PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CITIZENS’ SERVICES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); K. Greene in the chair.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $656,645,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

I now recognize the member for Abbotsford South.

B. Banman: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to see you there.

Before the break, we were talking about some of the issues that some of the suppliers have with regards to infrastructure. The minister did mention that there was one ministry that the minister was working with on this, but in addition to the Ministry of Energy and Mines, what other specific ministries is the minister working with to help get connectivity and broadband throughout the province?

Hon. L. Beare: Within government, the three main ministries that we connect with are Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation as well as FLNRORD, soon to be Forests, and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. But it is, as I said in my previous answer, a whole cross-government approach. We’ve made this very clear that it’s a priority, so it’s going to take all of government pulling together to ensure that we’re connected by 2027.

B. Banman: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Is the minister taking into consideration changing B.C.’s approval process to line up with the federal government’s? And underneath that, one of the issues that I heard, from more than one of the suppliers, is that there are specific windows of opportunity for building and doing this. It’s very difficult to do this in 40 below in the middle of winter. It’s out-and-out dangerous, in fact. So there are windows.

[1:10 p.m.]

Part of the frustration I heard from the suppliers is that there’s a disconnect between federal and provincial approval processes and also that building window as well. Is the minister coordinating those items with the service providers?

Hon. L. Beare: To the member, our MOU with the federal government ensures that we do have that increased data sharing so that we’re able to continue to work with the federal government, coordinate projects and share the information we have from the province on projects that are in their tranche, waiting for their approval. We also, on the provincial permitting side, have a steering committee, across ministries, to help streamline these processes.

As I said, this is going to be a big effort for all of government, which we’re all going to be needing to pull together for 2027. We’re all going to have to do that work, and I’m looking forward to that. This was a fantastic announcement we made just a couple of weeks ago, and we’re all going to have to do that work together, moving forward.

B. Banman: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

I want to go back to one item that I sort of briefly touched on earlier. It’s kind of related to this. Part of that would be to go back in the history of British Columbia. When the original telecommunications were put in, there were extraordinary powers given, because it was of monumental importance to make sure that we had telephones throughout the province, and also with regard to B.C. Hydro and the electrical poles that go through.

The frustration that I’ve heard, again, from more than one service provider, is that the length of time that it takes for either of these two entities to talk to…. Let’s face it. They’re being asked to have the competition put communications on their property, basically.

Is there any regulation put in, or any legislation that’ll be done, to ensure, as we move forward…? As we’ve mentioned, this is of grave importance for those who do not have connectivity. Has there been any regulation and/or legislation proposed to force the two major players, which have the poles, to speed up this process? I hear things like, “They wait and they wait, wait till the midnight hour, and then they say: ‘Oh, I’m sorry. We’re reserving that for future expansion of our own.’”

[1:15 p.m.]

Have we considered putting stuff in to make sure that when other players come, they’re not reduced in timelines through lack of cooperation, shall we say, with the other two majors — well, for those players or for anyone who actually owns the telephone pole structures or underlying structures that exist?

Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member for raising these issues in the House. Obviously, we’re very well aware of them. We meet regularly with the service providers, and this is something we’ve been working on alongside of them. We’re also, as well as the service providers, meeting with the Ministry of Energy, Mines to make sure that they’re not only well aware but working on the situation as well, which has been what’s been happening.

The member might not be yet aware, because this was good news this year, that a joint table was struck with Hydro, Telus and the other major telecom providers to work through these issues. So that’s a fantastic response from both the ministry and from Hydro to take proactive action. Telus is regulated by the CRTC for their space on the poles while Hydro is regulated through our acts for their pieces. But as I mentioned, we did strike that joint table, which is ensuring that we’re all working together, which is great news.

B. Banman: I guess I’ve got one more question on that. Over which of the entities…? There are two that you mentioned — the major players. What legal authority can the province put on to ensure that those issues are dealt with in a timely manner? What is the province’s responsibility, and do we have the ability to do that? Do we actually have the ability to pass authority over both entities that are the major players, or is that now separated where it has to be that one is provincial and one is federal?

Do we really have the ability to ensure, through legislation, that there are not road blocks or impediments put in the way to get this done? This is, as we mentioned, in the overall public good. What powers do we specifically have that we can implement if, by chance, we find out, with the best of the communications around the table, that things aren’t getting any better?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: My first choice is to continue working at this joint table. I think we should leave it at that here, because we want to give that table the opportunity for success. This is great news. This table has not been struck before. This is the first time, because everyone is so excited about these announcements and ensuring that we can get the entire province connected by 2027.

Telus is a private company regulated through the CRTC, so I don’t have jurisdiction over that. But the ability to work in partnership alongside these organizations and the telcos together to all pull together in the same direction…. That’s the place where I want to be right now.

B. Banman: I do appreciate the minister’s response or answer to that question. For the most part, I agree. It’s always better when people come willingly to a table and agree to do stuff. I guess what I want to know is the insurance. Again, I’ll go back. The area we’re talking about is the size of France, and we now are creating haves and have-nots.

Does the minister have the authority through regulation to actually, if need be, regulate the players into compliance so that they have to abide by the will of the province?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: So in very short, yes, that ability exists. That ability would exist through the Ministry of Energy and Mines, but as I’ve said, my step here is to continue working at the joint table, and I think that’s the appropriate step to take right now.

B. Banman: I appreciate the minister’s answer to that question. I am sure that if need be…. Again, it’s always better if people come and are willing participants understand the overall picture of a whole and the overall good that it does to the province and to the country.

I would say that when it comes to the timeline that was done, as we know. Five years — 2027 is going to be here faster than any of us wish to admit. I am sure that if progress is not made, that question will probably be asked again. We would be asking the minister to do exactly that — to, through regulation, force compliance. So I do appreciate that.

I’m going to move on. To the minister: can you please answer for me if the number of FOI requests has gone down since the fee came into effect? A simple yes or no would be great.

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: This change was implemented four or five months ago, so it’s very early to tell what the actual trend is going to be, because we’re seeing some months going down, some months going up, in fact, overall. So we’ll have to wait for the end of the year to see that full trend. But, for example, in December 2020, there were 379 requests. In December 2021, there were 374, so that’s a decrease of five. But in January 2020, there were 436. In January 2021, it went up to 484, so an increase of 48.

We’re seeing a mixed bag, and we’re going to have to wait to see the mixed bag. I know the member and I are going to have a really deep discussion about this at next year’s estimates, once that full year has gone by and we can actually see those trend numbers.

B. Banman: I do appreciate the minister’s answer. I believe that the minister’s absolutely right that next year we’ll probably have a more in-depth…. Once we have better data….

In the minister’s mandate letter, and I’m going to quote part of it, it states: “Improve access to information rules to provide greater public accountability.”

I guess the question that begs being answered is: how does adding a fee to non-personal information improve access and provide greater public accountability?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: That mandate commitment is met through a number of ways. The question was asked about one very specific focus. But the completion of that mandate direction is achieved through a number of ways. How we’ve achieved that is by maintaining a high on-time compliance rate despite high volumes of requests increasing more than 40 percent over a two-year period, which reached an all-time high of over 13,000 requests in 2019-2020.

We modernized our FOI system to improve how the province receives and manages FOI requests. We began a multi-year project to improve and modernize freedom-of-information services. That’s focusing on timeliness, reducing processing times, making access to information services easier for citizens. Improvements, to date, are esti­mated to save about 400 hours annually.

We’ve made sure that more government information is available to the public by default without the need of a freedom-of-information request. So we’ve enhanced access to information through proactive releases by increasing it. Six more types of government records are now available to people. That’s a 75 percent increase. There were eight available before.

We’ve added six more to people to access this information without a freedom-of-information request. Now that results — and I think this is a great number for the member and everyone to know — in over 5,000 information releases per year that no longer require an FOI request.

We made amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in November ’21 that included a suite of measures to improve government transparency and accountability, including ministerial power to add subsidiary entities as new public bodies and implementing mandatory privacy breach reporting to require notification of the affected person and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

We added a requirement for public body privacy management programs, added a new offence for wilfully evading FOI, increased public bodies’ ability to disclose Indigenous information with Indigenous-governing entities and added a requirement for public bodies to seek consent from Indigenous-governing entities to disclose information that is culturally sensitive through FOI.

As you can see, there’s a culmination of work that results in that commitment being met.

B. Banman: I do appreciate the answer from the minister.

As we know, there is now a committee with regards to FOI that’s been formed. In my personal opinion, it’s kind of like putting the cart in front of the horse, but it is where we are. That committee is now going through…. It’s going to come up with recommendations to help improve transparency, among other considerations that that committee will do.

Does the minister plan on implementing the recommendations, even if one of those recommendations ends up being to scrap the fee?

Hon. L. Beare: I’m not going to prejudge any committee determinations. I’m looking forward to seeing the report. Of course, we will give them thoughtful consideration, as we would any committee report that we receive here in government.

B. Banman: I guess part of me is a bit concerned with that answer. I guess why I’m concerned is that the committee will come up with recommendations. The committee, I’m sure, has thoughtful deliberations.

[1:40 p.m.]

With regard to those, are there any recommendations that the minister can think of? In particular, I want to stick with scrapping the fee as a prime example. If that was to be a recommendation, would the minister discount that particular one? Let’s just start with that one. Would she consider ignoring the recommendation of the committee on that particular issue?

Hon. L. Beare: The member is asking hypothetical questions. That is absolutely the member’s right, of course, but it’s hard to comment on a hypothetical.

I am looking forward to seeing the committee’s report. I know they will put thoughtful deliberation in it. As always, when receiving committee reports, we will take that committee report and give it careful consideration.

B. Banman: I do thank the minister for the answer. I’m pretty sure I could keep asking it in numerous different ways, but I’m not going to actually get an answer to that particular question. I can respect that.

What I will ask is: in the minister’s opinion, has adding a fee increased the response rate for FOI requests? Has it made it faster?

Hon. L. Beare: It is a similar answer to earlier. The member and I are having this thoughtful conversation here.

It is early days in this process. The change was just four months ago there, so it is still too early to establish that trend. I know this is going to be a very big conversation next year, when we’ve been able to establish that trend and have really dug deep into what the results of that are.

That’s just one aspect of it. As we also talked about before with the member, our modernization work is just beginning. There are a number of other pieces to ensuring that we have timely responses going out. That modernization work that we’re doing is going to be critical to that as well. We need to focus on that, as well, in this conversation, and I know it’s going to be a great debate.

Really, the member and I both know that the fastest way to get information is through proactive releases and not even having to ask for it. So we’ve already increased six categories and types of proactive releases. That’s something I’m looking to continue increasing. That’s how I believe the system should work — being able to find these categories of information, which we can just proactively release to the public so that it doesn’t even have to be asked for.

[1:45 p.m.]

B. Banman: To the minister: that’s something that you and I wholeheartedly agree on, actually. If we were to go ask the standard public what an FOI is, they’d probably look at us with a blank stare. It’s very few individuals that understand what an FOI, I think, really is. What is an FOI request, and how would one go about doing it?

That does beg the question, though: is the ministry tracking what was once asked as an FOI versus what’s now being proactively disclosed? Are they tracking…? Is there an intent to track — and if there isn’t, I’d highly suggest there is — the types of FOIs that were requested in the past that now…? “Hey, you know what? You don’t even have to ask for this because it’s proactively disclosed.” Are we monitoring that?

Hon. L. Beare: I think I’m understanding the member’s question, and I think this is the best answer for it.

We are always actively tracking the types of requests that are made and looking for those trends, which is how we come up with those proactive release categories. For example, the latest one was a summary of briefing notes. That’s something that was continually being asked for. We had the ability to take a look at that, see that pattern and say: “Well, this is something we can proactively release and should just be available to the public.”

Yes. I thank the member for the suggestion. That’s work the ministry does. It’s great work, which is how we were able to increase an additional six categories.

B. Banman: Again, I appreciate the minister’s answer to the question.

I’ll make a statement here. I would hope that what happens in the future is…. You know, part of the reason that the minister used to implement a $10 FOI fee was to help reduce the number of requests. Staff was literally being drowned in FOI requests.

I guess the take-home for me and for the public would be that it’s their information that they own. If we proactively release it, that is probably the easiest way for the public to get the information that they really want. I can see a future and a time where if the committee recommends scrapping the fee, which was highly contentious….

I’m going to go into an example in a minute. There are often unforeseen…

Interjection.

B. Banman: …consequences — thank you — whenever we implement something. We always try and solve one problem, and we end up creating three more half the time, it seems to me. I look forward to a time where we say: “You know what? A fee is not required anymore because we’ve reduced the volume of requests.”

One of the unforeseen consequences…. I have a great fondness in my heart for students. I have a copy of a response from a superintendent here to The Griffins’ Nest student newspaper club. I’ll summarize it. Basically, they have found that the $10 FOI — it’s a student newspaper; they don’t have much of a budget — has actually been a roadblock for them. It’s one of those unforeseen consequences. Maybe we need to tweak it.

Basically, at the end of the line, the superintendent said: “I’m going to come by and do school-by-school visits, but yes, unfortunately, there is no way around this $10 FOI.”

[1:50 p.m.]

I would hope that the minister took into account that this was a hardship for First Nations, as an example. There are going to be other groups that it’s going to be a hard group for.

Would the minister consider including student newspapers in the exemption of the $10 FOI fee?

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member for highlighting this particular case in the House. It was one that I am aware of, and I think it’s important.

As with any new piece of legislation, it’s important to try and strike that balance within it. Of course, as with any new piece of legislation, it’s also important to monitor the implementation and what that looks like, and to hear feedback.

I thank the member for raising it in this House. They’re pieces that we are monitoring.

B. Banman: In all due respect to the minister, that didn’t really answer my question. The question was….

[1:55 p.m.]

I appreciate that, and I know that the minister has a soft spot for students. We all do. This is a time where we want to encourage those minds to be critical thinkers. We want to encourage those minds to question and demand better. Quite frankly, when I was the mayor, some of the best questions I ever got were from elementary students — and some of the funniest as well.

With all due respect to the minister, is this something that the minister is considering waiving the FOI fee on — in particular, student newspapers?

Hon. L. Beare: It is early days in this piece of legislation, and I’ve committed to the member in the House here to monitoring all trends with the legislation.

B. Banman: I have to say that while I understand the comment, I find it disheartening. I’m sure there are many budding journalists, as well, that find that answer disheartening, because they just don’t have the means. I guess it begs the question: why is it, for instance, one group…? We know it created a financial hardship on First Nations and Indigenous groups, and I fully support the waiving of the fee for those groups, because it did provide an unnecessary burden.

I would say to the minister that this is of equal importance. One of the things we want to do is foster those young minds. Even though they may ask us questions that we find uncomfortable, that’s not the point. The point is we want to ensure that it does not create a financial hardship so that they can’t go on and do their learning and their education. But I’ll let that go.

One of the biggest bones of contention with this legislation and other legislation that has come onto the floor has been the fact that…. Many of the questions that I asked the minister last time around were…. The answer was: “Well, that will be yet to be determined in regulation. I can’t really answer that, because we haven’t got the regulations yet.”

I guess the next big question, then, is: when will the regulations for Bill 22 be announced?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I think it’s important to just take a pause here with this line of questioning, because we are in budget debate here. This is now getting into a line of questioning that’s on policy debate on a piece of legislation.

I do want to correct the record on one thing. The waiving of fees for Indigenous governing entities was about government-to-government work. That’s where that piece was put in.

As for the member’s question, we are getting into legislative policy debate. I was happy to answer the numbers about the trends on the FOI, as that is part of revenue. You know, there is now a potential revenue stream to discuss there within this budget piece, but I’m unable, in this budget debate, to do the legislative piece.

B. Banman: Madam Chair, again, I’m slightly troubled by the minister’s response. Part of the regulations would be budgetary in nature. I think that that is fully within the realm of questions to do that, because it will affect the overall budget.

Be that as it may, has the commissioner been briefed on those regulations that are being proposed, and does the minister plan on proactively disclosing any comments or criticisms that the commissioner may have?

Hon. L. Beare: The regulation regarding the fee has already passed. That’s the only regulation that had a budgetary impact. If the member would like further information about a policy within a certain bill, I’m more than happy to make myself available to brief the member outside of this budgetary process.

B. Banman: I appreciate the minister for that. I really do. Thank you.

Here’s, for me, the tie-in to some of this — and what the tie-in for many British Columbians will be and where their concerns will be. Does the minister agree that if no regulations are forthcoming, there will be no protection for personal information disclosed outside of Canada?

I think that supersedes any budgetary concern we may have. We’re now talking about some of the most private and personal information that people have. Does the minister agree that if no regulations are forthcoming, there will be no protections for personal information disclosed outside of Canada? I think British Columbians deserve an answer to that question.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The regulations regarding disclosure of information outside of Canada, and the protections there, were passed on November 26. I wanted to clarify that, just so that impression was not left.

Again, any of this conversation is bill debate rather than budget debate. I am happy to provide the member a copy of what was passed on November 26.

B. Banman: I do thank the minister for the answer.

The tie-in to the budget is that there may or may not be a cost savings to store information outside of British Columbia. Is any British Columbian’s personal information being stored outside of B.C.? I hate to say it, but I will anyway. It could be in Russia, for instance, if they’re going to offer us a bargain. I’m sure that’s not one of them, but you can understand British Columbians’ hesitation.

The budgetary connection would be if there’s a cost saving to somewhere else. That was one of the reasons why that was brought in. Is there now any of British Columbians’ personal information being stored outside of the province or outside of Canada?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member for the question. We took a lot of time here, because we were trying to frame the member’s question into a budget debate, which is what we’re doing here. We really struggled to do that, because these aren’t budget questions. These are policy questions based on a piece of legislation.

I was able to do a budget piece for the member. What I can say, in this budget debate that we’re having here, is the way the funding model works in Citizens’ Services is that we are paid for ministries to store data in our data centre — Kamloops, for example, as the member had mentioned — and we do that through our hosting contract. There are no savings — the member alluded to something like that — within this ministry, when ministries move to cloud-based services, and we have no line in our budget books to further this line of questioning in this House right now.

B. Banman: There is a cost associated with storing this information. To say otherwise actually doesn’t wash with me — or many other British Columbians, for that matter. We had talked earlier about how there was subjective and objective. I would say that some of this is highly subjective. We are now talking about some of the most intimate, personal information that people have. We’re talking about university records, ICBC records, health care records.

[2:15 p.m.]

I’m not so sure that British Columbians or Canadians are going to be comfortable knowing that without the regulations in place — and the minister has said they’re not — they could be stored outside of British Columbia without their knowledge. I guess what would make British Columbians feel better is…. Does the minister agree that there are risks to storing people’s personal data, albeit a soft…?

The only reason I can think of and British Columbians could think of is that this would be a cost-saving measure. Does the minister agree that storing peoples’ sensitive personal data outside of the province or Canada could potentially make their information subject to viewing by that country’s legislation?

I’ll go back to when Homeland Security, for instance, had the right to go through, file through, anybody’s personal data that was being stored within the United States. Could this constitute a breach of trust and the privacy of British Columbians that believe that the government of B.C. protects their data if it’s all to do with saving money?

Hon. L. Beare: The regulations were passed along with the protections on November 26. I want to make sure that that’s clarified in the record. I’m happy to make my staff available to the member to walk through that and explain that to the member.

These are policy questions on a piece of regulation. This is a budget debate.

B. Banman: The last question that I’ll have before I pass it off to the official Third Party. Does a verbal sign-off capture the intent of duty to document?

Hon. L. Beare: The member is asking another policy piece on the Information Management Act. I’m happy to walk the member through that act at a different date.

Could we take a brief recess?

The Chair: We’ll have a brief recess and come right back to it.

The committee recessed from 2:19 p.m. to 2:25 p.m.

[K. Greene in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re currently considering the budget estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to ask the Minister of Citizens’ Services a few questions. As I’ve done with the other ministers that I’ve engaged in estimates, I’ll just start with this question.

A few weeks back now I asked the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation in question period about how the actions outlined in the 89-point action plan for the Declaration Act will be funded. The minister mentioned that the funding will come out of the core budget of each ministry, which I think is a positive step. Reconciliation absolutely needs to be a core function. Indeed, in the mandate letters, it is a core function of each minister.

Just wondering if the minister may provide a response in illustrating how this minister is making sure that reconciliation remains a priority within the ministry.

[P. Alexis in the chair.]

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member for what I think is a really good question to every ministry — and thank the member for that to begin with. This is a great conversation to be having in this House, and thank you for having such meaningful questions when we get into this debate. I think this is fantastic.

[2:30 p.m.]

I’m going to jump straight to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act action plan, because that’s where we can point to items, as well as all the other work that’s happening in the ministry that I’m happy to walk through with the member, if the member wants, after this.

Within the action plan, Citizens’ Services is the lead ministry on three of the actions. So 3.14 is: “Advance the collection and use of disaggregated demographic data, guided by a distinctions-based approach to Indigenous data sovereignty and self-determination, including supporting the establishment of a First Nations-governed and -mandated regional data governance centre in alignment with the First Nations Data Governance Strategy.”

Citizens’ Services will be supporting the establishment of a First Nations-governed and -mandated regional data governance centre, in alignment with the First Nations Data Governance Strategy, and work collaboratively with Indigenous partners by establishing an Indigenous data advisory group.

In 3.15, the commitment is to: “Adopt an inclusive digital font that allows for Indigenous languages to be included in communication, signage, services and official records.”

Citizens’ Services will be implementing or has implemented BC Sans, which is a new typeface for government. It was developed to create an open-font-licence set of fonts for improved readability and delivery of our digital services. It also contains support for multiple languages, including Indigenous languages in B.C. We’re supporting inclusion and reconciliation by trying to remove the technical barriers, making it easier for program areas across government to include Indigenous languages in communication, signage, service and official records.

The font is available for download, and it has been deployed to all Service B.C. workstations and is the standard for provincial government websites and online public engagements. Both of those two actions are either covered within existing ministry core budgets or will require additional funds to be requested.

The 4.36: “Ensure every First Nations community in B.C. has high-speed Internet services.” The member knows — we’ve had this conversation ourselves — that connectivity is essential to addressing the fundamental rights of Indigenous nations across all of British Columbia.

We need to make sure that that quality, high-speed, reliable Internet service is there, because we’ve heard, loud and clear, that it’s required for meaningful reconciliation. It really is an enabler of so many of the other action pieces within the action plan. It really starts there. That’s the foundation, on so many of those actions.

We did recently announce the $289 million in this budget to cover that, as well as signing the MOU with the federal government with the provincial commitment of $415 million — the $289 million plus building on existing funds — and the federal government commitment of $415 million, as well, to complete that action by 2027 in connecting all Indigenous communities.

A. Olsen: I apologize if this might be covering ground that the minister just talked about. Last year I asked about the font issue and the inability of an Indigenous woman to name her business after a traditional name.

The issue has recently come up with birth certificates. Is there a timeline that we can look to where Indigenous people are going to be able to use their traditional names without having to confront being told that those names are not allowed to be used?

[2:35 p.m. - 2:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I want to take a minute with the member here.

In the last estimates, the member and I had a really good, deep conversation about how this entire conversation and this question the member is asking are based in the systemic racism that exists within these institutions. We talked about how complicated this change was. If it was just us, that would be one thing. Our systems need to talk with federal systems, and that needs to talk with municipal systems. It’s an entire ecosystem of change that is before us.

The member and I had this conversation last year about how complicated that truly was. So in all my heartfeltness to the member, I wish I was able to say we’re a lot further along than we were in this conversation last year, but we’re not. We’re working, and I’m going to outline the work to the member. But this isn’t a situation where I’m going to be able to tell the member that we’ll have this fixed in three months, because that’s just simply not the case.

This is such a huge, complicated issue across multiple layers of jurisdictions, multiple governments, and it’s embedded in legacy systems and deep-rooted into acts and all these pieces that need to be changed. And they do, and we are, and we are working on it.

Let me talk through a bit of the pieces that I’m working on, for the member, and then we can go from there, if the member wishes. One of the core things, obviously, that’s going to need to happen is continued consultation with community and to see what is needed. I absolutely agree with the member that it is absolutely…. On my end, it’s the business name versus the personal name that’s in Vital Statistics, which is on the health side, but essentially, you know, it’s all of government, so I understand the member’s question.

It’s truly the ability to reflect either your personal name or your business name and be able to reflect your culture within your language. It’s such an important way to establish identity. It’s such an important way to move towards reconciliation. It’s such an important way to recognize the diversity across this province.

Some of the things we’re doing here within the ministry…. We have a council of CIOs, chief information officers, from each of the ministries that’s chaired by the GCIO, our government CIO in our ministry. That’s talking about all the needs and all those changes of all those systems that need to be in place.

Corporations Canada, sitting out of ISED in the federal government, is setting up a policy working group that will be able to feed into and be part of looking at that broader across-government piece. So that’s one layer now talking to another layer of government. That’s an important conversation because that wasn’t happening last year when the member and I first spoke about this.

Then, of course, above all, continuing to have those deep dialogues of what is actually needed…. So as I did last year and I am going to do again this year, I commit to the member that we are going to do everything we can. We were able to implement the font for now and find tools and ways to do that for now, as we build out all these bigger systems and start checking off, one by one, these systemic pieces that need to be changed.

I really thank the member for the question, because it’s important.

[2:45 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I’m SȾHENEP. That’s my name. Hansard has figured it out. Hansard figures it out every time I speak SENĆOŦEN in this House. The people of Hansard get it right. Incredibly, they get it right. I look at it and think: “Wow, they captured what I said.” I uttered my father’s name, TSAYWESUT, in the House, and in ten minutes, 15 minutes, Hansard is going to get that right. They got it right the first time. They didn’t even ask me how it was spelled. It strikes to the very identity of who we are.

For a year later…. I recognize, Minister, that you have to stand up and give me an answer that’s not an easy answer to give, because there are Indigenous people who are looking at this institution, and they’re seeing all the sorts of ways that we’re able to make other things happen very quickly. And the responsiveness is seemingly…. I don’t even really know how to articulate it.

I just want to say to everybody that’s working on this: get it done, please. Hansard figured it out. They adopted the font. The font is available on the website, on the FirstVoices website. It’s been sitting there forever. I can put it on this machine. I can put it on my iOS machine. I can put it anywhere. For SENĆOŦEN, the other languages — they’re all there. The bureaucratic morass that is creating a situation where Indigenous people cannot be identified by their name is inappropriate. It’s wrong, and it needs to be moving quicker than year over year. I don’t want to be retiring from this job, going: why can we not reflect our names?

I have one more question here, and then I’ll turn it over to my colleague with some concerns around Service B.C. experiences.

Switching gears here, I’d like to cleanse the palate a little bit. Mayne Island. I want to thank the minister for the very detailed response that the minister and the minister’s staff provided to the people of Mayne Island.

The challenge that I think still remains, even though it was a very detailed answer, with the Internet service on Mayne is that there has been this idea that there is adequate service there already and that that adequate service can be increased and that the service providers that are delivering the service there are going to be able to bump up the service.

I guess the question that I had in the letter that I wrote to the minister was around fair and equitable…. And what the citizens and my constituents on Mayne are saying is that the service that they have there is inadequate. Now, it might be bumped up. It might be enhanced by a fibre optic connection that’s being landed. However, they’re very concerned that they’re not going to be receiving the same level of service as the neighbouring islands are going to be receiving that don’t have an inadequate service but a service there at all.

[2:50 p.m.]

Maybe, perhaps the minister, on the record…. I recognize the letter that the minister gave to the community. I’ve shared it with the community. But I just want to give the minister an opportunity to explain what’s happening on Mayne Island, why there is a difference between the service that they’re going to be getting on Mayne and the service that they have on the neighbouring islands of Pender, Galiano, Saturna and Saltspring.

I think I got them all. Yeah, I got them all.

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member for the question. He’s a great advocate in his community for this service. It’s important. In fact, the entire community itself has great advocates, too. There are MPs, regional districts, locals all connecting together to ensure that service is there, and I think that’s absolutely wonderful.

[2:55 p.m.]

The member wanted me to just briefly walk through a bit of the technical answer so that it’s on record. I’ll do that quickly for the member.

When Connected Coast lands in North Pender, it’s going to light up the Shaw network. So there’s going to be lots of capacity within that network to go to homes. I know communities have preferences within their communities on what they would like to see on the connection or service provider. That’s going to be a conversation for the community. But it’s very important to say that if there are any remaining homes or areas or gaps — once that landing happens and that service is lit up — that exist, we have the ability to do additional builds on the island to make sure that it’s receiving the appropriate level of connectivity, because that’s absolutely important.

We do know that Shaw has reached out to CityWest to gain access to that Connected Coast site. Those are conversations happening as we’re going through this amazing Connected Coast project and ensuring that we’re getting this really transformative subsea cable onto the shores of communities like Mayne Island.

I think there’s going to be good news ahead for the member’s community, and my door is always open, Member. I’m always happy to have a conversation or respond to any letters or any of the such to make sure that as we build out our commitment of having every home connected by 2027, the member’s community is served.

A. Olsen: Just a comment. Then I will turn the floor over and leave.

Thank you to the minister. I think the first conversations that we had with Network B.C. five years ago…. A lot has happened since then. A lot of money has been invested in connecting communities, and it’s become a much higher priority.

I just wanted to acknowledge the change in the conversation that’s happened since I’ve been in this place. I think, as well, even as the minister has taken over this role, a lot has also happened. I just want to acknowledge that and that the conversations that we’re having are much different than they were in the past. There’s a lot of money that has been invested in ensuring that our communities have connections.

I really appreciate the attentiveness the minister has on the details. There are a lot of communities being connected. To be able to answer to Mayne and to be able to get that response…. These communities are very pleased with that, so I look forward to working with the minister on this. Thank you for your attentiveness to Mayne.

With that, I’ll pass it over to my colleague.

S. Furstenau: I just have a question specifically around the Service B.C. office. I just want to lay out a couple of examples of, of course, anonymous cases that we’ve had brought to us in our constituency office as kind of laying out some of what seems like themes of problems that constituents are coming to us with, with Service B.C.

We have somebody who came to Canada as an immigrant when they were one year old, lived in Ontario, came here in 1966, who went to get a new driver’s licence, a B.C. driver’s licence, after moving here. He turned in his Ontario driver’s licence and then was told that he couldn’t get the driver’s licence back because he needed a permanent residency card. This created enormous problems with him getting access to what he had before, which was coverage for medical and PharmaCare.

Another landed immigrant family from the 1980s lost their ID, couldn’t get a passport from Germany and was really stymied with trying to get help and service. He couldn’t get the ID he needed replaced.

We have challenges with people who have lost their citizenship papers. They’re elderly people. Again, they really ran into a lot of barriers, being told it might be months and months before they can get their documentation. Again, this interferes with access to medical care. It interferes with access to a pharmacy.

[3:00 p.m.]

Somebody who was unable to find their original marriage licence was denied getting a driver’s licence. Somebody who had their name misspelled on their health card but, when she produced her passport, birth certificate and other ID — all of which had the correct spelling — was denied a new health card and was told maybe she should maybe get her other ID changed, even though the misspelling was on the health card.

I talk to my constituency assistants, and it’s a pretty regular theme. People are coming, quite exasperated, expressing exasperation around hitting a barrier. “Well, this is the piece of ID that you need.” “I can’t produce it.” “There’s nothing we can do.” They’re not feeling like there’s a human-oriented, solution-oriented approach.

It’s recognizing that in the vagaries of all of our lives, documents are not always producible. Original copies are not necessarily available to us, particularly in cases where people have been robbed or have lost all of their ID or have immigrated from another province and now are facing these enormous barriers just to get basic services. Their experience has been: “Sorry, unless you produce this specific piece of ID,” or “This is nothing; we can’t help you.”

My question to the minister is: how does she think that Service B.C. can better meet expectations and be able to support the public in circumstances like this? It’s to get away from: “Here’s the lengthy checklist; there’s one thing that’s not on the checklist. We’re done here; we can’t really solve this problem at this moment.”

Is there a portion of the ministry’s funding that is oriented towards being able to make the Service B.C. offices more solution-oriented? “Okay, we’ve hit this barrier. Here are a whole bunch of ways that we are going to help get around that barrier. We’re here to serve you, to make sure that we can get you this piece of ID that you need,” and make sure that we’re oriented in that very service-minded way.

I recognize, and I’m going to acknowledge, that of course, Service B.C. is very concerned about identity theft, about the security of people’s identification and online security. I get all that. At the same time, recognizing that we should be starting from a citizen-oriented position, not from: “You must be trying to do something here that might be nefarious.” Let’s start with the presumption that people are simply trying to get their needs met when they go to an office.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: Absolutely, I agree with the member. I believe Service B.C. should be starting from a place of yes, so I thank the member for that. And we do strive to do that. Customer satisfaction is 93 percent, so obviously, there’s room for improvement there. The situations that the member outlined would be extraordinarily frustrating for citizens and individuals as they’re just trying to get back to doing what they do in their daily lives and accessing those services.

I do think this is important. The member asked about, you know, within the budget, what is there. There’s continued customer service training and training for staff in the Service B.C. offices. There’s funding for business processes and improvements. So all of these pieces combined. I think there’s the opportunity for me to take this away, and I think it was really good that the member brought this to our attention.

We all have these situations come to our offices. We all get these one-off situations where it just seems mind-boggling why a place of yes wasn’t started from and that there seems to be these hoops being run through. Admittedly, of course, ID is very complicated, and it’s tripartite. There are multiple jurisdictions on that as well.

That being said, there should still be that orientation of customer service — a how-can-I-help-you approach versus a barrier-type approach. My deputy and I were just talking that we’re going to take this away, so I assure the member that we’re going to take a look at this, and I thank you.

S. Furstenau: Thanks to the minister for that. I really appreciate the response and the recognition and the proactive act.

One other thing I might suggest in this, and this is a more personal experience…. My son went to get his BCeID, and it’s tricky. We live in Shawnigan Lake, and the Service B.C. office closes at 4:30. It’s open Monday to Friday till 4:30. Those hours are pretty tight, when school finishes at 3:40, to get us in the car. He doesn’t have his own car. He’s only 16.

He needed this ID because he was accessing his online transcripts for applications to universities. I’m very proud of my son. He’s doing such a great job. And he needed to present at a Service B.C. office in order to get his BCeID card finalized. So he had to organize his mother — I’m pretty hard to organize — and we got there just in time, 4:20, and went in. And he was told that with a passport and a copy of his identification and his mother that wasn’t sufficient ID.

[3:10 p.m.]

Then the suggestion was made, “Just come back during lunch hour or come back during the day,” and he was like: “I go to school in Shawnigan. Like, I can’t just come back.”

One other piece of this might be a consideration of the limitations for a lot of people — because it can take time at the Service B.C. counter — and to have operating hours outside of that Monday to Friday, nine to 4:30 or whatever, and consider that. Even on a rotating basis, have times that are sometimes in the evening or sometimes on the weekend, recognizing that for some people — and particularly for high school students, for example — those are pretty challenging hours to have to be limited to for accessing these offices.

I’m just wondering if that’s…. It might exist in other communities — different kinds of hours. But banker’s hours for government services are pretty restrictive for a lot of people.

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member for the input.

Obviously, there’s always room for improvement in taking a look at those pieces. There are a number of areas in digital ID and a lot of good work happening in government that I want to see moving forward, just in general — how we can cross-pollinate. Like the ability to launch your B.C. Services Card on your phone with a virtual verification. These are transformative things that this amazing team behind me has done, and we need to find ways to build on that.

Yeah, appreciate it. Thank you. We’ll take a look.

The Chair: Member for Abbotsford South, go ahead, if you’re just going to make a comment.

B. Banman: Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to see you in the chair.

Just in my closing comments, I think, overall, there’s much that the minister and myself can agree on. I would say, however, as far as I am concerned, the one huge bone of contention — other than the fact that we’re waiting now for the regulations to come — would be the cost of storing peoples’ data outside of this country, outside of this province.

I would say that if you were to poll…. And I would encourage the ministry and the minister to really reach out to British Columbians. They were clear the last time that they are not comfortable storing their personal data outside of British Columbia. They might handle Canada but they certainly do not want to see their data stored anywhere else.

The laws will not be there. If there are breaches, there is every reason in the world…. And if it comes down to a few shekels, a few pennies, British Columbians, I think, are more than happy to pay a little bit more to ensure that their most private data is kept here in British Columbia.

I’m putting to the minister, as delicately as I can, that that will set off a firestorm not just with this side of the House but with British Columbians. I’ve heard loud and clear, so I would encourage the minister to make sure that the consultation is put in place before anything of the like is done on that to save a few dollars.

I thank the minister for all of the questions and the hard work that her staff does.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member and the members of the opposition Green Party as well. During this debate in these past two days, there have been, truly, a number of really important, good questions. I love that that was done in this debate. I think it’s so important to talk about the good work that these amazing people behind me, fronted by our government here, are doing in British Columbia.

Ultimately, that’s the goal we all have in supporting the members of British Columbia, our citizens, in everything, whether it be connecting the entire province by 2027; whether it be improving services that they access every day, like Service B.C.; whether it be ensuring that their privacy and data are protected and well-maintained.

These are things people count on their government for, so I’m very lucky to be able to front a ministry that does that behind-the-scenes heavy lifting and hard work. A huge thank-you to my team for doing that.

Really, truly, thank you to the members for what I thought was such a great discourse over the past two days. I think this was a fantastic debate.

Vote 21: ministry operations, $656,645,000 — approved.

The Chair: Everybody, we’ll take a little bit of a break so that we can get ready for the next estimates session.

The committee recessed from 3:16 p.m. to 3:23 p.m.

[P. Alexis in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND LOW CARBON INNOVATION

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $109,556,000.

The Chair: We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

Hon. B. Ralston: For those who follow these things by vote number, this is Vote 23. There is also a statutory appropriation for the innovative clean energy fund special account of $2.403 million as well. But I’ll leave that to the questions to determine the order in which those are dealt with.

Let me just first say we’re obviously here to debate the estimates of the ministry. Briefly, the mandate of the ministry: it’s responsible for British Columbia’s electricity, alternate energy — and that’s increasingly more important as we confront climate change; hydrogen, oil, natural gas and related infrastructure; and the province’s mining and mineral exploration sectors.

These sectors are made up of diverse interests that explore for and produce oil, natural gas, coal and other valuable minerals, and that develop energy and electricity generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure.

[3:25 p.m.]

To support the government’s coordinated climate, energy and economic objectives, the ministry focuses on advancing energy efficiency, clean or renewable energy sources and technologies, making sure that the energy we use, develop and export is the cleanest possible.

The ministry facilitates electricity, mining, and oil and gas sectors that are globally competitive, demonstrate leading environmental practices and advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples while providing opportunities and quality jobs for British Columbians and a fair return on resources to support the province’s economic recovery following the COVID-19 global pandemic and other challenges we face, including the impacts of devastating climate change events and the war in eastern Europe.

Our goal to advance an innovative, low-carbon energy portfolio that advances CleanBC economic opportunities across all sectors will continue to incorporate direction from the CleanBC plan and the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 into ministry legislation, policies, programs and operations to meet provincial energy, economic and climate goals. This includes working with B.C. Hydro to ensure that the province’s generation, transmission and distribution assets continue to deliver reliable and cost-effective service as well as implementing the B.C. hydrogen strategy.

We worked with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to develop a clean transportation action plan for 2023 that takes an efficiency-first approach to decarbonizing the transportation sector and focuses upon five pillars: reduce the distance travelled, increase mode shift, improve vehicle efficiency, adopt zero-emission vehicles and use clean fuels.

The ministry is advancing the value-added development of B.C.’s oil and gas resources to maximize the benefits to all British Columbians and provide a fair return from our resources. This includes providing price transparency and public accountability in the gasoline and diesel market through the implementation of the Fuel Price Transparency Act and continuing the review of B.C.’s oil and gas royalty credits to ensure they meet the province’s goals for economic development, economic reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, a fair return on public resources and environmental protection.

We will continue to develop a strong and innovative mining sector that positions B.C. as a desirable and responsible jurisdiction for investment. We will continue the implementation of the recommendations of the Mining Jobs Task Force as well as promoting a mining innovation hub to identify and support innovation, training for workers in new technologies, regulatory excellence, environmental management and low-carbon approaches.

These are but a few of the priorities of the many programs and policies of the ministry, but I would now invite questions from the opposition.

The Chair: Member for Kootenay East, would you like to make some opening remarks?

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Chair. I would.

I want to thank the minister for the opportunity for the next — I don’t know — two or three days or whatever it’s going to take. As you heard from the minister, it’s quite a detailed ministry — a lot of moving parts and pieces to it.

I want to thank the staff: Mr. Mihlar and some of the other ones I’ve known over the years, Mr. MacLaren and Mr. Robb. I still miss Dave. But I see we even have a Cranbrook connection here today, Mr. Warnock over there. It’s good to see him in here as well.

It’s a great industry. I’ve fallen in love with the industry — salt-of-the-earth people. Modern-day treasure hunters you might call them, almost, for the most part — in the mining industry, anyways. We’ll get into the oil and gas and everything else as well. But today we’ll probably speak mostly on mining, as we have a bit of an icebreaker before the break, I guess. We’ll touch on mining the most.

Getting back to mining, it’s foundational to our province. Even before confederation in 1871, over 150 years ago, mining was — no pun intended, or maybe it is — the bedrock of our economy, and it continues to this day. It’s helped provide us with schools and our roads and all our infrastructure and everything that we needed. Mining was there, right from day one.

Everything we have in this Legislature, when you look at the construction, even, of the Legislature…. The marble, the granite that you walk on through the stairs of the Legislature I think came from Nelson Island, which is out on the Sunshine Coast. I don’t see the member from the Sunshine Coast here. The andesite, the volcanic rock that you see on the outside of the building, came from Haddington Island out in Alert Bay. So it’s all around us, and it’s really something that we don’t give enough credit, I don’t think, to a lot of the time.

[3:30 p.m.]

It’s also the future. It’s moving to the new economy, the new clean green economy that we all desire, to have a better world tomorrow. Mining’s at the forefront of that — the materials that we need. If you don’t grow it, then you mine it.

I really want to make sure that that’s brought forward in these debates over the next couple of days, on how foundational and how important it is not just for our past history but also for our future.

I’ll turn it over to the Green Party. They’ll have some questions here to start us off, and then I’ll jump in after that.

Thank you for the time, Minister.

S. Furstenau: Thanks to the minister and the critic for the official opposition.

I’m going to start on a high-level set of questions around lobbying, actually, and the rates of lobbying for this ministry. B.C. Today, on February 1 of this year, noted that lobbying of this ministry in December, from oil and gas…. It was one of the few ministries to see an increase in lobbying, with a lot of focus on gas pipelines, infrastructure development and some reference to Aboriginal consultation.

In December alone, the Ministry of Energy received a total of 80 lobbying activities. There was a briefing note — August 16, 2021 — in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Infrastructure that demonstrates…. Quite a bit of information within that briefing note seems to stem pretty directly from lobbyist activity related to oil and gas representatives, pertaining to the Blueberry First Nation ruling. Two of the lobbyists included Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada.

This ministerial briefing note suggested that the Blueberry ruling will cost the B.C. government $90 million and up to 10,000 jobs, which was information supplied directly by lobbyists. It was also suggested that companies would flee the B.C. economy due to the unstable nature of the market. The focus is really on the negative consequences on the economy and ignores the others — social and environmental.

My question, to start, to the minister is: what role does the minister think that lobbyists should be playing in creating briefing notes and policy coming out of his ministry?

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for her question.

Indeed, because of the Blueberry ruling of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, there was…. I think the member will acknowledge and realize that this ruling was an unprecedented ruling in the sense that the court found that the cumulative impacts of industrial activity over many years had reached a point at which members of the Blueberry Nation, who had signed a treaty in 1900 — largely a hunting and fishing rights treaty — were no longer able to exercise their rights granted to them under that treaty.

That obviously had implications, given that Blueberry, the claim area, is in the heart of the Montney, which is the site of much of the oil and gas extraction and exploration activity in the province. Naturally, industry was exploring what the implications of the ruling were and what the government’s reaction might be, including the reaction of the Blueberry First Nation.

[3:35 p.m.]

That discussion began — certainly, negotiations began — with the Blueberry First Nation following the ruling late in September, I think, or early in October, and there was a preliminary agreement. The minister of reconciliation was deeply involved in that negotiation, and there was a preliminary agreement at that time. So the level of lobbying activity was probably slightly higher than it would otherwise be.

In terms of the content of the note, certainly the industry had a view of the impact of the ruling. The ministry accepts and canvasses calculations or policy predictions from a variety of sources, so this was simply one source that made an observation about how they expected the ruling might play out within the industry. That doesn’t necessarily follow that that was accepted by myself, as the minister, or by the ministry, but it certainly gave an indication of the concerns of the industry, and similar interest was expressed by a number of other groups on this topic.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister.

I guess, in this case, it’s interesting because…. Would the minister recognize that the information presented in the briefing note was not necessarily identifiable as having been produced by industry lobbyists and was, rather, presented to the minister as a briefing note from staff? When the minister talks about the need for evaluating and assessing impacts of things like the court ruling on Blueberry First Nation, does the minister think that the staff capacity to assess that kind of thing is sufficient without input from industry lobbyists?

Hon. B. Ralston: The information that the member refers to really is uniquely within the knowledge of the companies and their representatives. What took place after the Blueberry ruling was that permits, which ordinarily would have been issued, were not issued because of the court ruling.

The impact of not having those permits and not being able to undertake the economic activity that the permits would have authorized is something that the companies…. They were uniquely aware of that. They would be able to calculate, according to their internal financial calculations, the economic value and the impact of the inability to get the permits.

It’s not something that staff would be able to calculate on their own, because these are permits that are designed to permit the companies to engage in economic activity. Obviously, one treats that with a certain degree of understanding that it comes from the companies and that they have a point of view. So it’s not automatically accepted as gospel. But it certainly is a strong indication from them of what they estimate the impact of not having access to the issuance of those permits would be.

[3:40 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I think that it’s an interesting conversation. Oftentimes, and not even specifically to this, we’ll hear industry and companies and lobbyists make claims like this — X number of jobs, X amount of impact to the economy — and often later it’s determined that those were not particularly accurate.

What does the minister and the ministry do to track the accuracy of these kinds of suggestions from companies and from lobbyists? And again, does the minister think that the ministry and the staff have a responsibility — from the perspective of government, from the perspective of serving the public — to independently assess the impacts of decisions like this without relying on what a particular industry or a company’s perspective is?

I ask these questions partly because my entire origin story into politics is around professional reliance. We now have the superintendent of professional governance, we have the Professional Governance Act, and there was pretty significant recognition in Mark Haddock’s report from 2018.

It really delved into the risks of too much reliance on industry-funded qualified professionals, on industry itself, and that there is this role that we would expect and want government to be playing. That is putting public interest, environmental and social considerations, commitments made under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, commitments made to the public around the capacity to have that independent government assessment of whatever kinds of decisions are being made around public resources.

I come back to the minister with these questions about: how does he see the role of his ministry and his staff in their capacity? And what level of necessity of capacity does he see staff needing to have to be able to independently assess perspective in outcomes as a result of government policy, permitting policy, court decisions?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you very much for the question.

As the member will know from having read the Blueberry decision, there was a very lengthy evaluative process which was put in evidence before the court, including regional economic plans, calculations of the impact of the industry in terms of disturbance, environmental impact on water, game, wildlife. It was all put before the court. So there is an independent assessment and evaluative capacity within the ministry that can deal with profound questions of the impact of a decision like this.

The source of the particular reference that the member is referring to is from industry. It’s simply one source — one data point — that is used in advising me and others in the decisions that we might make about how to approach fashioning a new approval process that is consistent with the court decision. I don’t agree that this is equivalent to professional reliance.

Clearly, these are people speaking on behalf of business who are attempting to give a sense of the business impact upon individual businesses of the fact that they are not able to receive permits and work can’t go forward, whether it’s drilling or building gas plants or whether it’s connecting the gas plants to pipelines. For all of those, absence of permits means that that activity can’t go forward, and it has an economic impact.

Any number that comes forward is assessed along with everything else. So if the member is suggesting that I or the ministry would accept those numbers uncritically, it’s simply not the way it works. Any source that comes forward is evaluated, along with many others. Then decisions are made. It’s certainly not accepted uncritically.

S. Furstenau: Thank you. I appreciate the minister’s responses and probably will pursue this further at another time. We have limited time.

I want to jump over to a slightly different realm, but it’s something that we hear from constituents a lot around frustration around the CleanBC rebates. For example, with heat pumps, there are a lot of restrictions that limit who can access the rebate. If you live in a strata, you don’t qualify. If you live in a rental, you can’t qualify. Essentially, you need to be in a single-family home. Then, if you are eligible, for many residents on a fixed income that is insufficient to purchase heat pumps, it really denies them access to the rebates — very similar to electric cars.

Interestingly, if we think about the heat dome last year, the fact is that for a lot of people, the inability to cool off their home was dangerous. We know that there were nearly 700 deaths. Heat pumps provide this kind of win-win scenario — one their electricity generates, so they’re not carbon polluting. They are a cleaner form of heating, but they also provide this access to cooling.

I would say that particularly for lower- and medium-income households, this is a consideration that we should be taking into account with — I expect — our goal with climate action also to include action on inequity and inequality. Those who are often the least financially able to withstand the impacts of climate change are the ones who are feeling the most. We saw that, for sure, last summer.

[3:50 p.m.]

My question to the minister really is around these rebates and what seem to be some inequities built into the system as it exists. What are he and his ministry doing to address the asymmetries in these accessibilities to these rebates for heat pumps?

Hon. B. Ralston: The member raises an important question about heat pumps powered by electricity. Certainly, B.C. Hydro is endeavouring to advance and promote the use of heat pumps in preference to other forms of home heating. There are a number of programs that incent heat pumps and their installation.

I was actually in Duncan at the Cowichan Trades Centre, where there’s a course for training young people — men and women — to learn the technology of installing heat pumps. Part of the success of a heat pump installation depends on having a qualified and knowledgable person to actually install it. It has to be properly sized to the dwelling that it’s in, and there are different types of heat pumps, I learned.

That work is continuing as a program of the ministry and jointly with the Ministry of Advanced Education. The portfolio of the program includes a number of incentives, and I’ll get to the question that the member specifically asked about in terms of those with lower income.

[3:55 p.m.]

There are commercial retrofit incentives for large complex buildings, for small buildings, commercial new construction, residential retrofit, residential low-interest retrofit financing, residential new construction incentives, Indigenous community retrofit incentives and specialized energy coaching support for small business, Indigenous communities and civic organizations. There are programs, I’m advised, for low-income residents of British Columbia and citizens of British Columbia, where the incentive is higher. There’s also an ability, if that is not affordable, to finance it over a lengthy period of time.

Certainly, the ministry and the government are very determined about advancing understanding, knowledge and adoption of heat pumps as one solution, given the emissions profile of buildings, whether they’re big or small, right across the spectrum in British Columbia. It’s an important advance. My sense is that people probably don’t understand what a heat pump is. It’s a bit of a misnomer because, as you mentioned, it has the capacity to cool in the summer. People don’t necessarily associate it with the cooling effect that it can offer in the summer as well.

I think B.C. Hydro has embarked upon a bit of a campaign with advertising dollars to help people become more aware of the benefits of a heat pump. There may be some changes coming out, which I don’t think I can reveal just now, that will encourage people to use the extra electricity that’s required to power a heat pump to heat and cool their residence at different times of the year.

It is a program, and a variety of programs is something that we’re…. It’s an integral part of CleanBC, and the better homes and better buildings particular section is an important part of our CleanBC targets and action plan.

S. Furstenau: I’m wondering if the minister and his staff have data. I have two numbers I’d be really keen to hear. One is: for the previous years, say for 2021, how many people applied for and received the rebates to have heat pumps installed in all of the categories that he listed?

[D. Coulter in the chair.]

Then the second set of numbers I’d really like to hear is: how many new hookups were there to natural gas in either residential or commercial buildings last year?

Hon. B. Ralston: The question is a good one, but we don’t have the statistics here right now. So I will commit to get those statistics to the member. Frankly, I’d be interested in the answer myself. Certainly, Fortis has a very determined campaign to encourage new buildings, particularly in the single-family category, to hook up with the natural gas heat. There is a certain dynamic tension between the two forms of heating, and I’d be interested in the numbers as well.

The Chair: Leader of the Third Party.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to the chair.

Thanks. I really look forward to those figures. I think they’ll be of great interest to us and probably to the public.

I will get to a mining question now, which will probably make my colleague the critic pleased. We have a situation…. I’ve raised it before with the minister. I’ve raised it also with the Minister of Agriculture. It’s a farm in the Cowichan Valley, GT Farms. It applied for and was successful in obtaining a permit.

[4:00 p.m.]

There was a community organization, the Kingburne Valley Community Association, that has raised concerns over many, many years about mining happening without a permit, about irregularities, about activities that don’t fall into the permitted activities at this site, including things like blasting, slaughter waste, pumping of quarry water into a creek, mud tracking onto a public road.

This is ALR land. So there is this jurisdictional issue between the ALC and Mines. I did raise this a year ago with the Minister of Agriculture. She was aware of this issue. She said: “As far as the quarry goes, again, the ALC has been actively involved since 2011, trying to deal with the compliance and enforcement issue. But because there are different jurisdictions involved, it’s a difficult file. They’ve come in and out of the file as their jurisdiction is apparent, but it’s a work-in-progress, and it’s slow. That’s all I can say about that.” That’s the end of her quote.

In the summer of 2021, a meeting was set up with the minister and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture along with my constituency staff and the Cowichan Valley community association. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Minister of Agriculture proposed a round table to bring in more participants to the conversation. Assistant Deputy Minister Lalani was given the task of organizing the round table, but the KVCA, the Kingburne Valley Community Association, still has no follow-up on their request for that round table.

I just raised it again with the Minister of Agriculture. She said that they would put their minds to initiating a collaborative solution to the Kingburne Valley issues.

My question to the minister is pretty straightforward. Will he also commit to engaging in a collaborative process to find resolution with the challenges that this community has had in Kingburne?

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, we will engage in the collabora­tive process.

I would like to also add that the Minister of Agriculture has approached me in general terms on developing a…. We have developed a memorandum of understanding with clear expectations related to authorizations on the agricultural land reserve. It’s been finalized by both my ministry and the Agricultural Land Commission.

The memorandum will ensure that any mining operations in the ALR will obtain appropriate approvals from the agricultural reserve commission prior to commencement of the operations. So that may be the enhancement and process that the member was dealing with the consequences of.

The Chair: The member for Saanich North and the Islands.

A. Olsen: Hey, Mr. Chair. Welcome to the chair.

In question period a few weeks back, I asked the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation about — it was then the draft action plan; it is now the 89-point action plan, which was accepted and tabled last week in the House — how the commitments within that action plan would be funded. The minister noted that the commitments, the actions, will be funded out of the core budget of each ministry. As I have been saying to all of the minister’s colleagues that I have asked this question to, I think it’s positive that reconciliation will be a core action of each budget.

[4:05 p.m.]

I would like to know, from the Minister of Energy, what steps he’s taking to ensure that reconciliation remains a priority within his ministry.

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. I had heard him ask another minister the same question. So I was able to prepare a little bit more than I might ordinarily be able to.

In the action plan, there are three policies, as far as I’m able to tell — I went through it earlier today — that involve our ministry. There are many, many more policies and actions that the ministry takes, but I want to deal with the action plan first. Then I’ll get to the broader implications of reconciliation for the ministry.

The first one is 2.6, which is shared with a number of other ministries. “Co-develop strategic-level policies, programs and initiatives to advance collaborative stewardship of the environment, land and resources, that address cumulative effects and respect Indigenous knowledge.” It gives a mechanism for doing that. That’s one.

The second one is 2.14. “Modernize the Mineral Tenure Act in consultation and cooperation with First Nations and First Nations organizations.”

Then, finally, 4.43. “Co-develop recommendations on strategic policies and initiatives for clean and sustainable energy. This includes identifying and supporting First Nations–led clean energy opportunities related to CleanBC, the comprehensive review of B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Utilities Commission inquiry on the regulation of Indigenous utilities.”

Those are three responsibilities of my ministry in the action plan. More broadly, I would say that reconciliation and arrangements and dealings with First Nations permeate every part of the activity of the ministry. Perhaps I can…. I’ve got a list here of a few examples that I can probably refer to.

We have completed a relationship protocol with the First Nations Leadership Council that establishes and implements a collaborative and instructive relationship in supporting structures to advance shared priorities. That was signed and implemented on September 17, 2021. That involves…. The First Nations Leadership Council does take advice from the First Nations Energy and Mining Council, and they are involved in the discussions that we have regularly.

We undertake engagement processes to ensure Indigenous interests are represented in provincial policies and programs such as the Indigenous clean energy opportunity, the oil and gas royalty review, CleanBC-related engagement.

We’ve participated in negotiations on the first section 7 — that’s from Bill 41 — and consent-based, decision-based agreements between the province and the Tahltan Central Government.

We’ve participated in provincial negotiations — obviously, we referred to this earlier in this session — with treaty 8 nations, including the Blueberry River First Nations, after the Yahey decision, on new initiatives respecting cumulative effects, land use planning, decision-making, restoration and economic benefit measures in northeastern British Columbia.

[4:10 p.m.]

Supporting and leading initiatives with First Nations in collaborative environmental stewardship, economic development and shared decision-making. Those are economic and community development agreements, economic stewardship initiatives, broad-based agreements with individual nations.

We’re supporting the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation in the development of the action plan and will engage with First Nations on the implementation of the MLA action items, the ones that I’ve referred to. We also support the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and the First Nations Leadership Council in implementing DRIPA.

I would say, as the Premier has directed, that reconciliation and the consequences that flow from the action plan are a high priority for every minister, and this ministry is no different. But given this ministry’s engagement with the natural resource sector, there is huge involvement across the board with Indigenous First Nations here in the province. That activity is funded as core funding. It’s intrinsic to the work that the ministry does. So it’s funded from the ministry budget.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that extensive response.

I want to focus now a little bit on one of the points that were raised with respect to the Mineral Tenure Act. It’s the main statute governing mineral exploration in the province. The First Nations Energy and Mining Council, with the support of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the Assembly of First Nations, released a report this past January with recommendations for all stages of the mining process and specified the need for changes to the mining legislation.

I’m pleased to see that the action within the action plan exists — to be taking a look at it. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, notes that the existing legislation is outdated, does not recognize aspects of DRIPA, the Declaration Act, the right to self-determination or the constitutional protections under section 35 and does not acknowledge that a vast majority of the mining that occurs in the province is done on unceded territory.

The Mineral Tenure Act “allows anyone with a credit card and a computer to go online and stake a mineral claim without informing the First Nations in whose terri­tory the claims are filed.” This was noted in a Business in Vancouver article.

I’m wondering. This is, I think, one of the oldest acts in the province, and it has not been updated in a very, very long time. I’m wondering if the minister can provide a little bit of information to us about what that update looks like in the coming years. There are a number of different processes that are undertaken here in this Assembly as to how this act could be updated. I’m just wondering if the minister can illustrate how that will happen.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. That’s an important question. That’s, in part, why the action plan does have 2.14: to “modernize the Mineral Tenure Act in consultation and cooperation with First Nations and First Nations organizations.” The need to modernize the mineral tenure system is recognized.

There were initial discussions held in 2018 or 2019 with First Nations, First Nations leadership organizations and mining industry associations. There are, obviously, differences of opinion regarding the potential reforms to B.C.’s mineral tenure system, and the need was perceived to allow time to do work.

During that engagement to support the implementation of the Declaration Act, First Nations and First Nations leadership organizations highlighted the Mineral Tenure Act as a high priority for alignment. A commitment to modernize the Mineral Tenure Act, as is set out in 2.14, was included in the action plan for that very reason.

Any steps to modernize the act will be undertaken with nations and First Nations, probably, most notably, the First Nations Energy and Mining Council, as well as engagement with other stakeholders. Both the Mining Association of British Columbia and the exploration association are fully aware of this issue and are in discussions with their own members about what changes might be necessary.

Just to comment briefly — mentioning the “credit card and a computer” — yes, you can go and stake a claim online. But you’re not entitled, legally, to undertake any activity on that claim without a subsequent permit, granted — or not — from the ministry. So it’s technically true that you can do that, but you’re not allowed, legally, to undertake any activity without further steps being taken.

A. Olsen: A totally fair comment from the minister.

The action plan is a five-year plan, and the processes in government are very quick. No, I’m kidding. They can take that entire five-year time frame. The Mineral Tenure Act has been, I think, the way it has been for decades, one of the oldest. I think there’s a lot riding on this. As the minister stated, there are a lot of Indigenous nations and the First Nations Mining Council that are going to be interested in this. The industry, of course, is going to be interested in this.

We’ve seen a number of processes. I’m a part of the process to review the Police Act right now. That is an all-party committee. The ministry could review the act, as well, internally and have it as an internal process. Where are we at, in terms of determining what type of process the ministry will use to review an act that, arguably, has a lot of attention on it and will have of a lot of interest that it be informed and modernized in a way that’s inclusive of all of those interests and rights that are on the landscape here in the province?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: What the action plan does speak of is what is called a distinctions-based approach. What that means is that any of the province’s dealings with First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples will be conducted in a manner that acknowledges the specific rights, interests, priorities and concerns of each, while respecting and acknowledging these distinct peoples with unique cultures, histories, rights, laws and government. So the process of engaging in this, despite the member’s proper admonition to government to speed it up, will be a lengthy process, I would anticipate.

The First Nations Leadership Council and their preferred agent, the First Nations Energy and Mining Council, will, obviously, be involved, but there are 203 distinct nations, rights and title holders, who will have to be consulted. Not all of them have mineral interests, but there are 48 First Nations who have economic community development agreements with mining companies already.

[4:25 p.m.]

I think, in some ways, the mining industry is very proud of its association with Indigenous peoples. They work very closely, in many communities, with Indigenous peoples, whether it’s in terms of employment, of sharing mineral tax revenue or even joint ventures, in the case of some of the First Nations such as the Tahltan.

It’s a complex policy environment. I agree with the member that change is the order of the day, but given the mechanisms that are required for consultation, that will take some time. I’m confident that the change can be achieved, and certainly, there’s a commitment on the part of the government to head in that direction.

A. Olsen: I’m not going to canvass this area any further. I do want to just provide a little comment on clarification. I was not admonishing government to move quicker. What I was recognizing was that the action plan is a five-year plan, and that necessarily this is going to take time.

For me, the line of questioning was more along the lines of recognizing the time that it’s going to take and the requirement that the government take the time to get it right. The last thing you want is a 180-page act, or maybe an 80-page amending act, that you put on the table and then you hear some things. You want to make sure that’s done in advance. So it wasn’t to say: “Hurry up.” It was to say: “This is going to take time.”

However, there is a timeline on the action plan, and depending on how you read the action plan, you could get this started in four years or 4¾ years, and you would be, I think, fulfilling the commitments to reviewing the act. However, I think “We’re very much in alignment” would be a much shorter way of responding to it.

I want to just flip to a couple of questions that I have, before I turn the floor over to my colleague, just around oil and gas royal royalties. The provincial royalties support the continued….

Is this to be done…? Would royalties need to be done at a later date?

Okay, I just want to make sure that you’ve got your staff here, Minister.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: Okay, just two questions. If not, then let me know, and we can push it to the next day.

Provincial royalties support the continued exploration and extraction of oil and gas. “There was widespread agreement that the royalty regime subsidizes production, fails to provide an adequate public return and is contrary to B.C.’s climate and environmental goals.” This is a quote from the Tyee.

The B.C. government has nearly completed its review of oil and gas royalties. In the budget, it says explicitly that revenue projections from oil and gas royalties were done without any consideration for the review process that is nearly complete. Given that the budget relies heavily on oil and gas revenue, why were the considerations for the royalty review not included in the revenue projections?

Hon. B. Ralston: Let me go back. I take the member’s correction, in terms of the comment that he’s made about the speed at which this should be undertaken. It is a priority for the government. It’s a priority for the ministry. I know, from my regular meetings with the First Nations Leadership Council, that it’s a priority for them.

[4:30 p.m.]

I also know, from my discussions with the Mining Association of B.C. and the Mineral Exploration Association, that they expect that there will be changes. The time for change is anticipated, and one can’t totally predict the speed at which it will go, but certainly, it is a commitment.

I did want to make one correction. The economic and community development agreements that I referred to are not with the companies. They’re between the nations and the government based on the mining activity.

In terms of the royalty review, the report of Professors Olewiler and Winter made very clear that the system is broken — I think they said that, expressly; I think that’s probably what the Tyee is quoting from — and that the system was long overdue for change. So we’re reviewing, and we’re in the stages of getting near the end of our proposed recommendations for changes, and I’m optimistic that that will come forward soon.

The point that the member raises about why aren’t the changes in the royalties reflected in the Finance Ministry’s projections of revenue is because the regulatory changes have not taken place, and there’s administration that’s required and a phase-in that’s required. So it would be premature.

As you probably know, the Treasury Board and the Ministry of Finance are very cautious in predicting revenue when it might not materialize. There’s just a phase-in process. But I’m confident that when the changes are public, then they’ll begin to work on making the administrative changes.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the response and the clarification. Thank you, Minister.

Just one final question on this. If there are any changes to be made, then, and the phase-in would happen, presumably this would be something that we’d start to see in the following budget, maybe next year’s budget. Is that how that would work?

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m going to defer that question over to the Minister of Finance. Once the changes are made, it’s really up to the Minister of Finance to decide the financial impact on the budget of any measures that are taken. So with some reluctance, I will simply defer to the Minister of Finance.

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the Greens for good questions there. I’ll have some follow-ups, for sure.

Sorry for a bit of hodgepodge there. We kind of went around a bit, and we wanted to keep it to mining. I know up and down and switching seats isn’t always great. Thanks for accommodating.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: “They’re all gems.” Oh, no pun intended over there.

A couple quick questions on the general budget. Overall, the ministry budget increased about 4 percent. I think it went from $108 million to about $112 million. This is the first time, I think, in the last three years, since 2019, that we’ve seen an increase. I’m just wondering, and just to get familiar with the direction the ministry is going: why was that budget increased? Not that I’m arguing or complaining about it, but I just wanted to know: why the increase?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m going to direct the member to, in the estimates book, page 75, “Vote 23 — ministry operations.” Between the two sections, Mining is divided between “Mines competitiveness and authorizations” — there’s an increase of about $6 million there; and “Mines health, safety and enforcement,” an increase of about $2 million there.

There are other changes in the ministry, but I presume the member is largely interested in the changes in the funding of mining.

T. Shypitka: Where is this money going? Is it administrative costs — maybe a breakdown on the increase of, first of all, $6 million to, I think you said, the permitting and authorizations?

Hon. B. Ralston: I’ll give the member some detail that’s been provided to me. Largely, the increases are staff. In regional operations, seven FTEs. That’s full-time-equivalents, for those who haven’t encountered that term before. Mining operations, three FTEs. The south area, four FTEs. Major mines office, two FTEs. The SE secretariat, southeast secretariat — that’s particularly relevant to the member, I’m sure — regional operations, six FTEs. And regional operations in another category, 13 FTEs.

The distribution is largely new personnel to help in the work of the department.

T. Shypitka: You kind of tweaked my interest there on the southeast secretariat. Can you explain that position?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: There was an establishment of what’s called the southeast secretariat. It’s a dedicated cross-agency team that acts as a single point of contact to manage the entire major mines regulatory process in southeast B.C.

T. Shypitka: Those are new positions, then?

Hon. B. Ralston: The structure is new, but it’s made up of existing agencies that are just put together in, I presume, a more efficient way to be a single point of contact in order to manage the process more effectively.

T. Shypitka: Just also want to familiarize myself with this new ministry, Land, Water and Resource Stewardship — LandWRS, if I could use that acronym. Is that part of the ministry? Will that be at all…? Will part of this ministry work with Energy and Mines at all?

Hon. B. Ralston: It’s a good question. I asked the same thing myself, I suppose, in other ways. The direct questions to the new minister, of course, are open to the member. But this ministry will be working with that ministry, particularly on land use planning. There will be a level of coordination with that ministry. There’re a few people from this ministry that have gone over to that ministry just as they populate their new jurisdiction.

T. Shypitka: But there will be no money shifting between two ministries, at all, to support…? I’m just looking at the service plan here and see some of the purpose of the ministry: new vision for land; resource management with First Nations; strategic direction; supporting a strong, sustainable economy that works for everyone. So there are some hints that there could be some real issue collaboration there.

Hon. B. Ralston: Just looking at the estimates, Vote 38 for the Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship. There are some areas where there will be, clearly, collaboration. I’m looking at what’s on page 150, “Reconciliation and natural resource sector policy,” “Natural resource sector secretariat,” and in the first, on page 149, “Land use policy and planning and terrestrial ecosystem.” So one can well imagine that there will be coordination there.

[4:45 p.m.]

In creating the ministry, my ministry transferred what’s called the environmental stewardship initiatives program and a corresponding budget of $588,000 to the new Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship. That’s a partnership and collaboration between the province and First Nations, with six staff.

T. Shypitka: So there will be no collaboration with permitting? This will all be on First Nation reconciliation?

Hon. B. Ralston: The new ministry will be talking about or examining strategic questions about land use planning at a high level. Those are policy considerations. That inevitably touches upon permitting, once you’ve decided how you’re going to use the land. But the actual mechanics of issuing permits will be, in the case of mining, with EMLI, the Ministry of Energy.

T. Shypitka: So the physical permitting will still be intact. However, the policy and the direction from LandWARS will have some sort of impact on permitting processes, I would imagine. Is that true?

Hon. B. Ralston: I think I would like to just make it clear to the member that this ministry is new. So the way in which the new ministry, the Land Ministry, will interact with other ministries is not final or totally decided. I think the jargon term they use is: “It’s an iterative process.” I never quite know what that means, but they always say that. But it’s a work in progress.

At the policy level, there will be coordination. For the big policies, there will be coordination between the ministries, and then individual ministries, such as ours, will do the follow-up in terms of the implications for permitting and other activities that this ministry has traditionally engaged in.

[4:50 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: I understand it’s a new ministry, and they’re going through the growing process of integrating it into all of the other ministries that it’s going to touch on. We saw that some of the other action plans or some of the other purpose in the ministry is going to stretch out to numerous other ministries as well. My only concern and my only question, I guess, right now, to the minister, is: does he see any types of regulatory hangups or bureaucratic types of hangups between the two ministries?

When you’re collaborating between two ministries, of course, sometimes two heads are better than one, but sometimes it complicates the issues a little bit, and the bureaucracy can bog things down. Does the minister antici­pate any types of issues like that when you coordinate permitting between the two entities, the two ministries?

Hon. B. Ralston: The goal of the new ministry and working with others is to make sure that the regulatory processes go smoothly and quickly, as is warranted.

We have an example in the mining section of the ministry, the major mines office, where there’s a coordination. It’s a single office where Mines Act permits and Environmental Management Act permits are issued through a single office so that they’re coordinated, and that has worked well. We have a prototype for how multi-ministry or multi-agency permits can be effectively issued.

T. Shypitka: Well, I’ll hang on that one. I’m hoping, and I’m cheering, because I think it’s important to note. I think it’s really important to note when we…. I will argue…. We’ll get into the permitting part of this, probably not until after the break, but it’s important to have that regulatory process. I know the minister is working on the regulatory excellence, and we’ll get into the definitions of all those kinds of things. But it’s important to give that clarity and that certainty.

When you have more hands into the mix, sometimes it helps. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it can speed things up. I’m optimistic. I will be optimistic. But I know that industry is on the edge of their seats sometimes when they see these kinds of things come forward. They’re concerned, and I understand why. I’ve got many examples of why they’re concerned, and we’ll get into that probably, like I said, after the break.

Before we do, before we head off for a couple of weeks here, I just want to go through the Mining Jobs Task Force if I can, and just the update from the minister on how successful he has been on delivering the recommendations. I believe there are 25 of them. I’ll just check. Yes, 25. Last estimates, a year ago, there were some that were underway and some that weren’t completed. I asked the minister if they were completed. There were several that were still being worked on. I think some were delivered here even this month.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’ll turn it over to the minister and ask where we are with the recommendations. How many have been completed? I’ll start with that. How many have been completed?

Hon. B. Ralston: I welcome a chance to talk about the Mining Jobs Task Force. That was a process initiated by Minister Mungall when she held the portfolio and, I think, a very successful process. It drew in industry, labour, Indigenous community groups. There was substantial consensus on all the recommendations, so I think that generally it was regarded as a success.

There are a number of achievements, I think. So $20 million over three years to improve regulatory oversight — that’s government funding to the budget — while continuing to encourage investment in jobs.

The mining flow-through share program and the B.C. mining exploration tax credit were made permanent. The member may recall that they were renewed every five years for many years, under the previous government.

Extending the new mine allowance for five years to 2025 and removing the restrictions on some of the PST exemptions — those are some of the achievements.

Recently, I think, the numbers show…. Granted, the resource commodity price cycle is on an upswing, but the infrastructure and the policies were there to take advantage of that. In 2021, exploration expenditures increased significantly. It was $659.8 million, up $237 million from 2020. That was in a year when COVID was still very active — beginning to diminish, obviously, towards the end of the year — and the highest total since 2012.

Since 2018, companies and pension plans are estimated to have invested over $7 billion in British Columbia mines and exploration projects.

The industry is healthy and doing well and has potential to grow even further. As the member noted, certain minerals and metals are crucial to the energy transformation, the low-carbon economy, and there’s a demand for many of the minerals that British Columbia is able to produce.

[5:00 p.m.]

In terms of the specific recommendations, what I can offer to the member is that we will get a list with all of the recommendations and the status of each individual recommendation. I don’t have that here. I have some more general language about, as one might expect, the completed ones. But I can give that to the member, and then he would have that for the time when we return, if he has any subsequent questions on the list. But we’ll get that to him before we return.

T. Shypitka: I would appreciate a list if I could, emailed or whatever, so I can glance over what’s completed. What’s disappointing, I guess, is that I was expecting 100 percent — all of them. I know some of them are always works in progress and that you can’t put an end date on them, so to speak.

The minister talked about making permanent the mining flow-through share program. He made a comment that the previous government only extended that every three years or five years or whatever it was. It wasn’t made permanent. And it was a great thing. It was a great thing to make it permanent. It was one of the recommendations. I celebrated with some of my mining buddies on that. That was a great day for sure.

However, it fell short of the recommendations. On the B.C. mining flow-through share program, I believe that it’s still at 20 percent. The recommendations by the Mining Jobs Task Force was to increase that to 35 percent for a three-year trial period. The same with the B.C. METC program, the tax credit, the mining exploration tax credit. It was supposed to be…. Well, it was recommended to increase to 30 percent for a three-year program.

The minister also acknowledged the new mine allowance out of the B.C. Mineral Tax Act. I believe that he said it was a five-year extension and made a comment about the former government only making extensions on the flow-through. Yet the mine allowance is a five-year extension, although the Mining Jobs Task Force recommended making it permanent.

The last time that we were here, as well, I think that the minister said it will…. I can’t remember exactly which one it was. I don’t know if it was No. 1 or No. 3. I think it was support the development and implementation of a cohesive road map for enhanced mine sector training to meet the mining sector’s future skills and labour needs through a collaborative, inclusive, innovative and geographically focused approach. I think the minister said in the last estimates that that would be delivered in February of 2022. So to the minister: is that the case?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for his question.

In December 2020, the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training has, with the support of the Ministry of Energy, contracted the Centre for Training Excellence in Mining through the sector labour market plan program to develop a cohesive set of roadmaps for enhanced mine sector careers, skills and training. I’m told that these are expected or anticipated to be delivered in May 2022. That’s what it says here.

While I’m up, if I might, I just wanted to follow up on the Leader of the Third Party’s question about the statistics on the uptake of heat pumps versus new gas connections. So what I’ve been provided with is that for the last fiscal year — that’s 2021, ending on March 30, 2021 — 3,000 CleanBC heat pump rebates were issued. In 2020, Fortis had 13,000 new gas connections.

T. Shypitka: So just going back to the B.C. mining flow-through share program and the mineral exploration tax credit and the recommendations by the Mining Jobs Task Force to increase those to 35 and 30 percent, respectively. It’s an important thing. I know that the minister just stated…. I congratulate the ministry and the industry for $660 million in mineral exploration. That was great — not quite a record but pretty close. But could we have done better? I don’t know. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. It was good for the industry. There’s no question about it.

We did have a bit of a perfect storm. The minister mentioned COVID, that it was during COVID. Well, at AME round-up, it was mentioned that that actually probably helped exploration. It kept everybody here in B.C. People weren’t travelling as much. We are a bit of a mecca for mining here, and it kept those shovels here in B.C. I think that was probably a benefit to the industry. The minister could argue that, I guess.

I guess the question is in regards to the tax credits that I’ve identified. Where is the appetite for the ministry to increase those in coordination with the Mining Jobs Task Force recommendations?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: First, to comment briefly on the member’s suggestion about COVID, by virtue of people staying in British Columbia, assisting in the exploration, the other thing that I would say about exploration and mining generally is that our public health rules enabled mining and exploration to continue, whereas other jurisdictions, such as Quebec, basically shut it down. Our rules enabled those industries to continue. The emphasis was on safe operation rather than shutting operations down.

In terms of the priorities of the ministry…. The priority for companies — and this is what companies tell us — is that what they want is reliable, effective permitting, not the diminution of any standards. They just want to get through the process in a timely and a predictable way.

That’s where most of the resources, the new resources, as we discussed earlier, have gone to try and achieve that. I think, to some extent, we’ve been successful. Obviously, there’s always more work to do.

On the final question that the member asked about raising the tax credit, that’s really a question for the Ministry of Finance, because that would be, then, foregone revenue. We’ve preferred to focus on what we can do in terms of accelerating permitting in a way that achieves…. For companies, that’s actually worth money in the bank.

T. Shypitka: To the member’s comments on the COVID piece, touché. I congratulate the minister on that. It did bring in a lot of dollars for exploration. It was well received by industry. It was a great year, so you’ve got to give credit where credit is due.

On the tax credit piece, yeah, the Ministry of Finance will sign off, obviously, on anything that’s tax-related, of course. But the question was: what is the ministry’s appetite? How will they advocate to bring this to the Ministry of Finance to support it? Or do they support it? Maybe they don’t. But I hope they do, because I think it would be an important piece, and I think that it would inject a lot more investment into British Columbia exploration.

I’ll ask the question again. What’s the appetite of the ministry on bringing these percentages up on the tax credits?

Hon. B. Ralston: Certainly, I’ve had discussions about the topic that the member has raised. I’ve had that discussion with Kendra Johnston, who’s the president of the Association for Mineral Exploration. But it really is a question of priorities in a budget-constrained world. You obviously can’t do everything.

We’ve put our best efforts into the permitting process, and I know that the member certainly has raised questions in previous years about his perception of challenges in the permitting environment. We’ve done our best to respond not only to him but to industry concerned about permitting time.

That’s where we have put our priority. In a perfect world, it would be nice to be able to do everything, but that hasn’t…. We’ve selected that as a priority. I think the results really speak for themselves. We’ve done well.

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour, I’ll ask you to move the motion.

Hon. B. Ralston: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and report progress on the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:15 p.m.