the extra $30 million will deliver around 6,800 new zero-emission vehicles on the road.

G. Kyllo: Okay, so if I could just confirm, the 6,800 in total would be within this current fiscal? So other than the $30 million that was actually expensed under the contingencies and is now part of supplemental, there were no funds for electric vehicle purchases allocated in the current fiscal in addition to this? I guess I’m just looking for some clarity.

The initial budget that was established in this fiscal for the clean energy program — how many vehicles were purchased under that allotment?

Hon. M. Mungall: Under the $40 million?

[4:40 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Correct. Then the other question was the additional lift, but I think we’ve got that portion.

Hon. M. Mungall: The $40 million which was originally allocated in the September 2017 Budget Update…. We don’t have the number of vehicles that that was actually able to put onto the road at this time. We’re happy to get it for the member. Whether it’s the next round of estimates — coming up shortly, no doubt — or we can email it to him as soon as we have it.

G. Kyllo: That would be much appreciated. Thank you.

With respect to the request for the contingencies, for the $30 million, a question. When establishing the priorities of the ministry and where the funds should be most appropriately expensed…. It’s my understanding that there were two other programs. So that was both for the residential charging station and the multi-unit incentives. Those were also fully subscribed at the time, but there was a decision focused on just the electrical vehicle portion.

I’m just wondering: were there other considerations? I know that in the current budget there are funds established for, I think, very important initiatives, like providing an opportunity for First Nations communities to get off diesel generators and those sorts of things.

I’m just wondering, in establishing the priorities of the ministry and where the funds should be allocated, if there were other considerations, other than just the three programs that were fully subscribed, in accessing the contingencies.

Hon. M. Mungall: When we apply to contingencies, it’s not just a lump sum that you then put into somewhere in the ministry without a targeted direction. Treasury Board is very, very clear that you apply for a specific program, so we’re applying for the zero-emission vehicle program.

We were successful in receiving approval for that application, and then it has to go to that program. We can’t start dispersing it elsewhere. So that’s why we are here. We were successful, and it’s now moved to our base budget. So we’re doing supplementary estimates.

In terms of other programs. If the member is wondering: did we look at other programs? Were there any pressures on those other programs? And were those pressures sufficient that we needed to start applying for contingencies to perhaps maintain market stability, which is the whole purpose of why we did so for the zero-emission vehicle program? The answer was no.

[4:45 p.m.]

We did not have that same level of pressure and the same possible outcome if we had not applied to contingencies. So this was a very specific situation where we wanted to maintain market stability for this program, which was not felt in other programs.

G. Kyllo: If I can just clarify. The focus on the funding was because of the oversubscription of an existing program. But there wasn’t necessarily an overview looking at all of the different programs within the ministry and where there may be service delivery requirements that may have higher need in the province.

I wanted to get a better understanding. If the minister can kind of just re-clarify that the request for the $30 million in contingencies, which is now the subject of supplemental estimates for the clean energy program, that that was a decision made within the ministry based on the pressures as indicated. But there was not a focused effort on having a look at other pressures within the ministry or other areas where those funds may also have been — or could have been — maybe re-purposed to, I would say, a more important outcome.

Hon. M. Mungall: As I was pointing out with my previous answer, this was the program that had the most acute pressure that we had to deal with if we were going to make sure that we didn’t have negative consequences for its possible continuation. So for the member to take away from that that we weren’t looking at any other program is…. I’m not too sure where he would come to that point.

In fact, exactly inferred from my answer is that we are looking at other programs. It was this program that had the most acute pressure, so that obviously means that we’re looking at other programs as well. I pointed out that there were two other programs that had been fully subscribed, but the pressure on them in terms of how it would impact their overall sustainability was not as concerning as for the zero-emission vehicle program.

Just so the member is clear, though, as a ministry — and this is true of any ministry — we’re continuously monitoring programs and always involved in whether or not they are fully subscribed. In programs such as this, which are consumer incentive programs, we’re always monitoring them.

If the member is somehow concerned that we establish a program and then somehow we walk away, and we just don’t have any staff allocated to it, and they never get to talk about how well their program is doing…. That just is not the case at all.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much. Just one last question. The SCRAP-IT incentives. If the minister is able to clarify if any of the funds that were set aside in the contingency — the $30 million — were established for the SCRAP-IT incentives?

Hon. M. Mungall: I just wanted to make sure that my understanding of the SCRAP-IT program was correct, and it is. So it is actually funded by industry, for the vehicle program. It would not have been something that would come from the $30 million.

[4:50 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Great. Thank you very much for that clarity. I appreciate that.

Is there any of the remaining available CEV money that is being counted toward money announced for the ministry for the CleanBC in the new budget?

Hon. M. Mungall: This $30 million is not under the grand total of CleanBC. When we announce, in the budget, all of the dollars that are under the CleanBC banner, this is not in it.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much. I’m finished. I’ll turn it over to my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Minister, for answering these questions and clearing up some of the confusion we have. First off, I can appreciate how you’ve gone to bat for a program that was starting to run out of money. Unfortunately, we don’t see that across the ministries.

I know that Home Adaptations for Independence is happy. It’s a $5 million project so that people with disabilities can make adaptions to their homes. I know that ran out of money six months into the fiscal, and there was no top-up money. People are now waiting until after this budget to see if they can reapply. So I applaud you for wanting to make sure that a program doesn’t run out of money.

I’m wondering. There was a fairly big announcement about the $10 million on September 24. Part of our confusion here today is…. You can imagine. We’re in government and opposition — governmental bodies, I guess we’ll say. When we saw the $30 million in supplemental estimates, we thought there were questions around charging infrastructure. We only saw one announcement for the increase of the $10 million. I can’t find announcements anywhere else for the $20 million.

Could you explain why there was no announcement for, essentially, a doubling of the first $10 million — but actually a tripling of the overall bump-up that was coming forward? This is the first we’re hearing about it today.

Hon. M. Mungall: I know that there are a lot of press releases on the government website. We’ll be happy to get the member opposite a copy of the press release that was announced by the Premier.

P. Milobar: Well, I certainly was able to find the September one, just to be clear. I did a Google search again, sitting here waiting to ask my questions, when I heard January, and nothing comes up. Google seems to not want to pop up and populate that press release. In fact, on the ministry’s website today, I couldn’t find it either. It may have just been a glitch. I’m just letting you know that’s where some of our confusion comes from, more than anything.

In terms of the $30 million, if I’ve heard correctly…. Again, this starts to clarify things, frankly. I came in today wondering how they could have a $13.770 million balance if they desperately needed a $10 million bump-up. Hearing they’ve already spent $17 million of the $30 million — that makes perfect sense now, versus where our head space was at up to a couple hours ago. So there’s good value in these estimates.

If I’m hearing correctly, though, in the first budget lift in the September ’17 budget update, the minister referenced $40 million, but in the press release on the top-up in September, it talks about $27 million of that going to the CEVforBC program, specifically for this program. When you do the math on what the three-year workplan and targets for the ministry were, that actually coincides with the 5,612 units expected over a three-year budget period, which would be about $27 million.

Can I confirm that it was actually $27 million in the budget update that went into the CEVforBC, not $40 million?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: While the member was asking his question, my staff was able to get the announcement date of that $20 million. It was November 20, 2018. It was part of our overall announcement for the zero-emission mandate: that all new vehicle sales by 2040 will be zero-emission vehicles.

The member might recall there was actually an event on the steps of the Legislature that day. We had some zero-emission vehicles outside for viewing, lots of press, lots of interested passers-by looking at the zero-emission vehicles. The $20 million was announced on that date. I actually remember, now recalling that I was wearing this suit. I actually talked, in my remarks to the press, about the $20 million.

In terms of the original $40 million that was earmarked for B.C.’s zero-emission vehicle program, the member is right to point out that $27 million went to the New Car Dealers Association to deliver the CEVforBC — the clean energy vehicle for B.C. — vehicle incentives for light-duty vehicles. To get to the total $40 million, I’ll just read out some of the things that we did: $2.5 million was for CEV specialty-use vehicle incentive programs. That’d be for your medium- and heavy-duty, low-speed, airport- and port-type vehicles.

We also had money go into infrastructure, including hydrogen fuelling, fast-charging stations, general charging stations as well. Also, looking at how we can make sure that there is some clean-growth economic development, we did some research around that. Then, of course, there was public outreach and letting people know about these types of programs, but also training as well. For example, and I know that the Minister of Advanced Education — who might be listening in — would be very pleased to know that we supported some training for CEV automotive technician programs at BCIT.

P. Milobar: I have that November press release here. I see it now. It’s item two. Again, my apologies. It doesn’t talk about the original $10 million. It just says increasing by $20 million this year and doesn’t mention the original $10 million announcement in September, two months earlier. Not a problem. It’s understood now where that dollar figure arrived from.

Is the plan…? With this budget bump, $13 million remains, which means $17 million has been expended, as the minister said earlier. Is there confidence that that will actually hold till the end of this fiscal? When was the latest update with a month to go in terms of the balance? I know the rolling balance is $13 million, but has there been outreach with the car dealers to make sure that that will actually last for 30 days?

The reason I ask is that when I went on the program today, it started at 10 o’clock this morning. It was at $13,770,463. At 2:54 today, it was at $13,662,963, so it had dropped $107,500 today, which is about 21 vehicles, 22 vehicles. That’s great. I’m just wondering — has there been a check in lately with the car dealers if that is actually going to last through the fiscal?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes, we check in regularly with new car dealers, and we’re always monitoring sales. Where things are anticipated right now is that $13 million will actually take us into May.

P. Milobar: To reconfirm the numbers, then, $57 million from Budget Update September 2017 to the end of fiscal, April 1, 2019. So for that time frame, $57 million. It sounds like there were about 13,400 vehicles that will be accomplished for that budget of $57 million.

Hon. M. Mungall: It’s hard to say whether the member’s estimate is a nail on the head or if it’s give or take a few or if there’s a considerable margin of error with his estimate. The reason is that different vehicles will get different incentives, and it’s only until the program is subscribed that we’re able to get an exact number of vehicles that have been sold using this program. Once we have that, though, happy to pass it on to members opposite.

P. Milobar: Actually, I misread my numbers. I apologize for that. It was $4,400 a vehicle I was looking at, based on the $30 million, giving us 6,800 vehicles. That’s fine. I’ll keep an eye out for that moving forward.

I’m just wondering. In terms of the program…. Again, my hunting and pecking around on the Internet seemed to indicate that the cutoff for a vehicle to qualify has remained at $77,000 or under. Is that accurate — that those thresholds, with these bumps in money going in the extra $30 million this year, did not change the upper limit of cost?

Hon. M. Mungall: That is correct. The new $30 million is on the exact same parameters as the existing program. No changes.

P. Milobar: On Monday, when I was in the House…. We were talking on the Monday morning discussions, and there was a discussion about CleanBC and transportation. Before I responded, the member presenting from the government had indicated that the CEV program would result in a savings of $2,400 a year in fuel to the average car owner if they switched to an electric vehicle. However, I seem to recall the minister has stated several times, including in the budget, that it was $1,500 per year for a vehicle.

I’m wondering if the minister could…. I’m sure, maybe, it was just a typo with the other member, but I just want to make sure the number hasn’t changed or there hasn’t been a new recalculation by the industry.

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes. We work on an average of $1,500 in fuel savings, keeping in mind that that average has a very wide range. It really depends on what kind of vehicle somebody may have been driving beforehand. For example, if you’re driving an F-150 and you decide to move to a Chevy Volt, that’s going to be a much larger fuel cost savings because an F-150 takes up a lot more gasoline than, for example, a Toyota RAV4. If somebody went from a Toyota RAV4 to a Nissan LEAF, that would be less of a variance.

We’ve been saying $1,500. Perhaps the member, when they were speaking, had done some other calculation based on a different type of vehicle.

P. Milobar: The minister is right. There are all sorts of ways to get to averages, I guess. In my experience…. I’ve owned several trucks in my lifetime. I don’t think I’ve ever gone from a full-sized truck to a Nissan LEAF–sized vehicle. I would suggest there are probably, especially in the Interior, where the bulk of the trucks are, very few people that would make that level of switch.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: Like in my riding.

P. Milobar: Well, very similar ridings.

I’m just wondering. Around that, there must be a cost calculator that the ministry uses to come up with a number. It certainly can’t just be a finger in the air. I know there is a CAA electric vehicle cost calculator. Is it a tool like that the ministry would have used to come up with these averages?

Hon. M. Mungall: It’s our clean transportation branch within the ministry that comes up with the averages. We don’t have the exact methodology on hand right now. I’m happy to get it to the member, again by email, or we can canvass it during full estimates.

In terms of people moving from a large truck to a small electric vehicle, you would be surprised, Member.

P. Milobar: I would be interested in getting further information on that, because I think it’s important that the public, if they’re purchasing, has an accurate idea of what their fuel savings may or may not be. Certainly, when I was doing some searching around….

I know the minister is also responsible for Hydro, so I thought it might be a very safe document and website to go to, to figure out…. The heading is “Electric Vehicles and Your B.C. Hydro Bill.” It’s all about cost comparisons of three different scenarios. It uses the CAA’s electric vehicle cost calculator — B.C. Hydro does.

It has three different ones. It has a Ford Focus, and the cost savings of that in a year would be $1,056. It has a Nissan LEAF, and the cost savings of that calculation would be $576 a year, for a Nissan LEAF to use that. A Nissan LEAF costs between $30,000 and $33,000, so that would certainly qualify within the realm of the subsidy. I couldn’t find anything that was approaching the $1,500, though, in the examples.

The third example is a Tesla S, and that shows…. It actually has the most driving on it, the most kilometres in the example, so you would think that it would actually, naturally, be the closest to the rate. That comes out at $1,236. All three of those together would not come out to an average anywhere close to $1,500, given that the highest one is nowhere near $1,500 for the year.

I would point out that the Tesla base model cited in this example, the only one that even comes close to the $1,500 range the minister has talked about, is $112,000 to start, at the base. That (a) is hardly an affordable vehicle by any measure, and (b) doesn’t qualify for the subsidy. So I’m just wondering, when we’re hearing cost calculations moving forward: is there a move to get to more of a standardized matrix for people to be able to easily find…?

Again, I’m on the B.C. Hydro site, which is under the minister’s purview, and it seems to have very contradictory language to what the minister has been telling us here today.

Hon. M. Mungall: We did say to the member that we would happily get him the methodology of how we came to our calculations internally, within the ministry, and we will do that.

P. Milobar: Great. Thank you very much for that.

Another piece I noticed that’s quite interesting, when I was seeing that the $77,000 threshold still remains in effect…. There was an interesting subnote to the bulletin that as of December 1, 2017…. By my calculation, the government first got sworn in, in August, I believe it was — July, August, something like that.

Hon. M. Mungall: July 18.

P. Milobar: I’m betting you probably remember that date better than myself. That’s for sure.

[5:10 p.m.]

On December 1, there was a change to the program, though. There wasn’t a change to the threshold. The threshold was still that $77,000 and over does not qualify, which I understand. It’s still subject to the luxury tax, as other vehicles would be, which I can somewhat understand as well. However, there was a change that even if you’re buying the $30,000 Nissan LEAF, the tax is fully paid on the $5,000 rebate. It’s a change by this government to then start to collect tax before, which works out to about $250, roughly, on a $5,000 rebate.

I’m wondering. At a time when a program is getting oversubscribed, there’s great success to it and there are tens of millions of dollars in the supplemental estimates to talk to, why did the government decided to follow through with an initiative to tax the value of the car for the car owner before the rebate and not, as it had been in the past, after the rebate had been calculated on the price of the car?

Hon. M. Mungall: The members opposite will recall that the previous government actually started to develop this program. I remember, in their budget that was delivered in February 2017, the $40 million for the zero-emission vehicle program — that’s where you originally found it — and we decided to continue on with it with our September update in 2018. What happened in the original development of the program was that the taxing on the value of the car before the rebate was part of the original program design under the previous government.

We came in and found that that actually did not conform with tax law. That was a mistake under the previous government. We identified it, and we rectified it.

P. Milobar: Thank you for that. Now, I hope the minister can bear with me. My understanding is that this House has not had to deal with supplemental estimates since the recession of 2009, so we’re all a little rusty. Certainly, the newer ones of us would be nowhere near those bad years within the budgets across North America, really.

If I could just get clarification. The money has not only been announced, but over half of it has already been spent. If these supplemental estimates were not to be approved by this Legislature, what would the ramifications of that be?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mungall: We had approval to spend this money out of contingencies, but it was the Ministry of Finance that decided to move this into the base budget — which is what instigates this process.

P. Milobar: I guess the reason I ask that question is because…. Again, not having this supplemental process happen since 2009, I thought I would do yet some other digging around through Hansard to try to find, based on other quotes and other ways that ministers dealt with things in supplemental estimates, what the whole process was about.

I stumbled across a very interesting ministerial quote. When asked essentially the same things, the quote is: “It would be a very foolish minister that started to spend the money before it had gone through the process and had been approved, so that’s why we’re here today.”

Is the minister saying that there was no need to actually be here today to do any approvals? I should maybe reference the quote I’m using, because it’s quite historical. It’s from 1:50 this afternoon, from the Hon. Jinny Sims.

Hon. M. Mungall: That’s a very interesting little game that the member is trying to play there.

Let’s be clear. I’ve already explained this process of how we go to Treasury Board to apply for funding out of contingencies, and that’s exactly what we did. We were approved for that, and we were approved to begin expending those funds, as we have started to do.

The Ministry of Finance is the one that has decided to move this into a base budget, which is a different accounting procedure, and that is why we are here and having the due diligence of opposition looking at what exactly these dollars are going to. I appreciate that accountability mechanism. That’s why we’re here.

P. Milobar: Well, we’re here, in my understanding, regardless of the process that the Minister of Finance may want or not. There need to be votes on this to make the budget whole for the minister, as a result of — regardless of what line item it is — an overexpenditure within an existing budget framework that was there — whether it comes from contingencies or from other areas.

Can the minister, then, confirm to us that there were no extra expenditures that could have been used for any of these within her ministerial line items and that this all had to come from contingencies?

Hon. M. Mungall: Perhaps the member had stepped out when I had explained this earlier and why we have applied to Treasury Board for these programs. You can only apply to Treasury Board from their contingencies for a specified program. It can’t just be a lump sum that is then delivered to the ministry and that the ministry spends however it wishes.

[5:20 p.m.]

It has to be very specific. We were very specific, and we’ve already canvassed the process of why we identified these particular budgetary items as needing that contingency funding.

In terms of where…. The member is trying to understand how these funds get approved. It was very clearly stated. I do believe the minister prior did say this in her opening remarks.

Supplementary estimates also provide an opportunity for government to fund existing programs or parts of programs through ministry appropriations rather than through the contingencies vote. Sometimes the contingencies vote is used to cover program costs.

Now that we are close to the end of the fiscal year and have a high degree of certainty about program costs, we can move some program funding out of the contingencies envelope and into ministry appropriations, base budgets, what we’re doing here. In these cases, this is a shift in the funding source for these programs.

P. Milobar: Well, I guess I’m trying to understand here. The minister can help me out with this. We’re here because out of the $58 million original budget, there was $32 million of supplemental, $10 million of which was announced on September 24, 2018, for a program that was being oversubscribed. Less than two months later, there was the need for another $20 million within that same program.

However, a little over half of that money total has been spent. So the urgency within that two months is a little hard to understand — how you go from $10 million to needing $30 million in a space of two months. These are really questions around the overall budgeting within the minister’s purview and the ministry operations.

So I guess I’ll be a little more direct with it. Out of the $58 million budget, with only a month to go in the fiscal, what is the minister anticipating the end-of-the-year budget to look like? Will it have been $56 million of the $58 million expended? Will it be $57 million expended? Will it be all $58 million expended? I understand that the contingencies need to cover specific line items. I’m asking how much of the $58 million this minister will be under. Or will this minister be actually over budget by the end of the fiscal?

Hon. M. Mungall: We’re right on target to spend our budget in full. We track it carefully, as any ministry does. As I said, we’re on target to spend it in full.

T. Shypitka: We’re just going to wrap things up. From what I’m hearing here, it’s a little bit troubling. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson was asking about supplementary estimates and the fact that there has been an overexpenditure of the original estimates in 2018. The minister on the other side is justifying that, saying: “Well, this is just the way we drill down. We get more identified line items, and we can bring those forward in the supplementary estimates.”

I guess the last question would be: is this a way of doing business in the future? Are we going to be expecting more of these supplementary estimates every year? Is this something we can look forward to? Is this the way we conduct business?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member’s question is a very interesting one, because what it ultimately suggests at its fundamental premise is that we should have left the electric vehicle program, the CEVforBC, the zero-emission vehicle program…. We’ve named it a few different things today, but the point is that the member opposite is basically suggesting that we should have left it oversubscribed, that we should have let market instability be the result by not seeking to top it up so that we could actually bring it through to the next budget year and keep it going on.

[5:25 p.m.]

That’s what I’m hearing from the member. Perhaps he’s also suggesting that we shouldn’t have gone forward with the Mining Jobs Task Force, which had amazing recommendations on how we can build this foundational industry even further and ensure its success going into the future, not just for British Columbia but on a global scale, so that we can still provide family-supporting jobs out of this industry.

This industry provides some of the highest-paying jobs in this province, in rural communities like mine, like his. The idea that we should not have sought dollars from contingencies and placed them in an appropriate accounting mechanism to our base budget — for things like the Mining Jobs Task Force and the two recommendations that we were able to fund right away, out of the gate — is absolutely ludicrous. It’s such a disservice to British Columbians to suggest that we should not have sought those dollars and spent it on these worthwhile items.

The member opposite, from Kamloops–North Thompson, suggested that it was a good thing that I went to Treasury Board and asked for extra dollars so that we could make sure that that EV program was continued on right through to the end of the fiscal year. He thought it was a good thing, but his member from Kootenay East maybe thinks it’s a bad thing. At the end of the day, they’re clearly confused, but the point is that these are programs that helped British Columbians.

We’ve made zero-emission vehicles something that British Columbians very much want and have a high demand for. We are making them more affordable. We have a Mining Jobs Task Force that is working diligently for this province to make a foundational economic industry — a driver in this province — even more competitive, even more successful, with even more good, family-supporting jobs. That’s what this government is delivering on. We’re delivering on building a better British Columbia, and we’re delivering on making life more affordable. I’m very proud to do that, and we’ve done it in an open, honest and transparent way.

T. Shypitka: Just to clarify, I have never said this was not worthy — any of these projects. I asked merely if this was a way that the ministry is going to conduct business in the future. I take it from that answer that it’ll be yes.

Vote 21(S): ministry operations, $32,400,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion of the supplementary estimates, 2018-19, of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:28 p.m.