Committee of Supply

Proceedings in Section C

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
AND CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY

(continued)

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $188,132,000 (continued).

The Chair: Welcome, Members, to the Committee of Supply, Section C, here at the Legislature, on the traditional territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt.

Thank you for joining us this morning. We are doing the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, following up on questions that were shared with us last week.

Hon. G. Heyman: If I may, Chair, make some opening remarks for the record that flow out of the discussions we had last week.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’d like the opportunity, before continuing the estimates discussions today, to clarify a few points from our last discussions last week, specifically changes in the ministry budget between 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. This was a source of some discussion. There was some back and forth, different interpretations, and I’m hoping that the following explanation can create some clarity for the members who are participating today.

The difference between the 2019-2020 budget and the 2020-2021 budget is $4.7 million. More specifically, it’s $4.6 million for ministry operations, which was noted by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

[9:35 a.m.]

It’s almost entirely related to reductions in operating costs, as I stated the last time we met. The reduction will be managed through a number of internal efficiencies to operating expenditures, such as travel, office expenses and professional services contracts.

What the amount does not include is the $1.8 million reduction due to the completion of the cement program last year. That planned reduction was offset by an increase in salaries of $1.762 million for the two ministry votes, $1.003 million for ministry operations and the remainder from the environmental assessment office and the IT division.

As I stated last week, the cement industry is eligible to be a part of the CleanBC industrial incentive program, as well as the CleanBC program for industry. I’m concerned that there was some confusion in the back-and-forth. It’s important to clarify. I think it’s also important that there not be conflation of these numbers.

We’ve purposefully allocated reductions to the discretionary areas of the ministry — for example, travel, office and business expenses, professional services contracts — while focusing on protecting salaries and benefits and all of the programs that support our climate change plan, CleanBC.

Second, I also want to correct the amount, for the record, related to the ministry’s savings target for the fiscal year 2019-2020. The midyear savings target for 2019-2020 was $6.776 million. The amount quoted last week was an initial amount that was targeted for 2021, and we were focused on answering questions related to Budget 2020 rather than prior year’s savings plan targets.

I offer the correction and the clarity at the beginning of today’s estimates.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Minister, for those clarifications.

I was going to jump into that a bit later, but right now the member for Cariboo North has a couple of questions, more park-related. It won’t be what I follow up with, but given her scheduling today with some of the various House duties and other estimates, I’m hoping that she can go ahead for the next couple of questions, and then I’ll jump back in, if that works.

C. Oakes: Thank you for the opportunity to raise two questions. The first question I have is on behalf of our guide and outfitters in Cariboo North. In particular, it’s around park use permits.

Over the last four years, we’ve had…. I’m speaking on behalf of one of our guide and outfitters in the North Cariboo, Stewart Fraser, and I’ve raised Stewart’s concerns before. He was deeply impacted during the 2017 wildfires and lost property in that fire and, of course, lost that season due to fires. Then in 2018, again with wildfires in that area, he was unable to operate and had more damage to the area that he covers.

Now it’s raining again here in the Cariboo. We’ve been faced with significant flooding over the past year. We are wondering, on behalf of constituents — and I’ve heard this, actually, in the north as well — if there is an opportunity for the government to consider, out of that $1.5 billion that has been put aside for economic recovery, refunding the park use permits for guide and outfitters since they have been unable to operate.

[9:40 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question, which is very similar to a question asked by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin last week. I’ll give the same answer.

We’ve received the request from guide-outfitters in more than one location. We’re looking at it, but there are a number of operations, not just in B.C. Parks but in other areas that have similar cases. The whole issue of things akin to park use permits and the ability to use them and compensation is being considered by all of governments so we have internal government consistency in our response. We will, of course, be getting back to the guide-outfitters that the member mentions as well to the members who raised the questions.

C. Oakes: Minister, thank you for that. We are hoping…. Again, in the case of Stewart Fraser, he’s lost three seasons. So that’s a significant impact on his finances. We’re trying to make sure we’re supporting them as much as possible, so my request is to please strongly consider that as part of the economic recovery piece.

The second piece is around climate change. Probably the answer from the minister will direct me to other ministries, but I think it’s warranted to raise this with the minister. Following the 2017 devastation of the wildfires and then the 2018 wildfires, our communities have absolutely been changed forever.

We certainly see that. This past year we’ve had over 200 sites that have been impacted on road infrastructure. The challenge is that we have not recovered from wildfires, and now we are faced with significant freshets and the impacts that wildfires can have on a landscape.

Is there thought through the ministry of, again, the challenges we have when a road goes in some of our communities, such as West Fraser Road? The impact now is $104 million to fix that road, and almost every road leading into Quesnel, our main community, has been compromised or at risk. At one time in the spring of this year, we had almost every road leading into our community and out of our community either closed because of significant damage to the roads or at risk. When we look at emergencies and egresses for our communities, it is becoming very alarming.

My request to the ministry is…. I understand a significant amount of work was done following the wildfires. But how are we taking funds through the climate plan and the climate action to be investing in the preventative type of work that is necessary in our communities that are impacted by climate change?

I feel that Cariboo North, in many respects, is ground zero for the climate impacts that we are witnessing in British Columbia. I know there’s been significant research through UBC that offers the suggestion that we need to start looking at the investments that need to happen in communities like ours in the same ways we look at investments around earthquake preparedness on the coast.

[9:45 a.m.]

I know there’s been lots of research and a lot of great work done through your ministry and other ministries to look at that. But I’m wondering what type of funds are actually being allocated for communities that are experiencing ground zero of climate change in our communities, and the types of investments that are needed to keep our communities safe and to keep them economically viable — and just to be supporting our families.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for raising the important point.

Before I get to the answer to the member’s second question, I want to take a moment to also say that I didn’t mean, in my answer to the first question, to seem as if I didn’t appreciate or government doesn’t appreciate the significant impact on people like Mr. Fraser, other guide-outfitters and many other small business people who have been impacted by this pandemic. We are very aware of it. We hear examples daily from members from all parties in the House.

Our focus is very much on looking for ways to bring the economy and many small businesses around British Columbia back to a position of making profit and to support the many families that have put their life’s work into their businesses. Their businesses represent their savings and their future and their retirement. It’s a very serious matter, and we take it seriously.

[9:50 a.m.]

To the member’s question on the road and the many impacts of climate change, she is right, of course. That story is repeated in many places around British Columbia. Responsibility for road repair and remediation clearly is not in the ministry or the climate action secretariat.

What we are doing in the ministry is to continue to consult with communities around B.C. as we complete our climate preparedness and adaptation strategy, which will be released this fall. We’ve had lots of good feedback from communities and municipalities. I would offer to the member….

I’ve spoken to staff in the climate action secretariat, as we were considering the question, to work with the member to ensure that there is a solid consultation for people in Quesnel and elsewhere in the member’s constituency to ensure that their views are fed into the plan. That will result in the recommendations that we make for helping communities around British Columbia prepare for the impacts of a changing climate and prevent some of the damages we’re already seeing.

We don’t, at the moment, have a specific fund — I’m not sure it would necessarily be housed in my ministry — to actually address the impacts that have happened to date.

We have had lots of presentations from many communities and individuals around British Columbia as part of our consultation on developing the economic recovery plan. While those decisions have yet to be made by cabinet, we’re very much in the process. We’re still hearing from British Columbians. I think I will be speaking to a number of British Columbians, not in the member’s area but in my own, on a telephone town hall tonight. Those kinds of suggestions will very much be considered as part of the economic recovery process.

I hope that is an answer to the member’s question.

P. Milobar: I’m wondering if the minister could let me know….

There’s been $3.5 billion of COVID money, of the $5 billion, already either expended or allocated out. I’m assuming there would have been some additional costs to the Ministry of Environment, in terms of park management, in terms of trying to control parks that were closed and CO service, conservation officer service — the rangers and those types of things — as well as a drop in revenues from parks being closed earlier in the season.

Out of the $3.5 billion of the COVID-19 money, was there any money allocated to the Ministry of Environment’s operations?

[9:55 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

We applied and received $8.1 million of the $3.5 billion for expenses related to B.C. Parks, to support additional park maintenance, including compliance patrols to enforce the closures; to prepare parks for a gradual reopening that started in mid-May, when restrictions began to be relaxed, and continue to this day; to purchase personal protective equipment, equipment and signage to manage park visitors; and to provide enhanced cleaning of high-touch surfaces when parks reopen.

Much of this was supplied to park operators, and there was also some compensation for lost revenue, all of it wrapped up in the $8.1 million.

P. Milobar: Hopefully, if the park operators were acknowledged to have had some of their lost revenue made up, that will carry through to the previous questions around guide-outfitters and their parks permits and their lost revenues as well.

I’m wondering if the minister…. There were some fairly significant staffing changes within the ministry this year, actually in this year’s fiscal budget. Can the minister share with us whether the change-out of the deputy minister was a resignation? Or was it a termination?

Hon. G. Heyman: Personnel matters are not the purview of elected officials, which includes, obviously, ministers. They’re made by the head of the public service, who’s the Deputy Minister to the Premier.

P. Milobar: However, this is a position that is directly tied, very closely, to any minister of any ministry. There are dollar figures attached, of significance, to any of these levels of employees. There would be a significant difference to the minister’s budget, which the minister is in charge of, whether it was a severance situation, in terms of a termination, or whether or not it was a resignation.

Was there any impact to the minister’s budget with the departure of the previous deputy minister in April?

Hon. G. Heyman: Personnel matters, including the issues the member raises, are handled centrally. They are not accounted for out of ministry budgets.

[10:00 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Is the minister saying that the expense of wages for deputy ministers does not come out of the ministry’s wages and benefits line item in their budgets in a year?

Hon. G. Heyman: No. I’m not saying that. The salary of the deputy working in my ministry is charged to the ministry budget, but any other compensation arrangements that are made with excluded order-in-council personnel are not charged to the ministry budget, nor am I privy to them.

P. Milobar: Just to be clear, then, these changes in staffing levels are a political decision made within the Premier’s office?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, just to be clear, this isn’t a question of staffing levels. It’s a question of a change in personnel, which is a staffing issue, but the staffing issues are expressly not political issues. They’re decisions made by the head of the public service.

P. Milobar: Well, I’m trying to ascertain where the dollars come from for these types of changes in staffing — whether they come out of the ministry’s budget for this year or not, where the staffing costs for this year’s budget are or not. The minister is indicating the decision was not of his doing, not of his making.

We have a media report from the Tyee. The Tyee is not exactly known as a right-wing-centric newspaper, and that’s totally fine. They indicate that the feeling was that there was a change of staff due to the fact that the former deputy minister was continuing to work on a green plan for economic recovery from COVID. The minister started out by indicating that that was going to be central to the Premier’s plan, yet we have totally contradictory language.

I think the public would like to know the reasons behind a change-out at that level of administration. This is a deputy minister that was brought on by this minister. It was not a carryover appointment from the previous government. In fact, the minister himself wrote: “During his many years working in government, he has made significant contributions to the ministry and the public good, and I’m very grateful for his work and leadership. He will be missed by me and all those that have worked for him.” That was a memo that was sent out by the minister when the staffing changeout happened.

It would appear to the outside looking in that the changeout was purely political, and I’m trying to ascertain where the dollars for any changeout like this would have come from.

[10:05 a.m.]

Is the minister saying he did not initiate the change of his deputy minister and that he has no say in which deputy minister he has to work with or not? I’m not trying to besmirch the great work of the current deputy minister, to be clear. I think he’s a very talented individual and knows his stuff. This is about trying to ascertain the procedures within this government and this minister’s working relationship with the Premier’s office.

Hon. G. Heyman: Once again, the decisions are made by the head of the public service. They’re not made within the ministry.

My former deputy was…. I was told when I was appointed minister that he would be my deputy. He was, of course, a former assistant deputy in the ministry under my predecessor. I was told that the current deputy would be my deputy. That’s how the system works. That’s how it’s worked for some time. If the member is seeking answers about the decision-making process, he’s asking them in the wrong set of estimates.

What I will say…. There’s an implication that somehow there’s a contradiction between who holds the position of deputy and the work on both the climate plan and the role of CleanBC and our climate commitments in economic recovery.

The Premier was clear when I had my former deputy that we were committed to CleanBC and committed to put CleanBC at the centre of economic recovery. He’s been clear while I have my current deputy that CleanBC and our climate commitments will be at the centre of economic recovery. He has, of course, been clear the entire time I’ve been minister that our climate commitments were important and central to our economic planning and that CleanBC would be at the centre of our COVID economic recovery plans.

The work that began in my ministry, which I worked on with my former deputy, to put pieces and recommendations together for consideration by cabinet, continued and did not miss a beat when there was a change in deputies.

P. Milobar: That’s actually a good segue. A couple things there. It sounds like the minister is saying very clearly that it’s the Premier’s office and his chief of staff, the chief of the public service, who one would think is in lockstep with the Premier’s office — or he wouldn’t remain in that role for very long — who makes this type of staffing decision.

[10:10 a.m.]

It ties in, I think, to the timing. The minister’s last answer somewhat touches on that. This happened almost a month after the first announcement of the COVID recovery fund, after March 23 when the House met under extraordinary circumstances to provide an extra $5 billion in a nine-month spending window for government. This happened a month after that. This staffing change-out was to a person who was in charge of essentially coming up with the green initiative. We now see a lag in consultation on the last $1.5 billion.

Is the minister saying that we’re reasonably expected to believe that not only was there a change-out of the key person a month into the work being started but that the changeover was seamless and there was absolutely no time lag in the middle of the pandemic when a lot of people were working from home and efficiencies dropped a little bit? There’s no correlation between that and the fact that we’re now seeing, when there should have been that last $1.5 billion of supports being announced…. In fact, we’re in consultation on how to spend the last $1.5 billion as opposed to actually getting it out the door.

Hon. G. Heyman: The member asked if I reasonably expect people to believe. The answer is that I expect people to believe because I am giving truthful, honest and direct answers to questions. I am saying that our work on CleanBC, our work on researching, considering, developing and fleshing out a full suite of job recovery initiatives that would be good for every part of British Columbia and aligned with our CleanBC commitments didn’t skip a beat, hasn’t skipped a beat.

It’s been thorough. It continues. We’re now entering the consideration phase of those and suggestions from all other ministers and ministries on a timetable that our government and cabinet deems prudent, advisable and thorough. That’s what we’re doing.

I would say to the member, with regard to his earlier comment, that he has a bit of a habit of telling listeners what I’ve said, which doesn’t necessarily align with what I actually said.

I’ve been clear. Decisions on staffing levels, staffing matters and personnel in the public service are made by the non-partisan public service and the head of the public service. It’s no different today than it was when the member’s colleague, the member for Prince George–Valemount, was a member of executive council, or when my predecessor, the member for Langley, was a member of executive council. That is how government works.

P. Milobar: I understand that. I’m trying to make sure that we’re tracking the dollars in this case. That’s what I first started on in these lines of questions, as the minister will recall. I was trying to ascertain whose budgets things like severance would come out of.

[10:15 a.m.]

The reason that is, is because this is budget estimates. The dollars still have to come out of some budgets somewhere. That’s why I wanted to know how much COVID money the Minister of Environment received.

In this same timeline, not just in this ministry, there were a great many orders-in-council one month into the pandemic. One month into when everyone was scrambling around trying to figure out how to get operations going and safely do things, there were a great many orders-in-council across government, switching out deputy ministers, switching out assistant deputy ministers and moving people around, some being reclassified and some retiring. In this case, it appears to be a firing.

I was trying to ascertain, frankly, if any of the COVID money that was given to the Ministry of Environment — where they’re already, admittedly, as we’ve well established with the minister, very tight for dollars for staffing to begin with — would have been used to pay the severance. The FOI that I have shows that the deputy minister received a severance package of $428,716, which is about 5 percent of what the Ministry of Environment’s COVID money was. But I understand, from the minister, that that did not come out of his budget, apparently.

Can the minister confirm, one final time, that any severance payment like that would have come out of the Premier’s office budget? We’ll follow up with the Premier’s office in his estimates, if that’s the case. I’m trying to make sure.

Again, this is not about somebody’s right to severance, and it’s not about the dollar figure of his right to severance. As the minister would well know, as the former head of the BCGEU, workers have rights. If you ever receive a severance package, it’s not because you voluntarily submitted your paperwork to leave the work you were doing. It is because someone else made the decision you were leaving for you. That is your right, under laws.

I take no issue with the fact that that process was underway. But it was very obviously a decision made with some sort of political okay, with some sort of understanding that there would be a consequence financially for this decision, as well as all of the other staffing decisions that were happening across ministries under the veil of COVID, with orders-in-council that were coming late Thursday nights and late Friday afternoons.

Can the minister confirm that the $428,716 of severance paid to the former deputy minister did not come out of either his COVID money or his general operational money for this fiscal year, given that this staffing change happened in the third week of April, which was well already into the fiscal year that we are talking about?

Hon. G. Heyman: As I’ve said a number of times, that is correct. It did not come out of any portion of the ministry budget or out of any funds we applied for, for COVID-related matters.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister for that. We will definitely, then, follow up with the Premier’s office around those staffing decisions and where those dollars and another order of magnitude of dollars for all the other various late April staffing changes came from.

Moving on back to budget matters, I just want to clarify that the minister started off acknowledging yet again the $4.6 million in operations reduction, but then threw in the disclaimer again about the $1.8 million from the cement industry. I just want to rephrase this another way to make sure that the minister understands that I get what he’s saying or trying to say, but it doesn’t quite add up.

A lot of it is predicated on the fact that the cement industry’s program has wound up and they are eligible now through the CleanBC program for industry. If I look at last year’s numbers, which included the cement industry as well as industry, the total operating for the climate action, which is where cement resided, as well as the CleanBC program for industry, was $70.201 million. This year those two programs combined is $68.248 million, which is a reduction of $1.953 million.

[10:20 a.m.]

Now, I raise that because those two programs put together, if we use just as a reference case of number of applicants…. If last year, with those two programs, there were 100 industry applicants, including cement, and this year, with cement moving from climate action to the CleanBC program for industry, there are still 100 applicants eligible, then the number of applicants for that type of programming and that kind of tax being returned to them for efficiencies and emissions and things of that nature has not changed.

The criteria of those two programs has not changed. The two programs put together is still a $2 million cut. The $4.6 million is a very real $4.6 million.

Now, the minister indicated last week in some of his comments that I was incorrect, and he was waiting for the Blues. One of his answers where he said I was incorrect when I was talking about the staffing costs and the $4.6 million was saying that because of the park enhancement fund, that would also help to cover off some of the wages. But later on, he also confirmed that the park enhancement fund is, actually, $800,000 less this year than last year.

Upon reflection, as I was driving down to Victoria this week and then driving home last night, I realized that we’re actually talking about a $5.4 million cut between the park enhancement fund and the general operations, the ministerial operations, of the Ministry of Environment. I hope we can get clarity there that there has not been a reduction of the number of applicants for climate action and the CleanBC program for industry when you combine the two, this year over last year. The number of applicants eligible is the same.

The dollar figures have dropped by $2 million. The overall ministry operations have dropped by $4.6 million, but on top of that, the park enhancement special fund has dropped by $800,000 as well.

[10:25 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: We have a couple of questions here or, at least, a couple of statements that may be one question and a statement or two questions.

First of all, with respect to the CleanBC program for industry, which has two parts…. The CleanBC industrial incentive, for which any large emitter equal to or over 10,000 tonnes per year is eligible to apply…. And once they apply the amount of the rebate of the carbon tax over $30 is set, through both the reports of their emissions that come in, as well as the benchmarking that’s done on world-leading carbon intensity standards in their particular sector.

In the case of the cement industry, they apply. Others apply if they meet the eligibility criteria. Then they’re calibrated, and they will get a rebate of their carbon tax over 30 in accordance with their performance against world-leading low-carbon-intense emitters in their sector. I’m proud to say that the world leaders in many sectors are found in B.C. There’s a reason for that. It’s the adjustment that people have made to the carbon tax over time. In other words, the carbon tax has done what it’s designed to do, which is to incent changes in behaviour.

Part of incenting those changes in behaviour with the cement industry — which had limited options and is an emission-intensive industry, as we all know — was to set up the cement industry program, which, as we’ve already canvassed, terminated last year. But as a result of that program and the many wise investments made by the cement industry, including trying new technologies and mixes of fuels that were made possible by support from the incentive program, they have reduced their emissions substantially and incrementally every year and, as a result of that, are paying less carbon tax on the carbon tax under 30 than they otherwise would have if they hadn’t reduced their emissions.

The CleanBC industrial incentive program makes up and accounts for about 75 percent of the money that is budgeted in the CleanBC program for industry. Sorry for the awful similarities of many of these titles, but the other 25 percent is accounted for in the CleanBC industry fund, which is the fund that allows industry to apply for matching capital funds for projects that they put forward to reduce emissions further. That’s an important part of our CleanBC program. It helps people develop a business case. As they do that, they often see that their return on investment will begin in a not very long time in a number of ways, both in efficiency and productivity, as well as lower carbon taxes paid.

[10:35 a.m.]

The fact is that government, through a return of part of the carbon tax that they’ve paid, is able to assist them in making those changes. In other words, the carbon tax, the rebates, the use of the carbon tax paid by industry as well as individuals, which are dealt with through other programs, have a desired result by both incenting people to reduce emissions so they pay less carbon tax, as well as assisting them to make those changes so that they can actually achieve the goal of the carbon tax.

The member should know, and I said this last week, that while there is $56 million in the line item budget for the CleanBC program for industry, there is another $49 million that sits in contingencies, which is specifically earmarked for this program. It’s clear that it’s earmarked for this program, and it’s there to be accessed when we need it.

Going to the second part of the member’s two-part question. It has to do with PEF, the park enhancement fund. I spent some time talking about the mandate of the park enhancement fund, a range of park-related issues, but PEF itself sits outside of ministry operations. Some dollars in PEF may be used for staffing and are used for staffing, as I stated last week, but not all of it. Some supports the purposes in a variety of other ways.

The amount of money in PEF in any given year is calibrated to the revenue that we expect to receive from the various programs that fund PEF in that year, as well as historical expenditures of PEF. We have never spent more than $9 million from PEF in a given year. So I wouldn’t call a budget of $9 million this year a cut. Obviously, when we have money that is not expended from PEF, it stays in the fund and is available for future use.

P. Milobar: It seems strange to me right now. The minister seems to be very hesitant to acknowledge a $4.6 million or a $5.4 million reduction to their operations budget. Yet even today, to start off, the minister clarified that last year, midyear, they were directed to try to find $6.7 million of savings, halfway through a year, for the rest of the fiscal year. This year in this budget, heading into this budget, it sounds like it actually had been increased to $8.8 million worth of savings that were needed to be found.

The minister’s opening statements today referenced the exact same spending areas where they were trying to find efficiencies in their budget as the memo, which we have by FOI, for their mid-year target last year, when they needed to first start trying to find the efficiencies in the dollars being spent.

If the minister was directed at the beginning of this year, going into this budget, to find $8.8 million worth of savings, why is the minister so reluctant to acknowledge the $4.6 million? It seems to me he almost convinced the Finance Minister to let him keep an extra $4 million than to have to cut even further in his budget.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m a little confused as to why the member is saying I’m reluctant to acknowledge it. I made an opening statement specifically because we had some confusion about numbers last week.

[10:40 a.m.]

I’ll reread what I said. The difference between the ’19-20 budget and the ’20-21 budget is $4.7 million — and more specifically, $4.6 million for ministry operations, as noted previously by the member. I’m not sure that’s reluctance to acknowledge. That was pretty clear.

P. Milobar: It also comes followed up with a qualifier. So I appreciate that there was no qualifier in that answer.

To clarify, then, this budget was pre-COVID. The minister was directed to find $8.6 million worth of savings. There was $4.6 million in the budget identified. We’re now into COVID, where they received an extra $8.1 million. Are they expected to still find that $4 million worth of savings? Are they allowed to keep that $4 million and have the $8.1 million? Or is there a combination happening between the $8.1 million of COVID money and the remaining $4 million of operations that they have not found reductions for as the budget sits?

Hon. G. Heyman: Just for clarity, the way applications for funding to Treasury Board work, as a number of the member’s colleagues can inform him, is we can go to Treasury Board and seek $8.1 million to address the issues I outlined with respect to parks. Then Treasury Board may say, “Find that money within your own ministry budget” or “Find some of it within your own ministry budget,” or grant the money.

In this case, they granted the money. That’s 8.1 million incremental dollars over and above our budget. Our budget, which I’ve said, and I will now say a third time, is $4.6 million less in ministry operations this year than last year. That’s our budget — full stop.

P. Milobar: Just to clarify, then, at the beginning, the minister referenced the $8.6 million savings mandate by the Finance Minister for this year. Last year, midyear, it was $6.7 million mandated by the minister to try to find.

Is the minister saying that once all the dust settled, the request from the Finance Minister was to find $8.6 million in efficiencies and savings in the Environment budget, and instead, they settled on $4.6 million? Or is there still an expectation of the Finance Minister that the Environment Minister will find another $4 million in savings in this year?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: We put forward a budget proposal from the ministry based on the programs that we thought were important, that we needed to run, that British Columbians expect of us, from environmental protection, environmental management, climate, parks and all the other perspectives of our ministry. We also included those savings that we thought we could reasonably find, as it’s important to do in times of short revenue supply.

The budget you see before you is the budget that we landed on and that was accepted by the Finance Minister.

P. Milobar: I thank the minister for that answer. It definitely, I think, helps us reset where we were just a few short months ago in terms of the very real slowdown that was already happening in the economy and the very real fiscal pressures the government was finding itself under to try to stay out of deficit, as experienced by the work that the Environment Ministry and staff must have had to go through to try to find efficiencies.

By the minister’s own admission, it is not the largest budget, by a long shot, within government, yet you have a government held up by a Green Party. So the fact that even efficiencies in there had to be found I think does highlight just how tenuous our economy actually was at the time, pre-COVID.

Switching gears now. I’m going to shift into a bit of CleanBC and LNG.

Last year we had the Environment estimates up near the front end because there are a lot of different ministries that touch on CleanBC. The worry was that we would not ask a question of the appropriate minister and those estimates would already be over. So we thought we’d throw everything at the Environment Minister, and the Environment Minister, rightfully so, moved some of those questions over to other ministers that had more responsibility for that section of CleanBC.

This year it’s a bit of the reverse. The Environment estimates are near the end. Ironically enough, a lot of the minister’s colleagues have now moved those same questions back to the Minister of Environment’s feet. So hopefully, the Minister of Environment can provide a bit more depth of answer to some of the CleanBC questions, because some his colleagues do not want to seem to be overly held to things within their CleanBC mandate. And that’s unfortunate.

The first question I would have for the minister is around those sectoral targets, world-leading, to be able to be eligible to receive the carbon tax back. I went into the chart. I’m admittedly no petroleum engineer and things of that nature in terms of that website the minister sent me to. I’m sure people within their respective industries know full well what the various things say.

Can the minister confirm for me what will be considered world-leading for the LNG industry to be able to receive back their rebates under the carbon tax? There was discussion last year of 0.22 or 0.28. That may be it. I know their operational certificate is 0.16. But what is the actual threshold for LNG, now that those sector targets have been developed, to be able to be eligible for carbon tax rebates?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The eligibility threshold for LNG is 0.48 tonnes of carbon per tonne of production, and the benchmark, the world-leading benchmark, is 0.24.

P. Milobar: Just to be clear, LNG could operate at 0.48 and receive all of the carbon tax back, or they’d have to be at 0.24 or under to receive all of the carbon tax back.

Hon. G. Heyman: The latter. They’d have to be at 0.24 or under to receive all of the carbon tax above $30 per tonne back, not below $30 per tonne. The eligibility threshold is simply to be eligible to be considered under the program, and some people who hit the eligibility threshold may be eligible for 25 percent of the incremental carbon tax above $30 per tonne.

P. Milobar: Sorry. When I said all, I meant the $30. You sometimes forget that. You get in a silo of thinking and phrasing and assuming. That wasn’t a “trying to catch the minister” moment.

Again, just to get a better sense, then, of the threshold versus the benchmark and how this is now all actually going to work, now that these are all in place and operating in real time…. Last year I canvassed the minister quite extensively about the use of credits, and my understanding is LNG has an operational permit of 0.16. We talked at length last year about how they can buy offsets, if they were operating above that, to stay in compliance. Also, that would bring them down if they were above the benchmark, which is now 0.24.

[10:55 a.m.]

I have no reason to think they would, but if they were operating at 0.40, can they still buy enough offsets to get them to the 0.16 operational permit that they have and that would then qualify them for the full rebate after $30?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer to the member’s question is no. In the end, in the final design of the system for the CleanBC industrial incentive, we simply made it a performance against the benchmark measure without any provisions for offsets to change the outcome.

P. Milobar: Just to be clear, then, the benchmark is 0.24. Their operating permit is 0.16. Is the minister saying that they have to actually…? If they’re at 0.23, they no longer have the ability to buy offsets to be in compliance. They would be out of compliance of their permit but still be eligible for the full rebate of anything over $30 because they were under the 0.24?

Hon. G. Heyman: We’re actually dealing with two separate things here.

First of all, the question is somewhat hypothetical. The operation is designed to operate at 0.16, in compliance with the operating certificate. But if they were to rise to 0.23, that would be a matter of regulatory measures, under the operating certificate, to come back into compliance. But with respect to the benchmark, which is a separate measure, yes, they would continue to be eligible.

P. Milobar: Sorry. Just to confirm, last year when we talked at length about this, the minister reconfirmed several times — I’m sure he was exasperated with me continuing to ask — that to get back into compliance, offsets were an available tool for them — world market offsets, where they could purchase anywhere in the world to make sure that their operations were back under their operational permit.

Is the minister saying that is no longer a tool available to industry if they’re over their operational permit? Or is that still a tool available — international carbon credits?

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Under GGIRCA, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, under which comes the operating certificate for LNG Canada, should LNG Canada fail to meet its operating certificate requirement of 0.16, one of the measures available to them to come into compliance would be the purchase of offsets. That is not the case for qualifying for the CleanBC industrial incentive program, which is a different program and governed under different legislation and regulation.

The answer to the member’s question with respect to the operating certificate is: yes, they could.

P. Milobar: Well, then, it sounds like, based on those two answers, LNG could exceed by 50 percent their operating permit and still be eligible because they’d be under the 0.24 or right at the 0.24 benchmark. Then, by their offsets, they would be back in compliance with 0.16. So as long as they don’t exceed 0.24 and are willing to buy offsets, they can stay in compliance and can still receive the carbon tax rebate from $30 — anything over $30.

Can the minister confirm that, then?

Hon. G. Heyman: That’s correct.

P. Milobar: That’s good to know. A couple weeks ago, when I asked this question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources about the article in the Narwhal….

It just shows you that you can find good articles anywhere. I have now quoted the Tyee and the Narwhal today. I’m sure there are people out there that are surprised about my reading list, but I definitely believe in reading a wide source of publications.

The headline was: “B.C. Eyes Emissions Trading to Offset Effects of LNG Development, Government Documents Show.”

[11:05 a.m.]

I asked if the government was still pursuing or had discounted it. The minister indicated: “That’s a discussion that is led by the Minister of Environment. I believe that the member is one of the Environment critics and will probably be able to take that up with the Minister of Environment in his estimates.”

It sounds to me, based on the minister’s previous answers, as it’s not just being considered but, in fact, that the government is still well considering trading offset effects, not just with LNG being able to buy for their own operations but also to account for the overall operations and the effects and the premises that if you’re taking a coal-fired plant offline somewhere else in the world, there should be some way of us getting credit for that reduction too.

Is that still a policy direction that government is pursuing, or is the article stale-dated, and in fact, that has been taken off the table?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member is simply conflating two entirely different things. One of them is the operating certificate for LNG Canada and the ability of LNG Canada to use offsets to come into compliance with their operating certificate. The other one is our CleanBC plan to meet the targets that are set out in legislation.

It’s an entirely separate thing. The member is assuming my answer to one presumes the same answer to the other. It’s not the case.

P. Milobar: Well, then, I would assume that the minister’s answer would be different than my assumption, but I would not want to keep assuming.

Then can the minister clarify whether or not that is still a policy being pursued under CleanBC, to be able to meet your emission reduction targets under CleanBC, in terms of emissions trading? It’s directly related to the LNG, but I do understand how it’s connected to the overall emissions profile for CleanBC. I did reference, but not very well, in my previous question around that…. Can the minister confirm whether or not this is actually a policy direction that’s being pursued to meet CleanBC emissions targets?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, GGIRCA requires that the offsets that LNG Canada purchases in order to meet its commitment under its operating certificate actually be B.C. offsets, not external to B.C.

Secondly, our CleanBC plan and our commitments under the Climate Change Accountability Act are to meet very specific targets for B.C. We said, when we released the plan and modelled 75 percent of it and announced our intention to continue modelling the remaining 25 percent of the 2030 reductions, that we were planning to model those in absolute terms overall within B.C. in order to reach that target.

The member is referring to, I believe, discussions that are ongoing at an international level — and, obviously, in Canada, led by the federal government — around what’s called article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which has to do with the possibility of internationally traded mitigation options.

In other words, if a product produced in one country results in a higher level of emissions but results in a much lower level of emissions by its use in another country that can be verified through international agreement, that could be considered a part of a nation’s nationally determined contributions to overall global emission reductions, because, of course, climate change is a global problem.

No agreement to do that has yet been reached. There have been several attempts that have failed. It was intended to be part of the discussions in Glasgow later this year. Those discussions, of course, are now put off for another year. Any agreement on some form of internationally traded mitigation options is likely a long way away, if it’s ever reached. And then the mechanisms to verify it, to ensure that it wasn’t simply a statement that the export of LNG from British Columbia resulted in reductions in China…. It would have to be verified through a number of measures, likely involving third parties.

If that is ever agreed upon at some point in the future, I’m sure the B.C. government would consider it for a range of things that happen in B.C. that could be verified as absolutely resulting in overall lower global emissions. But as I said, that’s speculative at this point, because no such agreement internationally exists.

P. Milobar: Well, I’m pretty sure that when the minister was on the side of the table I’m on right now and LNG was being talked about and the fact that it would help other parts of the world with their emissions…. That theory was somewhat scoffed at by the then opposition.

Is the minister, then, saying that opinions have changed and that, in fact, the government is fully willing and supportive of the concept of, if article 6 gets negotiated, using those article 6 agreements to be able to reduce our emissions profile under CleanBC?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I can’t respond to a specific quote from some years ago that wasn’t read into the record.

I think my statement to the last question was fairly clear. I think what has changed from a few years ago is that there is now an agreement to look at whether it is possible to design a system to verify independently whether a product produced in one area with associated greenhouse gas emissions actually and verifiably results in emission reductions in another jurisdiction that benefit the globe.

My answer is: we are open to looking at anything that is independently verified. We will be led by science. But what we won’t do is simply make a blanket statement that isn’t verifiable or backed up by fact or science and claim it justifies enhanced emissions in British Columbia.

With that, Chair, may we have a five-minute recess?

The Chair: The minister has requested a five-minute recess. So we are now in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 11:16 a.m. to 11:22 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

P. Milobar: Last year, when I canvassed the whole issue around offsets…. I’m glad the minister clarified, because when I asked the Minister of Energy and Mines around offsets to do with low-carbon fuel standards, he indicated the offsets had to be local.

Last year the minister…. Again, we went back and forth for quite some time on this, around offsets — how it related to LNG, how it related to schools and that, having to buy local and LNG and the industry would not. So last year offsets could be international. This year they can’t.

Can the minister provide a bit more depth around the timeline of how that decision came to be? In estimates last year, it was very clear that they were allowed to go on a world market and now not.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: When we were having these discussions last year, we had not yet designed the benchmark system. We were considering a lot of things. We consulted with industry. We consulted with groups that had an interest in designing the program that we now have in place. That was published in June.

We decided that as a result of our consultation and engagement, a result of having a benchmarking system for the CleanBC industrial incentive program that was more aligned with what we’d committed to in CleanBC and more aligned with reaching our desired target of absolute reductions in British Columbia, offsets had no role in that program.

We completed those initial consultations later last year. We reached a basic framework of benchmark design late in the year. We went out for a bit more engagement to explain them and to see if there were other issues we had to address. Essentially, as we landed, they are what the member has now seen online.

P. Milobar: In terms of CleanBC staffing levels…. Obviously, as we’ve well established, there are some tight constraints right now on staffing within the Ministry of Environment in terms of budgets and that.

With COVID, has there been any seconding of staff that would normally be working on CleanBC initiatives and CleanBC workload to other areas of government while the pandemic was coming on stream?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is no. There have been no reductions in staffing or secondments from the climate action secretariat, which is where the work on CleanBC happens within my ministry.

P. Milobar: I just wanted to establish that before these next sets of questions.

It was 19 or 20 months ago now that CleanBC was launched with much fanfare. However, there was the very real acknowledgment of a missing 25 percent of the emissions plan within CleanBC. We still have not seen hide nor hair of that missing 25 percent of what would be considered a complete CleanBC plan. I think it’s widely acknowledged by everybody that the last pieces of most plans are the hardest pieces to implement or try to find reductions, especially in an emissions plan.

Could the minister update us, then, given that there haven’t been any staff secondments or staff changes or scaling down of this particular area, when we could reasonably expect to find out what the plan is for that missing 25 percent of emissions, given that it has been 19 or 20 months now?

Hon. G. Heyman: When we released CleanBC in December 2018, our commitment was to release plans to achieve the remaining 25 percent within two years, which would be late this year. That remains our commitment.

P. Milobar: The commitment was 18 to 24 months. I seem to remember at the time me being skeptical about the 18-month side of things. It would push things out much closer either to an election or past a snap election, if that was the case. It seems that the drive to the 18 months has long since passed, so we should be hopeful for 24 months, I guess, post-plan, for that 25 percent to be sought.

Now, I did notice that the 25 percent has magically actually become 21 percent, because there seems to be a recalculation of emissions that we’re going to use as our starting point. That’s an interesting way to try to reduce emissions, by raising your start point of emissions total.

Can the minister explain the thought process…? It seems like this probably would have taken more work than just finishing off the plan for the 25 percent. But fair enough. To go back to the starting point of 2007 and recalculate emissions from 13 years ago with any certainty when we’re having trouble getting real-time data on emissions and we’re always a year-behind lag, it seems, on reporting….

What was the thought process and the rationale for going back, recalculating our 2007 start point for emissions and actually raising what was felt to be the emissions back in 2007, which would have been the infancy of trying to track all of this anyways, with any certainty and confidence, yet finding magically that we are now 4 percent closer to our emission reduction target without doing anything to change our current environment that we’re actually living in? Can the minister explain the rationale for why that change was made?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

Our legislated commitment, as based on reductions of emissions below a 2007 baseline and our inventory in British Columbia, as has been the case for more years than this government has been in office, is to base our provincial inventory on the federal inventory. The federal government makes adjustments to their inventory fairly regularly to account for new or better information or different data collection methods. This is actually common internationally, and sometimes it’s guided by changes or agreements at the United Nations about how data will be collected or counted and what the information is. That will continue to be the case.

Obviously, it’s desirable to have international jurisdictions as well as subnational jurisdictions use common methodology. What won’t change is our commitment to achieve our legislated targets and to report regularly to British Columbians around our plans to meet those targets, our progress to meeting those targets, as well as how we’re doing in any given year against our plans. And not just what we think but also what the independent Climate Solutions Council thinks. We will do that on an annual basis to the Legislature.

P. Milobar: Is the plan that will be released sometime in the next several months…? I’m betting December. But at any rate, the missing 25 percent of CleanBC…. Will that plan be accounting for the missing 25 percent of emissions for CleanBC, or will it now be just searching for a missing 21 percent of emissions for CleanBC? In other words, is the 4 percent of found emissions reductions going to be part of the existing 75 percent of the plan, or is it going to be counted against the missing 25 percent of the plan?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, as I pointed out, we end up with different baselines based on internationally agreed upon methods of collecting data and collecting information and methodologies that are common across countries. It’s not desirable for us to deviate from that. Those changes sometimes account for a decrease or an increase in what a baseline amount would be.

Our commitment, through legislation and CleanBC, is to meet a 40 percent reduction below 2007 levels by 2030. That’s the plan that’ll be unveiled later this year.

P. Milobar: In terms of the process around CleanBC, and I referenced it earlier, it does get a little confusing for the average person, I think, to follow the money trail, the bread crumbs of different funding pots going to different ministries. I understand why you would want the Minister of Housing to be actually looking over housing and Transportation to be looking over transit. I get that.

I’ve, essentially, almost become the default CleanBC critic, where I follow the ministries around just on CleanBC-specific questions to try to keep it all bundled together. It can get quite confusing.

That said, the minister is the minister in charge of CleanBC as well. Though he doesn’t directly have spending authority within those ministries or oversight of those particular programs in those ministries, does the minister keep track of whether or not those ministries are on track for where they should be within their mandate of reductions? If they are falling short, can the minister explain what the process would be for the minister who’s actually in charge of CleanBC to ensure that those programs get back on track?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s a good question.

Clean BC, as the member has pointed out, is an all-of-government approach. The member is correct that policy development and oversight is in my ministry, and it’s in the climate action secretariat. In fact, that’s why it’s a secretariat and not a division of the ministry. It has, at different times, existed in other ministries, going back to its inception. We collect the information about how each ministry is doing and expending its budgeted funds for CleanBC in order to meet certain carbon emission reduction targets. We do that through the staff of the climate action secretariat in my ministry.

That will all form part of the annual report that will be delivered pursuant to the amendments last year to the Climate Change Accountability Act so that everyone can see how we are doing in meeting our targets for any given year.

[11:45 a.m.]

We will all, as government, be held accountable for how we are doing on this very, very central issue for our time, for our generation and for generations to come. Our government takes this very seriously. While I make the report and I’m accountable for how we’re doing on our climate plan, we all in government are accountable, and we take that seriously within the executive council.

P. Milobar: It seems CleanBC…. Once it was created, a lot of the funding — all the funding — has come from carbon taxation increases. That doesn’t mean all the carbon tax increases have gone to CleanBC, but that is how CleanBC is being funded, by a portion of the carbon tax that is being collected. Obviously, we’ve seen huge slowdowns in the economy in terms of travel, in terms of gas consumption, in terms of other fuels. The carbon tax would be taking a fairly significant hit, I would think.

Recognizing that not all of the carbon tax collected goes to CleanBC, has the minister had any indications from the Finance Minister that their allocation of carbon tax to fund CleanBC may see a midyear reduction? Or is the amount of carbon tax allocated for CleanBC going to be left whole, and the remaining I can ask the Minister of Finance about?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member is incorrect in the base assumption. Carbon tax goes into general revenue. There are many programs in government that are dedicated to climate and rebates to the public and industry that far exceed the amount of carbon tax collected. CleanBC is funded through the budget, and it’s funded at a little over $1.3 billion for a four-year period that ends in ’22-23.

P. Milobar: I’m just trying to make sure, in terms of various spending pressures. The minister made it very clear the COVID money that was brought over to the ministry was essentially for parks, operations. That’s totally understandable in terms of PPE and enhanced cleaning and enhanced monitoring and enforcement, especially of closed of parks and that. So it sounds like that was very dedicated COVID money.

There are, obviously, cost pressures within government. I guess, at the root of it, I’m just confirming that…. We’re a few months into the new fiscal now. Last year it was about September when the Minister of Finance asked for spending to be dialled back because the economy was slowing and a deficit was looking possible for the government. There have been no overtures from Finance to the minister that any CleanBC programming this year should be reviewed or looked at or scaled back to try to reallocate those funds to a different part of operations?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is no. I’ve received no request, direction or suggestion from the Finance Minister in that regard.

[11:50 a.m.]

P. Milobar: I’m going to start to transition over to parks and invasive species and things of that nature, just to give the minister a bit of a heads-up for staffing as well. We’ll definitely be following up after lunch. I notice that we are getting close to when the hour will be noted. I’m not sure how many questions the Chair would like to entertain, but I will kick off, I guess, with the first one — it’s a bit broad — and then move forward from there.

It relates somewhat to COVID. It relates somewhat to the COVID spending but also B.C. Parks in general. That is that we know there was $8.1 million received by B.C. Parks, essentially, for COVID. We know that Parks budgets are tight this year. We know that the enhancement budget was cut by $800,000, and other operations were feeling the pinch. Parks itself is down $1 million in operations from the year before. So $1.8 million is a fairly large chunk of makeup. At least with that $8.1 million, it leaves you with — what? — $6.3 million more than you would have had last year to work with.

The question to the minister, I guess, is…. There were a lot of calls in communities — Clearwater being one of them, with Wells Gray Park and others — to go in while the parks were closed. It would have provided a safe work environment in terms of spacing of workers or fallers, of people on trail maintenance doing things like danger-tree removal and the nature of that type of work. It would have helped stabilize some of the smaller rural communities where a lot of these parks are located in.

Why was none of that work undertaken while the parks were closed and while there was actually some extra influx of money coming in, which would have been totally justifiable (a) under COVID and (b) an easy way to make our parks safer without having to try to be falling danger trees and shutting down trail networks while the rest of the park was still open?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, from the day that we closed the parks, staff in the ministry were engaged in planning how, when and what needed to be done in order to reopen. That was a primary focus.

There were a lot of good ideas that came forward about things that could be done in parks, including those from the mayor of Clearwater, but as it turned out, we didn’t know how long the parks would be closed. As it turns out, they were not actually closed for all that long. It takes time to plan things like going into parks to fall trees. You can’t just send someone in without a careful plan, and that’s the process we were engaged in.

Chair, I don’t know if you consider this the hour.

The Chair: That’s fine, if that’s okay with the critic.

Noting the hour, Minister, if you’ll move progress.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the committee rise and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

We are now adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 11:54 a.m.