Second Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, May 20, 2021
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 76
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Merit Commissioner, annual report, 2020-21 | |
Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Minsterial Order
M200/2020, Minister of | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2021
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: H. Yao.
Tributes
PETRONELLA PEACH
G. Kyllo: On Monday, Salmon Arm and indeed our province lost a well-respected member of our community. Petronella Peach passed away unexpectedly in Salmon Arm with her loving husband, Gordon, at her side.
Nel grew up in the Netherlands during World War II, and often commented on her admiration for Canada’s assistance during the war. Nel is best known as a volunteer extraordinaire, a breast cancer survivor, dragon boater and an advocate for the SPCA. However, Nel is best known for her tireless advocacy for the Canadian Diabetes Association.
Diagnosed with diabetes nearly 40 years ago, she used her experience to become a passionate advocate for people living with diabetes. Nel served as the regional chair for the association’s interior B.C. region and was an impressive fundraiser for Team Diabetes, participating in both national and international marathon events. In 2010, she carried the Olympic torch in Salmon Arm and was recognized with numerous accolades, including the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, the Canadian Diabetes Association’s Regional Service Award and the National Volunteer Award — a hard-working, determined, inspiring member of Salmon Arm.
I wish to express my sincere condolences to her partner and husband, Gordon, and her family and friends.
Nel, you were a tireless warrior and a dear friend. You will be missed.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
WORLD BEE DAY
I. Paton: Today I rise in the House in recognition of World Bee Day.
The fact is that we all depend on the survival of bees, but many of us just don’t know it. Today the United Nations reminds us that pollination is a fundamental process for the survival of our ecosystems. Pollinators contribute directly to food security and conserving biodiversity.
Interestingly, bees pollenate close to one-third of the foods we consume each day. Bee pollination makes it easier to obtain more fruits, berries and seeds, as well as improving the quality of most of our food products. Without bee pollination, we would have less apples, strawberries, blueberries and cranberries to go around in this province.
Sadly, the COVID-19 pandemic has placed immense pressure on our beekeeping sector. Like countless others across the province, beekeepers have had to adapt their operations to meet public health measures and ensure their sector continues to thrive. That’s why this year’s World Bee Day is focused on bee production and best practices. Around the world, beekeepers are encouraging us to be engaged and bring awareness to the importance of traditional beekeeping and the prevalence of bee-derived products, as well as the industry’s sustainable development goals.
So what can we all do on an individual basis to support our bee populations? Well, here are just a few suggestions. Let’s get out in our gardens this summer and plant a wide variety of native plants. Let’s continue to shop locally, support farmers and buy B.C.-sourced honey. Let’s consider making bee water fountains in our backyards by leaving a bowl of water outside for their consumption. And let’s encourage our farmers to continue diversifying their crops and avoiding using harmful pesticides. We don’t want our bees to only survive. We want them to thrive.
The truth is, the decline of bees affects us all. It is incumbent on each of us to show our appreciation for bees and their role in sustaining our beautiful environment. I hope all members of this House can join me in wishing every beekeeper in British Columbia a very happy World Bee Day.
CHILD CARE PROVIDERS
R. Leonard: May is Child Care Month in British Columbia, and today marks Child Care Provider Appreciation Day. It’s a day to recognize the amazing work being done by people who have chosen a very special career. Early care and learning professionals are the workforce behind the workforce. They make it possible for parents to go back to work or school and contribute to their families’ and their communities’ success.
As mom Tasha shared: “You know you’ve got it right the day your kids ask whether it’s a mommy day or Tigger Too and they’re disappointed it’s not daycare.” It’s great for a parent to know that their kids are getting the best out of every day, thanks to the safe and nurturing world of discovery that child care staff are dedicated to providing their little charges.
Stimulating creativity, developing skills, learning to get along with others, nurturing language and culture — child care providers help children build a strong foundation for success, providers at places like Beaufort centre at North Island College in Courtenay and the Huu-ay-aht’s Oomiiqsu child care centre on the west coast. There are providers in every community, supporting families and creating environments that inspire kids to dream big and instill a lifelong love of learning.
This year safety took on a whole new dimension. They’ve gone over and above to keep our children and families safe. They’ve been on the front lines despite the added challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are our child care superheroes, and their tireless dedication deserves our praise and our thanks.
Please take time today to thank a child care provider for their commitment to caring for children in your community. You can find them making an incredible difference for kids and parents, workplaces and communities in every part of British Columbia.
Komagata Maru AND ACTION ON RACISM
K. Kirkpatrick: This Sunday will mark 107 years since the Komagata Maru steamship from India arrived in Vancouver with 376 passengers, most of which were Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus of South Asian origin who came, like many of our relatives did, to seek better lives here in Canada and in British Columbia.
Sadly, the government of the day denied entry to most of the passengers simply due to their ethnicity, and they were forced to return to India. Upon their return to India, many were arrested and put in jail by the British. This is a stain on the history of British Columbia and highlights the racist and discriminatory era of the immigration policies of the time.
Now, we’ve come a long way since then, but there is a lot more that remains to be done where people of all cultures are accepted and respected. Racism and intolerance are still in so many aspects of our society. Just recently Vancouver was named the anti-Asian hate crime capital of North America. This is a title that puts us to shame. It’s time we all stand up to condemn racism.
Let’s not forget the South Asian community has also helped to build British Columbia and forge its strong cultural ties between India and our province, as well as furthering trade to diversify our economy. As the most ethnically diverse province in Canada, British Columbia is a place where everyone deserves to feel safe regardless of their ethnic, racial or religious background.
The anniversary of the Komagata Maru incident is an opportunity to reflect upon the past, appreciate British Columbia’s history and renew our commitment to work for a future where our kids are proud to call British Columbia home. We know we have to do better.
REBUIILDING OF TSAWOUT LONGHOUSE
A. Olsen: In 2009, the longhouse in Tsawout was lost to a devastating fire. The smoke from the blaze could be seen across the region and the impact has been felt for the 12 years that our relatives have been without this critical home that is the centre of our W̱SÁNEĆ culture.
It is on the floor of this house that we practise sacred ceremony that has been passed from one generation to the next. It’s where we come of age, celebrate and memorialize life. It’s where we gather as families and as community.
It’s through ceremony that we learn of who we are as W̱ILṈEW̱ people, how we are connected to each other, how we are connected to our territory. It’s ceremony that breathes life into the laws and governance.
When my relatives at Tsawout broke ground on their new longhouse last fall, they shared the deep loss that they have been feeling. But they did not only shed tears of sorrow, of what might have been. They also were tears of joy for what will come when their new home is built.
It was evident for all who attended — the deep sense of hope of our SIÁM, our Elders and honoured ones, that once again our beautiful culture will come alive within the walls of this new longhouse. In 2019, I had the honour of witnessing this in Waglisla when the Heiltsuk Nation Big House was opened. It was a powerful experience.
As Tsawout Elder and councillor Mavis Underwood shared with me about the longhouse project, there is already incredible benefits for the community — jobs and skills training for the young men on the site who are also experiencing the energy of having a hand in building this new home that will again invigorate the crucial link with culture, teachings and our Elders.
My Tsawout relatives are inviting the public to contribute to their new longhouse. While they are nearly all there, they are raising funds to complete the project. You can learn more at tsawout.ca/bighouse. I hope you’ll join them in supporting this exciting project.
WORLD BEE DAY
M. Dykeman: Thank you for recognizing me to rise and speak in the House today about a subject which we should all care deeply about.
Today is World Bee Day. Each year on May 20, we celebrate the most important contributions that bees make to all things in our world. Bees play a major role in agriculture as pollinators of crops, contributing an estimated $550 million to the economy in British Columbia and over $2 billion across Canada.
Nearly a quarter of the bee colony farms in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley are located in Langley. One such example in my riding is MacInnes Farms, a family-owned farm business that uses permaculture practices using natural topography, ponds, streams and forests, produces a brand called Be Ingredients honey from one of the 50-plus colonies of honey bees on their farms. In partnership with the Honest Co., this pollinator conservation area also helps educate the public about the importance of all pollinators.
Bees and other pollinators such as butterflies, bats and hummingbirds are increasingly under threat. Approximately 90 percent of the world’s wild flowering plant species depend entirely, or at least, in part, on animal pollination, as well as over 75 percent of the world’s food crops. It takes one colony of honeybees, around 30,000 bees, to pollenate an acre of fruit trees.
Our government recognizes the important role that bees play in our province. The Bee BC program enhances bee health through the province of British Columbia, and 62 Bee BC projects have been funded to date. I ask that the House join me today in celebrating the important role pollinators play in contributing directly to food security in conserving biodiversity.
Oral Questions
ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND REOPENING PLAN
S. Bond: While B.C.’s restart program has been on hold since November of last year, multiple jurisdictions have released specific, detailed reopening plans. That allows businesses to do the critical planning that is necessary.
Saskatchewan, in fact, has a detailed road map, and that is based on vaccination rates. Washington state is on track to fully reopen its economy by June 30. Quebec is planning to have outdoor festivals by that time, as well, while here in B.C., local restaurants, retailers and tourism operators are all asking to know what they can expect and when they will hear.
Will the Premier stand up and tell us today when he will be releasing a reopening strategy for our province that includes detailed targets and timelines so that British Columbia’s businesses can have some of the certainty that they deserve?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the Leader of the Official Opposition for the question. Certainly, everyone knows that the pandemic has had lots of uncertainty, uncertainty for people, uncertainty for businesses.
We are all feeling hopeful. We’re starting to see people get booked for vaccinations. We’re starting to see people actually get vaccinated, and that’s giving us all hope.
The Premier has already indicated that the provincial health office and the Premier will be announcing what that restart plan may look like on Tuesday next week, and there will be more information for everyone at that time.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
S. Bond: We certainly know the Premier has a track record of showing up and messing up. He is still giving contradictory statements. In fact, he says he doesn’t want to give people false hope, and then he turns around and does exactly that.
In fact, yesterday the Minister of Education was asked about a $50 million reduction in COVID-specific funding for school districts. She went on to explain that: “Well, we can make that reduction because it won’t be needed in September.” Universities have been told that they will reopen.
Well apparently, the Premier and the government are busy making plans for the fall, but unfortunately, businesses are not in the same position. They have been left with uncertainty. They have no idea if this government has a specific plan to restart the economy of British Columbia.
Again to the Premier, will he commit to announcing a specific plan that includes targets and timelines? Our businesses in British Columbia are struggling. They need certainty. What they need from this government is to finally give them a plan.
Hon. R. Kahlon: From the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve been working closely with the business community, with not-for-profits, with various stakeholders. It’s been a challenging time. There’s no doubt about it. I don’t think anyone can deny that. But we’ve been doing it together. It’s been, really, a team B.C. approach, here in British Columbia, that has served us well.
We created an industry engagement table with over 75 associations representing various sectors of our economy. We meet almost every two — maybe sometimes three — weeks to discuss the latest pandemic measures. Dr. Henry takes questions so that everybody is in the same room, hearing the same questions, hearing the same answers. That’s how we’ve been trying to provide some certainty during a very uncertain time.
That being said, I’ve already shared with the member that we’ll be releasing a plan on Tuesday. There will be more information. I believe a briefing has been booked with both the official opposition and the Third Party to give them details on that as well.
M. de Jong: A little breaking news: that cruise ship bill that stood no chance of passing the U.S. Congress…. A few moments ago, it just passed the House of Representatives. It’s on its way to the president for signature. I’ll await the Premier’s next sterling prediction with great anticipation.
The list of agencies demanding a restart plan from the Premier grows daily. The beleaguered Tourism Industry Association says: “Give us the goal posts. Give us something to work towards so that we can get people moving again.” Hoteliers are tired of having to say to prospective customers, “I can’t tell you when activities will resume,” and therefore watch their customers go to other places. And restaurants…. Well, restaurants have been sandbagged so many times by this government that they’re on the verge of giving up.
Here’s Dustin, a young man who has poured his heart and soul into running a Fraser Valley restaurant, who says: “Don’t they understand? I’ve lost staff. I have to hire and rehire replacements. I have to purchase food and supplies a week at a time and a week in advance. Don’t they understand? I can’t pivot to open on 24 hours’ notice.”
Does the Premier actually understand, and if he does, will he prove it to Dustin and every other business in British Columbia by releasing a restart plan now that they can rely upon and that they can plan around?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The member mentioned that businesses are tired. People are tired. This pandemic has been hard on everyone. Families with young kids are tired. They want to get out. The kids want to see other people.
Everyone is tired. That’s why the Minister of Health has said so many times in this House for people to please get registered. Please get booked. Please get vaccinated. We need to celebrate, as one of my colleagues said, the people that are getting vaccinated. We need to celebrate the people that are actually doing the vaccinating.
The member mentions the struggles of restaurants. My family ran a restaurant for over a decade. I know the challenges of a family-run restaurant, where everybody is working at the restaurant. So I know it’s hard.
We’ve been working closely with the restaurant associations and all the organizations that support them. Again, we will have a plan that opens up — that has a restart plan on Tuesday that lays out some metrics so that there is some certainty for businesses.
I appreciate the comments and the intent of the member, and that certainly is what we’ll try to do on Tuesday.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: British Columbians have genuinely supported public health officials in addressing public health issues. This House has supported public health officials addressing public health issues. But it’s the Premier’s job and the government’s job to plan for the economic restart of this province, and it’s about time he and the government started doing their job.
The Quebec plan. The Quebec plan sets vaccination targets tied to actual dates, tied to operational decisions about actual activities that people are going to be able to return to.
The Saskatchewan plan.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: I’m glad the Attorney General finds that all funny. He should explain why he’s laughing about a plan from the province of Quebec.
In Saskatchewan, a step-by-step reopening road map tied to vaccination thresholds and actual dates that allows people to plan and — you know what? — actually acts as an incentive for people to get vaccinated.
Other provinces can do it. Why can’t the province of British Columbia do it? Why is the Premier allowing British Columbia to fall further and further behind?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The member says: “Fall further and further behind.” I think the member knows that we’ve been ahead of every other province that he’s named.
I think the member knows that we’ve had the highest per-capita support for people and businesses across the country. Other jurisdictions continue to look to British Columbia for guidance on how to do things, how to keep schools open safely, how to ensure that our seniors are safe, how to ensure that businesses are supported.
We’re proud of the supports we’ve put in place. The member should be proud. All of us have been working closely together. I think that he said we sometimes support public health office, and what they’ve given us advice on is that we need to get vaccinated. We need to continue to encourage people to follow the rules. That’s what we’re encouraging everyone to do today.
There will be a restart plan announced Tuesday. I don’t know what the issue is. When I have given them the answer, they keep asking the same question, over and over again. There will be a restart plan on Tuesday.
PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS AND
CALL FOR IMMEDIATE
LOGGING DEFERRALS
A. Olsen: Yesterday another blow was dealt to this government’s attempt to justify their continued inaction on protecting old growth. Three independent scientists did the work, frankly, that the Ministry of Forests should have done a year ago.
These scientists mapped out the forests across B.C. that meet the old-growth panel’s criteria for immediate logging deferrals. These are the rarest, grandest, highest-risk old-growth areas in our province. With this blueprint, the NDP government has the information they need to protect these forests. They have the tools that will make this happen.
So what’s missing? The only thing that’s missing — it’s become clear over the past year — is the political will to do anything other than to continue to liquidate these forests.
My question is to the Minister of Forests. She has the information handed to her. She has the tools at her disposal to make the change. Will she live up to the Premier’s promise and immediately defer logging in these rare stands of old-growth forests?
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. We all know that B.C.’s ancient forests are part of what makes this province such a great place to live. We are doing the work that needs to be done to protect them. We have started doing that work, protecting hundreds of thousands of hectares. We are continuing to do that work. We are doing the work, and we will continue to do that work.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
A. Olsen: We’re doing the work. We’re going to do the work. The work’s being done. Work, work, work. There is a song about that.
The fact that that would get a clap is just ridiculous. The answer is brutal, the inaction is brutal, and for the past three years, while we’ve asked questions about old-growth logging, our B.C. NDP colleagues have stared at the ground just wishing it would go away. Well, we won’t.
These ancient forests, our elders, need someone who will stand up for them. Now British Columbians are being arrested because the people who are elected to do so have not. The work has been done by these three scientists, who have laid out a step-by-step process for the government if they’re confused.
They couldn’t have been more clear: “Deferrals are a means to an end, but they are not the end goal. Immediate appropriate deferrals are critical to create space for conservation. Moving rapidly towards identifying adequate forest for protection, recruitment and long-term resiliency is of utmost urgency.”
If you look at the maps that the scientists released yesterday, as I hope the minister has, you’ll be struck by just how little is left. These ancient majestic forests are vanishingly rare. They look like specks of dust on the map.
My question again is to the Minister of Forests. Will she live up to the promise that was made by the Premier and immediately defer logging in these last rare stands of old-growth forests?
Hon. K. Conroy: Our government has taken action by already protecting hundreds of thousands of hectares of old growth that were previously left vulnerable. We know there is more work to do, and we are doing just that. We are engaging with workers, with communities, with companies, with environmental groups and having those really important government-to-government discussions with Indigenous nations.
We are looking at the maps. We are looking at the areas. We are also looking at where the Indigenous nations have a right to be consulted, to have those discussions with them. We are undertaking those very, very important discussions.
We know that there is more work to do, and we are doing that. It might not make the member happy that we aren’t doing it on his schedule, but we are doing it on the schedule of the people of the province. We are doing it by ensuring we are having those very, very important government-to-government discussions with Indigenous nations on whose territories he is referring to. We are doing that work, and we will continue to do it.
COVID-19 RESPONSE FOR TOURISM
ATTRACTIONS AND COMMUNITY
EVENTS
G. Kyllo: For more than 120 years, the Interior Provincial Exhibition, the IPE, has been an attraction bringing thousands of people to the communities of Armstrong and Spallumcheen. It honours the region’s rural and agricultural experiences, providing a glimpse into the past and showcasing a bright future.
But Tuesday the Premier said that while the PNE would be allowed to apply for a grant as a major attraction, it appears that the IPE will not be allowed. The rules say that you have to be operating year-round and specifically state that events like the IPE are not even allowed to apply. We haven’t heard a word from the MLA for Vernon-Monashee about helping this very important festival.
Can the Premier tell the people of the North Okanagan if the IPE can apply or not?
Hon. M. Mark: I thank the member opposite for the question. On Tuesday, the Premier and I announced a significant investment of $50 million. It is a grant. It’s not a loan. It’s for anchor attractions. It’s for those organizations that have large gatherings, which, obviously, because of the pandemic, we can’t have right now. Turnstile attractions. There are dedicated funds for the urban sector and the rural and for tour bus operators to facilitate visitors to be going to those anchor attractions.
It’s a significant investment. I encourage the member to support the organization to apply. Decisions have not been made yet. We’ve been completely transparent about our deadline, because we want to get the money out the door as quickly as possible. This was a call to action from the sector about needing relief.
Please encourage your organizations to apply, and our government will be reviewing them and making decisions and announcements in due course.
K. Kirkpatrick: I believe what I just heard the minister say is that events can apply, even though on the website, it says they are ineligible to apply. So that’s good news for us.
Now, very large attractions like the PNE and the Capilano Suspension Bridge in my riding are in desperate need of help. Instead, the Premier created a two-tiered system that is not based on need and doesn’t work for anybody.
This is what Nancy Stibbard of the Capilano Suspension Bridge says: “We are grateful, of course, for any help, but for businesses our size, we have had no revenue going on two years, yet we need to pay fixed expenses of around $1 million a month. The allocation does not seem to make sense.”
To the Premier, will he commit today to one program across the province that is needs-based?
Hon. M. Mark: On Tuesday, our government made a significant announcement: $50 million of grants, not loans, to help anchor attractions. I will repeat it: anchor attractions. These are organizations…. I’m not going to name names, but there are a variety of different types of attractions that could apply.
The member opposite isn’t suggesting that the elected minister should be deciding who should get the money. There is a transparent process. There is an invitation for anchor attractions to apply in urban communities and rural. I imagine that the member opposite isn’t suggesting that all of the money should go to the urban community, because then we’ll be ignoring the rural.
We’re trying to support the tourism ecosystem across the province. That was a call to action from the sector. We are listening, and we’re responding with investments to help a sector that we know has been hard hit.
As the Minister for Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation just announced, the restart plan is coming. Good news is coming. This is good news. Encourage your colleagues to apply. It’s a grant, not a loan.
P. Milobar: The minister has been saying since December: “Good news is coming.” What the industry needs is actual tangible action.
Groups like the North Thompson Fall Fair in Kamloops and in Barriere are confused about whether or not they can apply for the grant, just like the IPE is confused and just like, frankly, the PNE. Although the minister and the Premier make it sound like they can apply, when you read the criteria, they’re actually not eligible. But Playland would be, because Playland’s an amusement park.
We have a botched program where some attractions have been denied the funding they need based on nothing more than geography. Other attractions in rural B.C. need more than a half a million dollars, but they don’t get to even apply or ask under this government program because of where their geography is. We have a criteria system that’s confusing and says, “Typically operates year-round” to qualify. It says you can’t be a festival or an event, but the minister just said you could be. The PNE, like I said, apparently qualifies. Does it or doesn’t it?
Again, is the Premier making this up as they go along, or do festivals and events qualify or not? For the minister to say that she would encourage us to work with our constituents to apply for a grant that no one’s even sure if they qualify for or not, and neither is the minister, is a little bit misleading.
Does the minister want them to waste their time applying, or will there be a firm set of criteria put out that is not contradictory?
Hon. M. Mark: I know that we can’t use props, but I have the description of the qualifications right beside me. The website is online. It’s transparent. I hope that the member opposite isn’t suggesting that our government isn’t being transparent.
We are inviting anchor attractions to apply for a grant, not a loan. We are clearly outlining what the eligibility criteria is. The member opposite just mentioned that people have been denied. How can they be denied? We just opened up the grant on Tuesday. We just announced $50 million to support the tourism ecosystem.
That is good news, Member. Encourage people to apply. The application is open for grants, not loans. Decisions haven’t been made yet. Please don’t make these conclusions and create fear. This was a call to action. It is going to support, through targeted funds, the tourism sector.
But when the member opposite wants to go back to December…. December 9, I received the report from the Tourism Task Force, and surely thereafter, we announced $100 million in grants, not loans. To this day, we have over 3,500 tourism operators that received grants, not loans. To me, that is success.
Mr. Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on a supplemental.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
U.S. LEGISLATION ON
CRUISE
SHIP INDUSTRY
P. Milobar: Let’s be clear to the minister. People are being denied the funds they need based on their geography. If they need more than half a million dollars of support and don’t happen to live in the Metro area or their attraction is not in the Metro area or it’s not in the Premier’s riding, they don’t qualify for the help they actually need. That’s the point that the minister seems to not understand.
Perhaps the minister can dial back her arrogance and confidence from Tuesday and explain to us exactly the position this government is taking in regards to the cruise ship industry. We’ve just heard earlier that the House of Representatives has now passed the bill. The talk coming out of Washington is they do want to make it permanent.
This government still has not taken a firm stand on whether or not they’re advocating and actually demanding that the federal government allow technical stops, which would not impact public health at all, as no one would be leaving the ship as it anchors in Canadian waters on its way to Alaska. Instead, her arrogance is going to cost us the cruise ship industry.
When will this government, when will this Premier stand up for the interests of the cruise ship industry in British Columbia and actually demand technical stops happen without undermining any public health measures whatsoever?
Hon. M. Mark: As Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, it is my job to be an advocate. Clearly, we appreciate and value the tourism that the cruise ship industry and their visits, their intended visits, their purposeful visits…. We are a magnet. We’re a destination of choice for cruise ships to come from Seattle. On their itinerary, they love coming to Victoria.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, she can’t hear you anyway, so calm down.
Minister will continue.
Hon. M. Mark: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
I want to paint the context, because we are a destination of choice for cruise ships. Now, with respect to the bill, we are actively advocating with the federal government. They are alive to our concerns about our port and our west coast and our best coast.
The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure and myself, the Premier’s office, intergovernmental relations have all brought to their attention our concerns. It is not off the table for technical stops. We’ve told them to do whatever it takes to defend our tourism industry, including the cruise ships. We are relentless in our advocacy, and we will continue to do the work.
I want to remind the member, for the record, that this is a temporary bill, and it does not have a permanent measure. It will be rescinded as soon as the ports and the borders are open. I want to re-emphasize that. It’s a temporary measure. We’re going to call for those technical stops, and…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, listen to the answer, please.
Hon. M. Mark: …it will be rescinded as soon as the borders and ports are lifted.
COVID-19 RELIEF GRANT ELIGIBILITY
FOR ROYAL CANADIAN
LEGION BRANCHES
B. Banman: The Premier is simply out of touch. When we asked him about providing support to the legion, his answer was baffling: “Protecting those individuals is a very high priority. Making sure that they will be sustained throughout and beyond the pandemic is why the e-commerce program was put in place.”
The legions don’t want a website. They want to be treated fairly and equally and to be able to apply for the same help other liquor and food establishments qualify for. Nothing more, nothing less. These veterans who have served us and continue to serve us deserve respect, and they’re not feeling it from this government or the Premier.
They wrote to the Premier on April 30. That was 20 days ago. The Premier hasn’t listened to them, but he did manage to raise his own budget by 4 million bucks.
My question to the Premier: will he stop with the posturing and do the right thing and let the legions apply for the funds so that they can survive?
Hon. R. Kahlon: As the Premier highlighted in his remarks and I’ve made clear, everyone here in this chamber respects our veterans. Everyone respects their contributions to society. I highlighted that my grandfather was a member. The Premier highlighted that he’s been a member since 1979.
From the beginning of the pandemic, we’ve been working closely with the federal government on all the supports we put in place, from the beginning, because it’s the right thing to do in a pandemic and it’s what the public expects.
I reached out to Veterans Affairs Canada to talk about the challenges the legions are facing. They notified us that a few months ago, they announced $20 million to go to support the efforts of the legion — $14 million of that to go directly to legions across the country. In fact, legions in British Columbia have received that support.
On top of that, we’re also looking at other measures to find ways to support them. Staff have reached out to start the conversation about what other measures we can put in place. We’ll continue to work with Veterans Affairs Canada, as they have responsibility here, as well, on what more we can do there.
POLICY ON DECLARATION OF
COVID-19 OUTBREAKS IN
LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES
T. Wat: One hundred and ninety-two families continue to ask questions about the implementation of government policy to delay the declaration of outbreaks in long-term-care homes. At Little Mountain care home, 41 seniors lost their lives. On November 20, 2020, the first COVID case was detected. Yet for days, an outbreak was not declared because of a change in government policy.
Bernadette Cheung’s grandmother died at Little Mountain. She says: “People were asking, ‘How did this happen?’ and then all we got was the reiteration of ‘protocols in place….’ If families had not talked to the media…this would have been swept under the rug.”
My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier tell families why this disastrous policy was implemented at long-term-care homes? Will the Premier explain what the government knew, when they knew it and why this government’s policy change was kept from the public?
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. In British Columbia, we have made every effort, extraordinary efforts, to protect people in long-term care in a pandemic, both to support their other health needs, which include social needs, but also to keep people protected.
That’s happened from the beginning. The single-site order was brought into place here in British Columbia. Virtually nowhere else in the country has that been done with the effectiveness, because we gave it the resources it needed, the extraordinary work of the provincial health officer and medical health officers to support people in long-term care.
Still many people have lost their lives in long-term care. In every single case — not some cases but in every single case — we review and work to try and improve the situation in long-term care. You’ve seen that reflected in action.
The member is asking about the declaration of outbreaks. She knows that that is statutorily the responsibility of the provincial health officer and medical health officers. I’m not stepping away from backing them up on that. I support them 100 percent on these questions.
This is statutorily their authority. Those medical health officers have been with those families and with those residents. People in public health care went into outbreaks to support people because of those efforts. They, in effect, did something that all of us wouldn’t want to do, which is move towards the flame and the difficulties. I think that their efforts and their professional experience and their analysis deserve our respect.
It’s one thing to say that we support public health; it’s another thing to support public health. I do that, recognizing the extraordinary pain that everybody who has lost anyone in this pandemic, but particularly in long-term care, feels today.
I thank the member for her question. We’re going to continue to do everything we can to support our residents in long-term care in the coming months.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the 2020-2021 Annual Report of the Office of the Merit Commissioner. I have also the honour of tabling a report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act.
Petitions
M. Dykeman: I rise in the House today to present a petition related to order 376 from concerned constituents in my riding.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 9, Finance Statutes Amendment Act.
In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Education.
In Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued debates on the estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
Speaker’s Statement
RULES FOR DIVISIONS,
QUORUM AND
VOTING
Deputy Speaker: Before we start, colleagues, yesterday afternoon there was a division vote called on report out of a committee. You heard my confusion because I had not reread this particular member’s guide to hybrid sittings five times to know everything in it. I did so last night, and just want to reiterate that divisions are not permitted on motions that a committee rise and report and also not permitted when the motion is to adjourn.
So no divisions on adjournment today, please. Otherwise, I will have to rule it as “on division.”
The other thing that I noticed in here, as I was reading through it, is quorum is ten. I should be not proceeding with the meeting unless we have ten, including the Speaker. If you have your cameras off, now is a good time to turn them on, so we can make sure we have quorum, so I can start. If you’re wondering at what point I ring the bells for lack of quorum, it will be based on if someone objects to quorum being gone. If someone rises on a point of order, I will do it at that time. But until that time, I will not mention quorum unless it’s at the beginning. I see we have quorum, and that’s great.
The last point I would like to make out, after reading this again, is that to be eligible for quorum and for voting, you must have your camera on and be visible in the screen. I’ve seen over the last few weeks a lot of our colleagues having the camera on but facing the ceiling, or they being not visible in the shot. Maybe their hair, if they do have any — unlike me — being visible in the shot does not qualify.
Please, please, please be cognizant of that. Obviously, I wasn’t. I thought a few hairs was enough, but that is not the case. Please make sure that if you want to be considered for quorum or voting, you are in full view in the camera frame.
With that, ten — right on the line.
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 9 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT
(No. 2), 2021
Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that we are all accounted and all here — some of us in 3D, some in 2D. It is wonderful to see my colleagues’ faces on the big screen. It’s particularly delightful to see my critic’s face on the screen. I’m glad that he’s here, and that he’s well.
With that, I move that Bill 9 be read a second time now.
These amendments will give companies, societies, credit unions and cooperative associations the flexibility to meet virtually, just as we are here today, when it is preferred or when it is necessary.
As we issued two ministerial orders last year, temporarily removing legislative barriers to meeting electronically, these entities have now become accustomed — just as we have here, in some ways — to doing business in a different manner.
What we have learned is that many of these companies, societies, credit unions and cooperative associations are finding that having the ability to meet electronically is making business more efficient, more flexible and more widely accessible as well. I’m happy to say that these amendments will provide electronic meetings as a permanent option.
In the last year, businesses and community groups, credit unions — they have all faced new challenges during what has become and what is now known as, certainly, extraordinary times for everybody. They’ve had to find new ways to conduct business, to maintain connections and to deliver services. Many have capitalized on the technology that allows electronic meetings, and it’s only right that we provide them the ability to continue to make use of this technology, going forward, leveraging their new skills, their new learnings and their new sayings, like “You’re on mute,” which we’ve all become accustomed to.
These amendments have been drafted in a manner that preserves the right to attend and participate in meetings. Effort has been made to ensure fairness in all meeting attendees. Provisions have been modernized with language that reflects that meetings may not be in person or may not be held at a physical location and to ensure that instructions for participation or voting may be provided when necessary.
For some societies incorporated under the Societies Act, it was preferable, during this public health emergency, to delay their annual general meetings. A proposed amendment will allow the registrar to extend the legislative deadline to hold annual general meetings in the case of future public health emergencies, of which I hope, Mr. Speaker, we don’t have any more.
Additionally, two housekeeping amendments will solve some minor issues relating to benefit companies. A proposed amendment will clarify that an annual benefit report is required, whether there are regulations prescribing the manner of the report or not. Also, member-funded societies will be now able to convert to benefit companies, just as they are able to convert to community contribution companies.
Enabling corporate entities to meet electronically will improve accessibility to meetings for those with child care obligations and those with mobility challenges as well. This could very well result in increased diversity on boards of directors of large corporations, as well as improve community engagement in charity and non-profit work. We have consulted with relevant stakeholders, including legal counsel for businesses and societies, cooperative associations, credit unions, the B.C. Financial Services Authority and other community groups.
Finally, we have been mindful of the requirements of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act as we have developed this legislation. We have done an assessment of this legislation as it relates to aligning with the declaration. In this case, the proposed amendments do not effect Indigenous Peoples in B.C. in a unique way due to their particular interests, rights or conditions. We have consulted with Indigenous partners to seek their input and perspectives, including the Métis Nation, the First Nations Summit and the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. We have also notified the treaty First Nations of the proposed amendments.
We will continue to work with Indigenous peoples as we move forward with this initiative, to support all of our businesses, community groups and credit unions in building resilient communities and a strong economy. These amendments will support a strong economic recovery and the provision of community services at a very important time.
M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for the opening remarks here on Bill 9. Unfortunately, I’m not there in the chamber, but because of technology and what we’re really discussing in Bill 9 today, flexibility, I’m remotely speaking today from my office in Dawson Creek. I look forward to being back in Victoria soon, and also want to thank the minister for her well wishes.
When we look at what has happened and transpired over the last year or 18 months, we’ve all had to adapt. As the minister said, some ministerial orders came forward to allow corporations and some operations to adapt to technology — no different than we are today, as I highlighted. It was an important step, I would say, to allow many groups to continue operating without those ministerial orders.
I will echo what the minister said. Hopefully, we never find ourselves in a situation like we are in right now, where we’ve had to go to some extreme measures because of COVID-19. I will say that it has brought around opportunity. It has brought around ideas for groups to adapt and look at other ways of operating and doing businesses.
Bill 9 looks at making some of those ministerial orders, as the minister said, more permanent — allowing diversity, possibly; allowing people to work from home a little bit more often; and allowing groups to operate their businesses virtually. It will be a change in some ways — but one, also, that many are getting used to over this last year or 18 months. I think the important part is giving the flexibility and the opportunity for these businesses to choose how they want to run some of their meetings, some of their AGMs, and using virtual means to do so.
I will say, it’s a fairly straightforward piece of legislation. It’s not one that we obviously will have a lot of debate or questions on, probably, because it does make a lot of sense. On the surface, the bill seems logical and, barring any surprises, I would say, in committee stage, is one that we can easily support.
However, I will want to highlight for the minister that obviously, there always are some limitations when we move to a technological platform, such as what we’re doing today. It’s not just being on mute but, sometimes, the opportunities for everybody to participate — because of lack of connectivity, depending on where they are, whether it’s in their home or in their community or some parts of rural British Columbia.
I think the big part is the choice — for the corporations, for the banks, for the groups — to look at virtual means, but also recognizing that we have safeguards in place to make sure that it does not restrict or hinder some people from participating because of geography or where they live and connectivity. We want to make sure that everybody is able to exercise their rights to participate, to attend meetings, whether it’s virtual or in-person.
Again, I want to thank the minister for bringing this forward. I think this is a logical step. We’ll have a few questions in committee stage but appreciate the time on this. Of course, as we work through the COVID-19 pandemic — hopefully, as we’ve heard today — we’re seeing a plan and a stage to move out of the restrictions that we have. Again, with this Bill 9, it allows flexibility and opportunity, going forward, of things that we’ve learned and adapted to over the last 18 months.
With that, I look forward to committee stage and again thank the minister for bringing this bill forward.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further members wishing to participate, I ask the minister to please close debate.
Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member opposite for his comments in recognizing that this is a really…. I’m not going to say it’s an easy piece of legislation, because I know that staff have worked hard to put this together. But it’s one that makes sense. It makes sense for British Columbia.
None of us, a year or a year and a half ago, would have anticipated that we would be doing a bill like this. But there has been so much change — so much change in the landscape, so much change for all of us in learning the technology and the opportunities that come with the crisis. We all know that within a crisis, there is always opportunity. There’s an opportunity to make these meetings, for societies and corporations, more accessible.
I’m really proud to bring this forward. I’m pleased to hear that members opposite are supporting this. I am looking forward to committee stage. With that, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. S. Robinson: I seek leave to move that, notwithstanding Standing Order 81, the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House later today.
Leave granted.
Motion approved.
Bill 9, Finance Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
Hon. S. Robinson: I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act.
Deputy Speaker: We’ll give a couple of minutes for a change to the committee room.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT,
2021
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; N. Letnick in the chair.
The committee met at 11:10 a.m.
Clause 1 approved.
On clause 2.
M. Bernier: I’ll have multiple questions on different sections, but there are some that I won’t have any. I think we’ll work together just to make sure that things work as fluidly as possible.
First of all, thank you to the minister, as we get into Bill 4, and her staff that are virtually, just like myself, I assume, there helping her out.
This bill covers quite a few different acts and some of the different changes that are proposed. Right now we’re talking about, in this first part here, in section 2, the Assessment Act.
One of the changes here is around “electronic means.” Can the minister explain, when we have the addition of “electronic,” what that means, when it will be used and how it pertains under the Assessment Act?
Hon. S. Robinson: Right now, as it stands, B.C. Assessment is required to mail assessments — to use post, also known as snail mail. That is the requirement. It’s not always so snaily; it’s actually sometimes very quick.
What this change does is it authorizes them to ask if the homeowner would like to receive by email, so it provides them the ability to ask. The option is there for the ratepayer.
M. Bernier: To the minister, then, on that specific answer. Is it the intention of the changes from the assessment authority or through this act to possibly move completely to electronic means for distribution? Or is this going to continue to be an option, as laid out in the legislation?
Hon. S. Robinson: In this legislation, it is just an option.
M. Bernier: Through the discussions, though, does the minister see that we’ll be moving to a permanent means?
The only reason why I’m flagging that…. I won’t hit this one too hard, but as I mentioned in some of my opening comments, even on Bill 9, there’s…. As the minister is well aware, there are parts of the province that do not have the technological means to receive or deliver or correspond in electronic ways — with any simplicity, anyway — because of their geographical location.
Is this something that the minister assumes will be staying as an option going forward, or is there a chance to make it permanent — or plans, I guess?
Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question about access to high-speed Internet and the challenges that come with it. That’s why it is an option, and that’s why the intent is to provide it as an option.
For those British Columbians that have high-speed Internet and reliable connectivity, they can receive their assessment notice electronically. For those where they either don’t have access to high-speed Internet or they still prefer Canada Post and paper copies, that’s an option for them as well, regardless of where they live in the province.
M. Bernier: Thank you, Minister.
Obviously, we’ve missed this season. So the plan is to, I assume, have the options available for the next assessment processes. What is the timeline, I guess? Is that accurate? It’ll be for the next season. Does the minister see, possibly, any changes around the timing of electronic distribution?
Then maybe what I’ll add to that — the minister can also answer at the same time, if she chooses — is around the application process. Again, if we’re timing this for maybe the next assessment year, do we see this expediting? Will notices go out sooner, or will it be later because of electronically? What’s the process for notification for people to apply to receive it electronically?
Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked about timing. There’s no intent to change the timing. It’ll happen the way it has always traditionally happened. There is a hope to roll it out for next year. I’m sure the member can appreciate that, with the volume of work that needs to be done, it is possible it would be the year after. The intent is certainly to get it done sooner than later.
There will be the application process, as the member detailed, around requesting to get your assessment electronically. It will be built into the website. So people could go online and be able to ask to receive their assessment online instead of through a traditional post.
M. Bernier: Yeah. Thank you to the minister for that. I know it’s tough on some of these bills, maybe jumping around to different clauses but trying to encapsulate it all into the right areas.
One of the quick questions, I guess, I have is…. A lot of organizations…. We’ll say utility companies, maybe municipalities and others. When they’ve gone to an electronic means of an application for receiving, in this case, an assessment…. Is there a plan? I apologize if it’s in there and I did not see it in the act. But is there a plan, then, to charge anyone if they continue and choose to receive their assessment notices in paper form?
As I mentioned, a lot of organizations have now started charging, some would say maybe a nominal, a $2 or $3 extra charge a month if you do not go to receiving it electronically. Anyway, is there going to be any kind of financial charge if you continue to receive it in a paper form?
Hon. S. Robinson: I do want to reiterate that this is an annual assessment. It’s not every month, like in some of the others. The answer is no.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive approved.
On clause 7.
M. Bernier: Just quickly on clause 7, I thought this might be the appropriate place to ask it. We’re talking about sending the assessment notices and everything out through electronic means for those who apply. I appreciate the minister’s clarification on the choice for that.
What about for people who choose to dispute or challenge the assessment? Will all of that be able to be done electronically through forms now as well? I know there are some means in place right now to do some portions of it electronically, but I’m just wanting to clarify and make sure. If somebody chooses to go electronic, will they be able to do everything electronically?
Hon. S. Robinson: I’m grateful for the people who are whispering in my ear. It’s fabulous. I want to take a moment to acknowledge them. It’s great to have them just on the other side of my earbud.
No, we are not changing anything to do with the dispute process. That will remain the same.
Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive approved.
On clause 10.
M. Bernier: On section 10, maybe the minister can just quickly explain the reasoning for this addition. We’re going to go through this act, and there are quite a few places where the minister has highlighted additional information in different acts that the government is requesting or availability to access. I’ll probably ask a similar question a few times throughout the course of today as we go through this act.
Specifically, under section 10, we are now talking about the Carbon Tax Act. In this section, the minister is talking about how section 10 adds authority for the disclosure of certain information for fiscal policy formulation and evaluation.
What information does the minister see that the ministry and her staff would want to gather, through the Carbon Tax Act, to be able to use for other taxation plans that the government would be looking at doing? What information are we looking for?
Hon. S. Robinson: On clause 10, it will allow an official or employee of the Ministry of Finance to use taxpayer information that is already collected — so it’s already collected under the Carbon Tax Act — to develop and evaluate fiscal policy. I can give the member an example, because that’s what he’s asked for.
For COVID-19, we’ve been developing numerous recovery plans to help businesses get through, and understanding and targeting resources to help certain kinds of businesses, recognizing that not all businesses were equally impacted in the same way. In trying to make a determination on how to best support businesses, we’re currently not able to actually see the carbon tax return — because we don’t have that flexibility — which is an indicator that would help us understand how well or how poorly business is doing. We don’t have access to that information.
This amendment would allow us to take a look at information that is already collected and be able to help guide decisions on how to best support businesses and industries.
M. Bernier: I’m just trying to wrap my head around this, of why the change.
The minister just highlighted that this is information that the government is already collecting. It just, of course, raises some questions then. The government’s already collecting it. But the wording in addition here that the minister has added, through this clause and other parts of this specific bill…. There are other acts that have similar wording changes. I’m just curious if the minister can explain.
The government already has a lot of this information. But now they’re putting in specific wording, saying that they want to access that information to formulate — use that word. I know it says: “Formulate and evaluate.” Evaluate I can understand. You want to look at the process for a specific tax policy, an initiative to see…. It’s going to be evaluated against the revenues or the costs based on the policy that’s in place. Is it working. Is it not working. But when you use the word “formulate….”
I’m curious if the minister can just elaborate a little bit further on that. Because to me, formulation of fiscal policy would mean gathering that information, and possibly, information — as we’ll talk about later on — the minister is accessing or wanting to, through other acts as well. Of course, the cynic would say: “Okay, well, government is trying to look at getting more information to create further taxes or tax policy.”
Can the minister just explain…? When you use the word “formulation,” what’s the intention there? If you already have access, why do we need this wording and change in the bills?
Hon. S. Robinson: Currently, there are three tax-related statutes — the Employer Health Tax Act, the Income Tax Act and the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act — that explicitly permit the Ministry of Finance to use taxpayer information to develop and evaluate fiscal policy.
This amendment aligns the Carbon Tax Act with these three statutes, with respect to using taxpayer information for fiscal policy purposes. That can also mean developing programs — developing relief programs, like I just outlined, which businesses have been asking for. Understanding the lay of the land, seeing how it all fits together is really important.
It’s also about formulating programs and program development. Certainly, under the COVID-19 framework, it’s been absolutely critical to have as much information available to us so that we could be as responsive a government as possible.
Clause 10 approved.
On clause 11.
M. Bernier: Still talking about, obviously, under the Carbon Tax Act…. Maybe the minister can explain a little bit around…. I guess on section 11 here, I’m kind of trying to encompass a couple of sections, possibly, together here, in some ways, under the Carbon Tax Act through my questions.
We’re looking at extending the application now for the tax rates for fuels and combustibles to 2022. Maybe the minister can explain the rationale through some of the changes, because as we know, as of — I believe — April 1, the carbon tax has gone up again in British Columbia.
Given that the pandemic is still going on, the idea was freezing the carbon tax that this government chose to raise, but they chose to also freeze the carbon tax increase, citing it was because we were in a pandemic. Why is the minister not continuing on with that freeze going forward, until we know whether we’re out on the other side?
Hon. S. Robinson: To the member’s question, in March 2020, our world turned upside down. We really didn’t understand how we were going to respond to the health crisis. We knew that we needed to slow everything down, slow our lives down, slow the economy down in a very significant way. We didn’t know how long it was going to last. It’s based on that that government decided to delay this increase.
We have learned lots. We have learned lots over this last year. We’ve learned how to use technology in ways we haven’t ever done before. We’ve learned how to mute and unmute ourselves. We’ve learned how to turn our cameras off and on, and off again sometimes.
We have learned that with vaccination, we are operating on a frame now, and an anticipation, certainly, with Tuesday, in a few more days, hearing about what opening looks like.
Again, I want to remind everyone in this House that we never really closed down. We’re very fortunate here in British Columbia. Some of it due to timing, a lot of it due to great leadership at public health, that we’ve been able to essentially keep things going, albeit at a slowed pace, but there’s certainly activity happening.
It’s with that in mind that we recognize that things are picking up. They are picking up speed, and I look forward to when we can all be in this chamber all together, all 87 of us. I think there’s lots of appetite around the province for my colleagues who are coming to us through the Internet, that having everyone here will certainly remind us what we’ve all come through and where we’re all going. I know it’s hopeful.
We heard today in question period about reopening plans in other jurisdictions. We’re going to hear more about ours on Tuesday.
It’s with that in mind — recognition that in many ways we are coming out of this crisis. There are still, certainly, some pieces to address. There’s some hard work and heavy lifting for all of us to be doing together. But it’s with that in mind that we recognize that we are on the tail end of this, and we’re going to be proceeding forward with these increases as originally planned.
M. Bernier: You know, I appreciate the optimism, I guess, from the minister that we are on the homeward stretch and we can see the ribbon at the finishing line as more and more people get vaccinated. I do want to just highlight, though, that the changes that the minister has talked about and the changes that were made in March were before that optimism was thought of, before this government was speaking in any way of any forward-looking plan or optimism around how this was going to affect our economy, how changes have an effect.
I will respectfully say to the minister that when she said how lucky our province was that it didn’t close…. I think she would agree and acknowledge, though, that it’s not that simple. There are many people that were affected. There are many businesses that were forced to close, many businesses that are still battling whether they will be able to afford to stay open or not. I do find it interesting that the freeze on the carbon tax was lifted before that optimism was spoken of by this government.
I’m just curious, then. What happens, then, for a lot of these companies that don’t have that optimism, that don’t have the means and are struggling already? They’re going to be forced now, possibly, into a situation where things have not brightened for them. The light is not at the end of the tunnel for these organizations, or individuals, for that matter, but the carbon tax freeze has been lifted, so extra costs are incurred by those groups that are already struggling.
Why did the minister not consider putting that off a little longer? Or, I would argue, why did the minister not, back in February or March, be a little bit more optimistic with a plan saying: “Don’t worry. We are actually going to be opening up the province here right away so you’ll be able to get back to normal, get your revenue generated and people back to work and the opportunity to pay your bills”?
Hon. S. Robinson: Well, the member just asked why we didn’t do this in February or March. Back in February, we weren’t sure what the supply of vaccine was going to be like. There was certainly lots of angst around that. There were certainly uncertainties.
I also want to point out that as a government, we started out back last fall delivering on a StrongerBC plan, making sure that there were opportunities for businesses, supporting them, helping them through, working together with the federal government, layering in our programs on top of the federal program so that it would be as robust as possible.
We certainly continue to deliver supports for businesses and for individuals. We’re continually engaged with them to determine how to best support them through these next number of months, which will continue to be hard for some businesses. There’s absolutely no doubt about that. It’s through that engagement that we are targeting our supports and making sure that there are opportunities.
That has been the way that we have been operating as a government. It’s to engage with the sectors, understand what their particular challenges are, work together with our federal partners and deliver supports so that people can make it through the other side.
For some, it will take some time. There’s absolutely no doubt about that. No one is disputing that. For others, things can and will pick up. Yet there are other industries where there has been almost little impact or there has been significant growth and opportunity for them through the pandemic. We are recognizing that different sectors are impacted in different ways. We’re continuing to engage with them.
But we also recognize that we have a climate crisis. This isn’t the only crisis that we’re dealing with. We know that we need to address GHG reductions, and we also know that a carbon tax is a significant tool in helping us to do that.
Taking all these things into consideration, this is why we delayed the increase last year, recognizing that we are right at the cusp, the ribbon cutting, as the member said. I look forward to celebrating with all of my colleagues here in the House when we can all be together and cut ribbons, I hope, that we’ve come through.
We recognize that it is important to also do the work of the other crisis that we’re dealing with, which is the climate crisis.
M. Bernier: I don’t want to use the analogy too much “on the finish line,” because I don’t want to make it look like we’re in a race to the finish line. We still have to do a lot of work, and the Minister of Health has done an extraordinary job, I would say, too, with a lot of this — dealing with this for the last 18 months. I commend him and the government for dealing with this crisis as best as possible. Although we do criticize some of the changes that should be taking place, I think we’re all in this collectively, trying to make sure that our communities, our society and the people get through this as soon as possible and we get our economy rolling.
Back to the point at hand. The minister just said that back in February, she didn’t know. Yet back in February, the minister made the changes to increase the carbon tax in the midst of also saying that she didn’t know what the future would hold. I understand.
This probably isn’t the right place or forum at this time to debate the carbon tax, because the minister says that that’s also a crisis. But increasing the carbon tax while at the same time, we see carbon emissions going up…. It’ll be interesting to see that analysis, as the minister is saying that this will curb behaviour, I guess. It’ll be interesting to see how that changes.
I guess that the main point, or question, that I’ll flag at this time is if the minister didn’t know back in February what the future would hold, but chose to take the freeze off the carbon tax anyway, does she feel confident, then, that this is not going to negatively affect our economy in any way, with the increase of the carbon tax?
Hon. S. Robinson: The member, I think, knows full well that we meet with the Economic Forecast Council — about a dozen economists that take a look at opportunities that lay ahead for British Columbia and what the opportunities are. They’re very confident about growth for our economy in the coming year. It’s their good counsel and their expertise that we rely on to help us make these fiscal choices.
I know that the member is well aware. The member was at that meeting. We have, as a government, been prudent in our budgeting around how fast or how strong the economy will come back. But all signs point to a strong recovery — in fact, suggesting that our recovery will be the strongest in the nation. We’re being cautiously optimistic, of course, because I think that that’s the wise thing to do. So I don’t believe that this will have a significant drag on the economy, as the member has suggested.
M. Bernier: I do appreciate that the minister included me in the briefings and the information around the Economic Forecast Council. There were some flags that were raised but definitely some opportunities for British Columbia as well.
What about the CFIB, though? I look at an organization like that, that represents so many of our small businesses. They’ve been very vocal to this government and to this minister that the carbon tax in general — but definitely any increase in the carbon tax — will be a negative impact for our small businesses, not only just through a recovery program, as we try to get our economy back to a thriving area across the province but in the short term. Every little nail in the coffin is and can be detrimental to some of our businesses, especially small businesses, our mom-and-pop operations.
Large businesses, as the minister and the Minister of Energy and Mines have alluded to, have an opportunity to absorb increases and can be a little bit more flexible on their opportunity for reducing carbon emissions to offset the increase. A little mom-and-pop shop can’t. In the agricultural industry, there are not a lot of changes that they can necessarily make.
So I’m just kind of curious, from CFIB’s perspective, who are very vocal on this: does the minister listen to their concerns as well? They were very vocal that this could be a negative impact for small business, especially in a time when we’re still going through the COVID crisis, where revenues are way down for a lot of the people in the private sector.
Hon. S. Robinson: Well, as I said earlier, when we delayed the carbon tax increase, it was a very broad, sweeping program, I’ll call it, because we weren’t sure how things were going to play out. We’ve certainly learned a lot, as I mentioned earlier, through the pandemic. We are better off to deliver targeted supports for those businesses that are hardest hit.
That’s what we have been doing and being much more precise and much more specific and focused in our relief programs, as was recommended by the Economic Forecast Council. It was also their advice that the time now, in 2021…. Certainly when we met with them, I think it was, back in March. It’s all sort of a time before. But I think it was back in March when we met with them, or maybe it was February, where they were really clear that now it’s time for targeted support. So we have taken their advice and have done that.
The other thing that’s really important is that Canada, nationally — the federal government — has a backstop of $50 that is coming in by 2022. We have heard from businesses that it’s much easier to have a slow ramp-up. It’s easier for them to absorb, rather than a hard deadline, which is coming up for the $50 per tonne cost that is going to be imposed federally. So it is for this reason that it’s important to get back on track and to move this along, because businesses have told us that that’s much easier for them.
M. Bernier: Can the minister just explain, then…? Obviously she highlighted and mentioned the federal government’s initiatives that they’re planning around the carbon tax. What’s the future carbon tax increase going to look like for British Columbia, then? How does the minister see that rolling out, given the new federal pricing plans?
That will be the question. But I want to, obviously, just highlight for the minister, though…. Once we get to estimates on Ministry of Finance, I can have some more detailed, accurate, pointed questions around the carbon tax and the fact that it’s no longer revenue-neutral, etc.
I’m more curious on what the minister’s thoughts or plans are with the federal government’s initiatives, then, for the increases in British Columbia — how that’s going to look.
Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. Certainly heard, along with us…. I believe it was April 19 that the federal government talked about this. So this is work that is being undertaken. I can’t speak to what we may do at some point in the future. But we’re certainly going to be working diligently to address how to best proceed with the carbon tax.
M. Bernier: It is interesting that the minister says they don’t have the plans for the future. Maybe she has plans, and they’re not willing to say, because they’re still being formulated. I understand that, and how the process works. But certainty obviously is important.
We’ll be at $50 next year. Obviously, the federal government is pushing that in for next year. I assume that’s what British Columbia is going to do — their part to adhere to that. Can the minister foreshadow or let us know, then, if the government of British Columbia has any plans to go further than what the federal initiatives are? Or is that another wait-and-see from this government?
Hon. S. Robinson: There will be more to say about that at another time.
Clauses 11 and 12 approved.
On clause 13.
M. Bernier: When we get into clause 13 — and I recognize the time, so I don’t know if I’ll get a chance to get through this entire clause before lunch — we’re now dealing with the employer health tax portion under that act and some of the changes again.
Maybe we can start. Under the employer health tax, clause 13 enacts a provision, I guess, providing 15 percent credit on increases in payroll between October 1 and December 31. I’m reading through the explanatory notes there. This is first applied to the EHT payments but is refundable.
Can the minister maybe just walk me through that a little bit and these changes in this section and what the purposes are and how that’s going to help business?
Hon. S. Robinson: I believe the member is referring to the increased employment incentive that we brought in. This just gives businesses a 15 percent credit if they increase their payroll. It’s intended to boost the economy and employment, as we’ve been recovering, and it’s had some really good results.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
On Vote 22: ministry operations, $7,093,293,000 (continued).
The Chair: We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Education. I understand that a question was raised yesterday and that the minister is prepared to respond.
Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you for the question from yesterday with regard to our September restart.
Yes, we are working on formulating a plan, of course. We work every week with our partners, and, in fact, our provincial steering committee meets twice a week at this time, precisely to engage in a robust, consultative discussion about what September may look like.
Of course, our first priority is to ensure that there are appropriate health and safety plans in place to ensure the safety of staff and students in our schools. We operate under the guidance and direction of provincial health officials, who are part of that steering committee and, at the health authority level, also work directly with our school districts.
The success of any restart plan, of course, is going to be reliant on the success of our vaccine rollout, which, at this point, is proceeding extremely well. Through a process and under the direction of our provincial health officials, we will determine what additional measures may be needed to ensure our schools are safe in September.
That work is underway. That assessment is underway. Our government, I think, as the members opposite are well aware, has established pandemic recovery contingencies in Budget 2021 for this purpose.
The Chair: Member.
J. Tegart: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s great to be back.
Thank you for the information. You indicated that there will be a process. At the school district level, who will be involved in that, and what are the timelines for that process, considering September is coming very quickly?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I think, as I’ve indicated, we have a provincial steering committee that comprises all of our partners in education, including our superintendents, principals and the BCSTA. So there’s robust coordination and collaboration, really, at all levels, and of course, those provincial representatives are constantly in touch with their counterparts across school districts.
In addition to that, the Ministry of Education staff are routinely in touch with districts. Districts are already engaged in planning for September. I know the member knows that this starts very early in the year, the planning for September. School districts have been already engaged in the course selection and providing feedback on what kinds of plans they think will need to be in place for September. They’re feeding that up through the provincial committee.
We heard this morning that there will be a restart plan for British Columbia announced on Tuesday. I’d expect that further details about schools will be released. We’ll be ready to provide more information about that in the following weeks.
Of course, we’ll be monitoring very closely, over the summer, how the pandemic is evolving and how the restart plans, generally, are proceeding, to help inform what we need to do in September. Again, our provincial steering committee, I anticipate, will continue to meet throughout the summer to ensure that we’re ready for September.
J. Tegart: Just further to that, as school districts plan, I think it’s important to give them parameters around what to plan. Are we looking at the same type of model as we saw in this last year, where there were cohorts and different kinds of opportunities for students, such as distance learning, hybrid systems, etc., or are they being given direction to plan like we’re back to normal?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I think it’s important to point to the experience that we’ve had over the course of this year with the pandemic. The success of our safety plans, the success of our approach and our process in education has created a very solid foundation as we plan for September, again, very much rooted in a collaborative process across the whole system.
Particular aspects, such as the cohorts, were determined to be necessary as a public health and safety measure by the provincial health authority. Again, we will rely on direction from our provincial health officials on a decision around those specifics, but our objective, as always, will be to ensure that our schools are safe. We will do what we need to do to ensure that staff and students are safe learning in school, based on the context that we’re working with in September. That will be based on the advice of our provincial health officers.
I do have great confidence in our school districts. They have proven themselves to be very resilient and very nimble at planning. I expect that will continue.
J. Tegart: In the previous answer, the minister also indicated that the recovery plan will be coming out next week and we may see some information in that. Could she share with us what the process was for input from the education sector to the recovery plan? And also timelines that may help school districts as we look at a process that…. Most people would like to know by the end of June what September might look like — even based on knowing some uncertainty is out there.
But we look at staff that are exhausted, that have done more than yeoman’s work over the last year. I talk to stakeholder groups on a fairly regular basis, and they are tired. So in the recovery process and the report coming out, will there be some sorts of guidelines and process to ensure that schools can do their planning — and also that we give our people in the system some time to recover?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I think it’s fair to say that education, our K-to-12 sector, has played a critical role in government’s response to the pandemic. All of the efforts in regard to responding to the pandemic have been cross-government. We work with all of our partners on a regular basis — our school trustees, our secretary-treasurers, our superintendents — around all of the planning processes. We want to ensure that in this process, as we rebuild for September, all of our stakeholders have a solid part in that.
We are really very clear about the incredible contribution and the incredible work that everyone in the K-to-12 system has contributed in keeping schools open, keeping them safe, keeping students connected to school throughout this really unprecedented year. We know that everybody across our K-to-12 system needs a very well-deserved break in summer.
Certainly, we are committed to having clarity for the sector with respect to details about September. Those details will come in the coming weeks, before the end of the school year.
J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister for that. I’m sure it will alleviate a lot of concerns and anxiety in the system to know that that information will be out there, and not just for staff but for parents and for students, because there have been considerable challenges this year in regards to some of the changes in schools.
Now I’d like to talk a little bit about where we’re at with school district budgets. I see that Prince Rupert school district 52 anticipates a $3 million deficit, which is 10 percent of their annual budget, which is significant. We’re all very well aware that a large percentage of any school district budget is staffing. So they’re looking at cuts, significant cuts, in their school district. They’re looking at as many as 40 jobs, which is incredible when you consider the size of their school district.
Greater Victoria is predicting a $7 million deficit. I’m sure the minister has had hundreds of letters, as have I, in regards to some of the areas that the school board is looking at cutting — in particular, the elementary and middle school music programs. They’re also looking at cuts in reading recovery programs and educational assistants, who are key people in a school.
Surrey is predicting a $40 million deficit. How you make that up and still provide the kind of service, as we go into an uncertain year, is going to be very, very challenging. Richmond is at a $7.2 million deficit. Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows is predicting challenges for the next year also. Coquitlam is also suggesting that they will have to use reserves in order to balance their budget.
So as much as we talk about the budget for next year and the increases, we hear from parents that these school districts that are specifically challenged with deficits at the end of this year are going to be looking at cutting programs that are important to students and important to communities.
Is there any consideration, looking at the challenges of last year, for assistance to school districts who find themselves in financial difficulty?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I just want to state again that we know that school districts had…. We made a considerable investment, $288 million, to school districts to assist with the health and safety plans in the current fiscal year, the ’20-21 fiscal year.
I would say that we have not had any requests to approve any deficit budgets for the ’20-21 year. We know that the school districts, in fact, have some accumulated surpluses and contingencies and reserves to help them manage into the next year. The districts are having discussions about how to manage that as they go through their budgeting process, which is underway right now.
For some districts, the budgeting process has been concluded. For example, Surrey just passed a balanced budget and submitted that budget to the ministry.
With respect to Victoria, we know that they’ve requested assistance from the ministry to identify some expertise in helping them move through their process. That’s underway, and I’m looking forward to the recommendations of the adviser that they have engaged.
Of course, we’ll be monitoring. We work very closely with the school districts. We’ll be monitoring their budgeting process, the outcome of this year and their preparations for next year and looking at what’s necessary, by way of health and safety guidelines, for next year.
J. Tegart: Thank you to the minister for that answer.
School districts have indicated that there are many factors that are affecting their budgets, particularly ones who find themselves in financial difficulty at the end of the year. Things like international students during COVID and the loss of revenue for international student enrolments. Things like rent on buildings where communities were no longer using or gathering. It significantly affected some budgets. Things like transportation costs being up because of COVID rules — who could be on a bus and how close they could be to each other.
I would ask the minister if the ministry has done an analysis of school districts who are quite public about being financially challenged. What are the common indicators or the common things that are affecting school districts’ year-end being in a deficit?
Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for your questions this morning.
I would just note again that school districts are required to report to the ministry if they anticipate ending or if they’re planning to end or think that they’ll end their year in a deficit. We have had no reports, no indications, that that is the case from any school district.
We’re certainly aware that the pandemic has had an impact on other revenue streams outside of funding that school districts receive from the ministry, such as international students, room rental, building rental revenue and such.
As expected, given where school districts are at in this particular phase of the pandemic, having to…. They’re engaging in their budget process now. We’re still in it, although we can certainly see light on the horizon.
Our vaccine rollout is going very well. Our pandemic response has been very robust, and we’re anticipating a much brighter situation in September. For districts that may be budgeting conservatively now, in a prudent sense, we can anticipate that the situation will look different in September and will look brighter in September.
Certainly, with the vaccine rollout and the opening of borders, the prospect of those changes will have an impact, and we’re anticipating a rebound of international students. Hopefully, of course, we’ll be able to open up soon, and they’ll be able to return to their previous activities, with respect to international students and room rentals.
Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Education and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES
AND LOW CARBON INNOVATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); D. Coulter in the chair.
The committee met at 11:08 a.m.
On Vote 23: ministry operations, $100,597,000 (continued).
The Chair: Minister, I believe we ended off last evening with the member for Kootenay East asking a question that you were going to answer today.
Hon. B. Ralston: That’s correct, Mr. Chair. The question was about the customer crisis fund administered by B.C. Hydro. We had established, due to a ruling by the B.C. Utilities Commission, that that program was required to come to an end at the end of this month.
Just to answer the question about the customer crisis fund, the government is considering what options it might have. We fully understand the importance of the program and of the deadline that’s imminent.
T. Shypitka: The BCUC and B.C. Hydro both alluded to that fund, as not sustainable, the program, although the recipients of the fund were overwhelmingly supportive of it — that got the funding. On the other hand, those that weren’t participants in directly benefiting from the fund were opposed to it. A lot of people felt that the fund was an arbitrary tax that was not put out to anyone, nor any consultation.
With the end of it coming up, I believe, at the end of this month — May 31, I think — the minister has said that he is exploring options. I’m just wondering if the option of just cancelling it in its entirety is something we can look forward to, I guess, in June.
Hon. B. Ralston: This may be just a slight correction. I don’t think it’s that the fund is not sustainable. It is sustainable, given the dollar value. It is not supported by a ruling from the BCUC, so therefore, they’ve ruled that, in its present form, it can’t continue.
The government is considering its options. We recognize the need. I don’t know whether the…. From the sound of it, the member opposite is opposed to the fund, but we recognize the need and will consider what options we have prior to the expiry of the deadline of the fund.
T. Shypitka: I’m just trying to understand it a little bit. I’m not really well versed in this fund and how it can move forward if the BCUC and B.C. Hydro both say it’s not supportive — of the fund. I would like to know what the criteria was to lead the BCUC and B.C. Hydro to declare that it’s non-supportive, other than it’s non-sustainable. The benefits didn’t outweigh the costs. The costs were much higher than what the benefits provided, from what I saw.
I guess the question is: what determination did BCUC and B.C. Hydro make to declare it non-supportive?
Hon. B. Ralston: The B.C. Utilities Commission is a quasi-judicial tribunal that rules on the applicable law that relates to, particularly in this case, the consumer crisis fund. On May 17, 2021, they issued an order stating that because the program could not be justified on an economic or cost-of-service basis, there was insufficient evidence to justify the continuation of the CCF pilot program.
BCUC also determined it could not end the CCF rate rider without an application by B.C. Hydro and directed B.C. Hydro to file an application to terminate the CCF rate rider within ten days. That’s the note that appears on hydro bills.
T. Shypitka: The rate rider originally, when the fund first came in, was 25 cents, I believe, and then reduced to 13 cents a year later. Now the BCUC is saying to eliminate that rate rider all entirely, which would essentially extinguish the fund. I’m not sure what options the government would have after that to keep its continuance of this fund.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding this entirely. Am I to believe that government can keep the rate rider in place if the fund is eliminated?
The Chair: I’m calling a brief recess while we work on some audio issues for the folks on Zoom.
The committee recessed from 11:15 a.m. to 11:19 a.m.
[D. Coulter in the chair.]
Hon. B. Ralston: As we established, B.C. Hydro will stop taking new applications for the consumer crisis fund after May 31, 2021.
In order for that program to continue, government support would be required either through direction — and that is the direction given to the B.C. Utilities Commission, which is within the powers of the government to do — or a change in legislation or government funding. So those are the three options.
T. Shypitka: Thanks to the minister. I guess, as of May 31, ratepayers can be expected not to be paying that rate rider, as it’ll be eliminated — other than if government wishes to pursue legislative changes to reintroduce something similar. Is that what I’m understanding?
Hon. B. Ralston: As I said, there are three options for government action: one is a direction — by regulation, a direction can be given to the BCUC; two, a change in legislation; or three, government funding. So there are those three options. Those are being actively considered by the government.
T. Shypitka: Just on option 1, then. I’m not sure how these things work. BCUC being an independent oversight provider or rate controller — is it government’s ability to suggest to the BCUC to bring a program like this back in?
Hon. B. Ralston: On matters that the government, in its judgment, considers to be significant or important policy matters, the government has the power to direct the BCUC to do something. That’s the power that would be used in option 1. I’ve mentioned the other two.
T. Shypitka: Thanks for the answers. It makes it actually a little clearer for me now.
I just want to jump into independent power producers for a second, if we can. The independent power producers are not mentioned at all in the minister’s mandate letter or in the service plan.
I just would like to ask the minister: what is the foreseeable future for independent power producers’ contracts, energy purchasing agreements, the standing offer program — any of these types of programs — and participation with, whether it be First Nations communities or non–First Nations communities or anyone, for that matter, that wants to produce power in B.C.?
I think at one time…. I’m not sure. Maybe the minister can clarify on the statistics, but I believe at one time, of all of B.C. Hydro’s power, about 25 percent of it comes from independent power producers at a cost of about 28 percent, so fairly equitable. That may have changed since the last statistic that I read.
It seems like a really good program for all British Columbians to become independent and to be self-sufficient, actually, in British Columbia for our power-generating needs.
I guess the question to the minister is where we sit with IPPs, standing offer programs and things like that.
Hon. B. Ralston: In recent years, B.C. Hydro has taken steps to reduce its costs and keep rates low. That has included indefinitely suspending the standing offer program that the member mentioned and the micro-standing offer program.
When it comes to contracts with IPPs, B.C. Hydro is focused on keeping rates low for customers and has made no decisions at this time. B.C. Hydro has about 130 electricity purchase agreements with about 130 independent power producers. These producers generate about 25 percent of B.C. Hydro’s electricity. About 40 of these EPAs will expire over the next ten years, and another 30 will expire in the following ten years. Some of the contracts are very long. I think some of them are up to 60 years long.
Part of the integrated resource plan will consider how best to address these contract expirations. That plan will be filed with the B.C. Utilities Commission by December 31, 2021.
T. Shypitka: A little concerning that there’s no priority given for continuing the standing offer program. The minister summarized about 130 EPAs that are out there currently, right now, with about 70 of them expiring rather soon, I guess. I’m not too sure how long some of those contracts are. As the minister said, some of them are quite long. The reason why some of these are long is that power producers need that security and that sustainability to make sure that their operations continue. There’s a lot of capital that’s invested in these power-producing plants.
I’ll make an example of one that’s in my riding that the minister probably knows about well. It’s the Skookumchuck Pulp Mill. Millions and millions of dollars to implement…. I believe they had a 20-year EPA. That just came due recently and was reduced. The contract was reduced and, actually, the scope of practice on when they can actually plug back into the grid was reduced. I believe there are three or four months of the year that that power producer can’t supply back to the grid. That’s during the freshet of the year, when hydro rates are probably their cheapest.
I guess it’s not good for B.C. Hydro to purchase that hydro back at a more expensive rate than what they can produce it at. I can understand that. Unfortunately, if these power producers aren’t sustainable, if they don’t have the funding or the energy purchasing agreements that match the infrastructure that they need to maintain….
I believe the shutdown for that plant just happened last month. I believe it had cost about $14 million or $12 million, something like that, just for the upkeep. It involves about 200 contractors to work on it. It creates a lot of jobs. More importantly, what it does is, because it’s a biofuel or a cogeneration plant, it takes scrap fibre and wood fibre from the surrounding areas to create that energy and put it back into the grid. They use it themselves to do their own operations of pulp and paper there.
This biofuel that is out around our forests and everything needs to be taken care of. It really is a win-win, not only for the environment but also for the sustainability of industry and jobs.
With the elimination of the standing offer program, it also doesn’t promote any autonomy within communities. I’ll bring up another example in my riding of Kootenay East. We have the Ktunaxa First Nation, a great group of folks. A lot of good friends of mine are out there. They would love to have a solar project in place. They were ready to go with a plan, and they made application for the standing offer program to participate in producing their own power independently. Unfortunately, that was taken away and eliminated.
The independent power producing portion of energy production in B.C. is critical, like I said, to bring autonomy to some of these communities, whether they’re Indigenous or non-Indigenous. I mean, there are other examples in the north Island, where a lot of these communities run off of diesel. They would love to have run-of-river or geothermal or any other type of alternative energy. The standing offer program provided that room to participate.
The elimination of this program is critical, I believe, for B.C. being self-sufficient with their energy producing targets. Maybe the minister can explain why this isn’t a priority for government and if there’s a better way.
Hon. B. Ralston: Perhaps we can being with B.C. Hydro’s current assessment of its situation and the availability of power to it.
The projections are that B.C. Hydro has a surplus of power, at least until 2030. So that is a consideration in deciding whether or not to sign a new energy purchase agreement. That was the reason for the suspension of the standing offer program.
A little bit of background. As of April 1, 2021, B.C. Hydro had a 129 electricity purchase agreements with IPPs, representing about $46 billion in future energy purchase commitments.
Prices for the energy from existing IPP agreements are significantly higher than the cost of generation from B.C. Hydro’s heritage assets, like W.A.C. Bennett dam, as well as projected domestic and export market forecasts.
As noted in phase 1 of the comprehensive review of B.C. Hydro, which was completed a year ago, the average cost of heritage generation is estimated to be about $33 a megawatt hour. In comparison, the cost of IPP energy is about $100 per megawatt hour.
As part of phase 1 of the comprehensive review, the government commissioned a report on B.C. Hydro’s power purchases from IPPs, which found that B.C. Hydro purchased too much power from IPPs, at too high a cost, at the direction of the previous government. The report found that contracts signed with IPPs will cost B.C. Hydro customers over $16.2 billion over 20 years, or $808 million annually. This is around $200 a year, or $4,000 over 20 years, for the average residential customer.
B.C. Hydro does not have any active programs for the procurement of new energy resources from IPPs. Other than EPA renewals, the only expected new agreements are for a small number of new First Nations energy projects. B.C. Hydro’s forecast increases to its cost of energy are primarily driven by increasing IPP energy costs under existing agreements, the terms of which are fixed. B.C. Hydro will look at its future need for clean energy, including the role of EPAs, in the integrated resource plan which it will file with the B.C. Utilities Commission this year, at the end of the year.
T. Shypitka: I heard there a cost of $33 per megawatt hour is what the production is right now with B.C. Hydro, as I believe I heard, as compared to $100 a megawatt hour for independent power producers. Just for curiosity, with the new price tag on the Site C dam, what would the cost per megawatt hour be for producing electricity from Site C, with the new $16 billion price tag?
Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you for the question. At this point, notwithstanding that the final cost of Site C is not clear, the number per megawatt hours is projected to be much lower than $100 per megawatt hour for the power generated by the IPPs.
T. Shypitka: Much lower. I’m not sure. Is it over the $33? Is it anywhere between $33 and $100? Is it over $50? It doesn’t have to be bang on, but a rough approximation just for my own information would be appreciated. There are a lot of things here. I mean, nothing is very static when it comes to power production anywhere — or power consumption, for that matter. Demands increase; they decrease. Industries come; they go.
That’s why it’s very important to have an integrated resource plan, which I’m not sure has been produced yet by B.C. Hydro to the BCUC, which is a very critical piece in establishing our rates for the future.
Maybe that would be a question now for the minister. Has an integrated resource plan been filed? I think it’s been since 2010 — since we’ve seen our last IRP. And it’s due. I believe it was due the end of February, an IRP — if that IRP has been tabled yet, because that determines what our rates will be for the future.
The Chair: Given the hour, Members, I think we will adjourn for lunch. We’ll get an answer from the minister after lunch.
Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the Committee of Supply, Section C, report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.