Contents

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Reporting of Bills

Bill M202 — Eligibility to Hold
Public Office Act
(continued)

Darlene Rotchford: I move Bill M202 entitled Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

First, I’d like to thank all members of the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills again for the discussion and examination of Bill M202, Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act. More importantly, I would like to thank them for making themselves available, under short notice, to help strengthen the bill by amending the bill and addressing unintended drafting errors.

As I said before in this House and during the committee process, I feel it is an important piece of legislation that deserves to move forward in a timely manner because it closes a loophole most British Columbians likely didn’t know existed. To do either job while representing our community municipally or provincially, it’s a full-time job. That’s the expectation of the people who elected us.

There will also be, obviously, conflicts of interest that will arise on any issue where jurisdiction overlaps between municipal and provincial responsibilities. I am surprised, as I am sure many British Columbians would be, to learn that there was a loophole in this province that allowed, for some people, what would have been called double-dipping or holding both positions at the same time.

Again, I’d like to thank the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills for their work on strengthening and improving the bill so that it will do what it is intended to do and close the loophole. Many other provinces have.

Trevor Halford: I want to respond respectfully to the member that tabled this bill. It was the first in one of our processes, and I think that that’s an important fact here.

The MLA mentions the word “loophole.” What I find in this is that we have had a government side of the House that has completely manipulated an all-party committee because they put in inadequate legislation. What did they do? When one member couldn’t attend, they subbed one member in for one meeting. I’ve never seen that happen before.

[1:35 p.m.]

What did they do? They had the Attorney General then weigh in with correspondence after we had done the committee stage, after we had presented and voted on amendments. Then there’s panic that ensues. Then what did they do? They forced the committee to go back — the first bill we’ve ever done — to fix the mistakes that were pretty much obvious through Google searches.

Now, if the government was so intent on getting this bill through the House, which they are today, you would think that they would be intent on actually getting this right the first time, knowing the difference between Community Charter in local government and, maybe, understanding that Vancouver has its own community charter.

We have now rushed through and put through amendments, through the government’s majority. Again, we’re struggling with consultation in this House — no proper consultation done. I don’t even think they consulted the ministers responsible for this legislation, because we’ve heard nothing from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the Attorney General weighed in past the point of no return.

So we see the panic that ensues. Quite frankly, it’s an embarrassment to be able to manipulate a committee for one single bill that was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. The amendments that have come through completely change that bill.

I find it astonishing. I understand the piece of legislation that they were attempting to do. We on this side got it right. The member for Langley-Willowbrook did the due diligence. She put forward a bill. There were amendments that were brought forward on the government side, which we supported because they made sense. There was no manipulation with that. Today is outright manipulation.

Amna Shah: I’m perplexed, absolutely perplexed and disappointed, to hear the member’s words. It’s incredible that the member, in this House, in the last third reading, can yell out and say that we wouldn’t take the AG’s recommendations, when clearly we are, and can continue to attempt to stall the process during committee stage — when we’re trying to get through the amendments that put the bill into what the member knows is now good form and full well reflects the principle and the intent of the sponsor of this bill.

Quite frankly, none of the members on the committee could say with certainty that they understood that this did not include some of the municipalities, through which the amendments were brought into the bill.

Interjection.

Amna Shah: Were you not there in that meeting?

You know, the member wants to heckle, and he can sure do that, but I still have one minute and 30 seconds.

This type of flip-flopping is really rich.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

The member will continue.

Amna Shah: The member wants to hurl insults at a Chair who has attempted to uphold the integrity of the committee as it does its work. The member knows full well that, as the Deputy Chair, the member has a responsibility, as well, to uphold the integrity of that committee.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Please continue.

Amna Shah: Quite frankly, the flip-flopping, from what I can see, is really that of political convenience. You know what? On this side of the House, our responsibility is to ensure that we uphold the integrity with which we serve our province. I appreciate the sponsor for bringing the bill forward.

The Speaker: Thank you. Is the member finished?

[1:40 p.m.]

Amna Shah: I will finish, hon. Speaker, but this form of disrespect is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you.

The Speaker: Members, before recognizing the next member, for the clarity of members, I confirm that Bill M202 has been called under orders of the day this afternoon. Under the standing orders, we have up to six minutes remaining for report stage debate on Bill M202.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will respect the time to make sure that the Green Party gets up and speaks as well.

I just want to clarify a couple of things, because the Chair of the committee, who takes great offence to us pointing out how bungled this bill was, seems to not understand. Maybe it’s indicative of the mindset of this government currently and what they feel proper consultation is.

The point being, first off, it’s not the opposition’s job to make sure that a government bill is actually in order. Every time we do point that out, the government tries to thwart our efforts.

Secondly, the government’s view of consultation is to go out and consult on a bill that did not talk about the Community Charter. It’s not some communities; it’s every single community in British Columbia that’s a municipality, other than Vancouver or the Islands Trust, that falls under the Community Charter.

They were not consulted with the wording of the bill as it’s now in the form, so there was not proper consultation out to the broader UBCM community. No wonder UBCM is adamantly opposed to other things this government is doing and feels like they’re getting railroaded all the time.

That is what we are talking about when we are talking about a bungling of this process and a manipulation of the process: not having adequate and proper consultation once the amendments were known, going back out and consulting with UBCM to find out what their member municipalities actually felt about the bill, because they weren’t talked about in the previous bill.

They can use the words “mayor” and “council” all they want. If they don’t reference the Community Charter, municipalities would not have felt compelled to need to comment, because they fall under the Community Charter. But the government’s rush and haste to manipulate the processes got us to where we are today, instead of taking the time to properly consult, based on those consultations, and then bringing the bill back to vote.

I have a newsflash for the Chair. They have the majority. They were going to win the vote. What they needed to manipulate to win the vote today was rushing through the process and not properly consulting with UBCM.

That is the fundamental flaw of the process and the manipulation that we are talking about here today.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll be brief. In all fairness, I have to say, I’m not seeing the manipulation, the catastrophic impacts to the private members’ bill process that the opposition is talking about.

This was not a perfect process. However, from the beginning, the intent was clear. Whether it read Community Charter or Local Government Act, there was no ambiguity about who would be disqualified from holding public office.

I’ve listened to the discussion, taken input from the entities that submitted their input to the committee. I did want to delay the implementation of this until the next local government elections. That amendment was not supported by government.

However, I still think that the process that this has gone through doesn’t change the overall intent. It has flaws, but I’m not seeing that the flaws are fatal in this. I have intended to support this. I think it’s a positive step. It does put us in line with other provinces, and I don’t see the doom.

Obviously, a lot of lessons learned, in terms of private members’ bills, and it was going to be a learning experience no matter how we did it. And yes, some advice came late, but in the end, this has been adapted to where it needs to be, and it is now in the right place to go to third reading.

The Speaker: Noting that the time has now elapsed for report stage debate, I will now put the question on Bill M202.

The question is that Bill M202, intituled Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act, be concurred in at report stage.

[1:45 p.m.]

Could somebody call division? Then we can really determine correctly.

Interjections.

The Speaker: You already called?

Division has been called.

Just to clarify, the member for Esquimalt-Colwood did call division. I could not hear it at that time because of some other noise in the chamber, so that’s why we have called the division. Thank you.

[1:50 p.m. - 1:55 p.m.]

Members, the question is that Bill M202, intituled Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act, be concurred in at report stage.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48
G. Anderson	Blatherwick	Elmore
Sunner	Toporowski	B. Anderson
Neill	Osborne	Brar
Davidson	Kahlon	Parmar
Gibson	Beare	Chandra Herbert
Wickens	Kang	Morissette
Sandhu	Krieger	Chant
Lajeunesse	Choi	Rotchford
Higginson	Routledge	Popham
Dix	Sharma	Farnworth
Eby	Bailey	Begg
Greene	Whiteside	Boyle
Ma	Yung	Malcolmson
Chow	Glumac	Arora
Shah	Phillip	Dhir
Lore	Valeriote	Botterell
NAYS — 41
Sturko	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rustad	Banman
Wat	Kooner	Halford
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Dew
Gasper	Day	Block
Bhangu	Paton	Boultbee
Chan	Toor	Hepner
Giddens	Rattée	Davis
McInnis	Bird	Luck
Stamer	Maahs	Tepper
Mok	Wilson	Clare
Williams	Loewen	Dhaliwal
Doerkson	Chapman	McCall
Kealy		Armstrong

The Speaker: Members, the House will now proceed to third reading of Bill M202, intituled Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill M202 — Eligibility to Hold
Public Office Act

Darlene Rotchford: I move third reading of Bill M202.

The Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of the bill.

Member for Abbotsford South.

Bruce Banman: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I won’t take much time.

As a former mayor, as a former councillor there are some problems, in my opinion, with regards to this bill. It is actually a problem. Not only, as was pointed out a few minutes ago, were there errors in rushing this bill through, but this is an attitude of this government that they know best, and they are going to take autonomy away from local municipalities and cities by pushing this through.

I have a personal example where I had said to my mayor, when I was elected, that I would do everything in my power not to trigger a very expensive by-election.

[2:00 p.m.]

On the whole of it, people look at this, and they say: “You know what? Politicians shouldn’t be allowed to collect two paycheques.” However, when those people also understand that, in Vancouver, it’s a $3 million by-election — or close to $400,000, as it was in my city — they go: “Well, that doesn’t make any sense. We’re not really saving any money. It’s costing money. That’s money that could go into our parks, for our kids. That’s money that could go into infrastructure that we need to repair.”

It’s not like the province is going to pick up the tab. It will fall on behalf of the cities and the municipalities.

This takes away the autonomy. I was whipped when there was a change in leadership. I was told to resign, and it created a very bad feeling with the mayor and council that I had at the time, because they did want to spend that $400,000 on better things than a by-election.

This is nothing more than cheap political points. Quite frankly, there are far more important things for this House to be working on and discussing than this.

I cannot support this bill, because it takes away the power of local cities and municipalities to be able to make a decision as to what is best on behalf of the taxpayers in their neighbourhood, in their cities, that are going to have to pay the bill. This takes away a tool that they could work out with each individual case, and I just cannot support it.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I ask the member for Esquimalt-Colwood to close the debate.

Darlene Rotchford: I’m grateful to have the opportunity to close debate on this bill. As a private member who is the first to follow the new process of private members’ time, it was an honour to bring my bill forward.

I will be supporting my bill because I do believe closing this loophole is very important. I think your average British Columbian doesn’t know this exists. I can tell you, talking to my four municipal local governments, they were quite surprised.

I had that conversation before I ran, because if you’re running and you’re serious about running, you’re serious about this being a full-time job and you’re serious about supporting British Columbians, you should be having those conversations. I didn’t do so lightly. You’ve heard me here at the mic talk about my council and how hard it was to leave them behind, because I had those working relationships and I love the work I do for my community.

That’s why I ran provincially. I ran provincially to make this a full-time job to better support the people in my community. Closing the loophole in this bill ensures that everybody, not just my riding of Esquimalt-Colwood but across this province, gets what they deserve, and it is an MLA working full-time in the best interests of them. So I will be supporting my bill.

I feel really sad for a group that stands there and talks about doing the right thing, called us out on this bill, are not supporting the bill because we made the fixes. My intentions were very clear all along that this represents each and every area of this province.

With that, I will thank again everyone who is going to support my bill and for all British Columbians to know that this side of the House wants to make sure that our MLAs are here, giving you 110 percent.

The Speaker: Members, the question is the third reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Members, Bill M202, intituled Eligibility to Hold Public Office Act, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Finance, to be followed by the estimates for the Legislative Assembly and officers of the Legislature and, if we get through that, the estimates for the Ministry of Attorney General.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 15 to continue.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call committee stage on Bill 14.

[2:05 p.m.]

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:07 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance
(continued)

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We’ll call this committee back to order, and we’ll call on the Minister of Finance to read the vote.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $426,950,000 (continued).

Peter Milobar: I asked a few questions yesterday about potential cuts, leadership that might be shown by the Ministry of Finance and the Minister of Finance in terms of efficiency reviews or expenditure management. It was in regard to GCPE and their $3.5 million advertising budget. No commitment from the minister of any type of action or direction taken on something as basic as that.

I mention that because we have agencies of government across this province that are having to make hard decisions based on funding envelopes in this budget provided by the government. You have universities reaching out to us and indicating they have massive strains.

You have school districts…. DPACs were on the back steps of this place yesterday. The minister and the government can try to say that there are not cuts to education. They can say that it’s up to districts to decide. Well, the districts are a creature of this government. The districts get their funding from this government. The districts are told what a large portion of spending will be based on contracts of teachers that are primarily negotiated by this government. Yet they’re held to a balanced budget by this government.

In my riding, when that district has to make the hard choice of cutting 80 jobs, 80 unionized workers, off the workforce, they didn’t have the luxury or the time to say: “Wait for a first-quarter update on September 15.” They didn’t have the luxury of time and saying: “Well, we’ll get to it in six or seven months.” They didn’t have the luxury of time and saying: “Well, we’re working on it. We’ve booked it, but we’ll tell you how, ministry, we’re going to balance our budget moving forward. Just trust us; we’ll do it.” They actually had to make the hard choice.

[2:10 p.m.]

In Kamloops’s case, it’s a reduction of band programs. One is a gold-medal-winning national band program from last year that has now been cut, is my understanding. Another school is cutting their band program. There’s talk that they will dip into and no longer have the travel fund available for coaches to be covered to go to provincial competitions with their sports teams that might qualify for a provincial playdown. The list goes on and on, as well as 80 support staff that got pink slips.

To the government, that’s not a cut in education. To the government, it’s okay that a locally elected school board has to weather those costs and make those hard decisions at the local level, staring down local parents.

Yet in this chamber, we can’t even get a clear answer from this minister on where $300 million on a $94 billion spend is going to come from. A refusal. A complete refusal. We literally just watched the government applaud and pass a bill that will trigger in Abbotsford a $300,000 extra cost on a school district, a cost they aren’t asking for, at a time when districts across this province are having to make cuts because they don’t have enough funds coming from this government.

But they’re making those hard choices. They’re being upfront about it. They’re weathering the heat at those public school board meetings, with the parents that are coming in and pleading for the band program not to be cut, pleading that the programs for special needs children don’t get cut. The district is saying: “Our hands are tied. This is the funding envelope we’ve gotten from the province.”

It doesn’t matter how the government wants to spin it. That’s the cold reality in those school boardrooms. In fact, the DPAC isn’t blaming the school districts, if you listen to what they’re saying. In unison, they’re saying across this province that they don’t have enough money from this government.

I say all of that as the backdrop to the complete lack of want by this government to even remotely talk about what they’ve already booked, which is a $300 million cut. They can try to spin it any way they want. It’s a cut. But they won’t say where; they won’t say how.

The interesting thing is the way they’ve booked it on page 22, because the minister likes to use the term: “It’s been booked.” We go from a subtotal of government expenses of $95.215 billion, they subtract off the $300 million of these phantom savings that they may or may not have, and they say we will now have a total expenditure of $94.915 billion. When I asked the minister last night if that would change the deficit if they didn’t meet the $300 million, she said: “No, it wouldn’t.”

So I’ll ask this question a different way. Based on the numbers of total expenses of $94.915 billion on page 22 and total revenue on page 23 of $84.003 billion, if the government only finds $200 million in savings, will that not change the overall calculation between total expenses and total revenue and actually see us go to an $11 billion deficit, based on these two pages?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member can talk about refusal all he wants, but in truth, the only refusal happening is the refusal of the member to accept the answer. It is not uncommon to use a tool like this. We’ve been very clear that this is an expenditure management tool.

This is an expenditure management tool which was designed intentionally to enable judgment to be used by ministries to get the best outcome. We’ve talked about how the tool was put in place. We’ve talked specifically about where the tool will be applied. We’ve talked about how, obviously, if we have a larger result using this tool, it will impact, and if we had a lesser result, it would impact. That is clear.

We have no concern about that, frankly, because the estimate of $300 million, $600 million and $600 million is achievable with the tools that we are using, and we feel very confident in these results.

Peter Milobar: The minister says this is a very common way of doing this practice. Can the minister say when was the last time the government showed a budgetary line item like this in a budget?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There are a number of examples. In B.C., it was used in 2009. A current example is Quebec, which has booked $616 million in the 2025 budget.

Peter Milobar: Well, that certainly is pretty frequent, if we are going national and using a 16-year time period. I’ll give the minister that, given that there are two references being cited. That would be — what? — ten times 16, 160 provincial budgets just provincially; and it has been used twice.

Just to get better certainty, then, on the $300 million being sought this year, is the $600 million for next year this $300 million plus $300 million, or is it a stand-alone $600 million? Then likewise, in the following year, is that a new and additional $600 million, or is it just a carry-forward of the findings into the next fiscal?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It would be the three, carrying through to the six, carrying through to the six, so not additional but continued savings.

Peter Milobar: So the actual bulk of the savings will be this year and next year. In year 3, it’s actually no new savings. It’s that whatever was found in year 1 and year 2 will just continue forward. Again, it’s not net new dollars we’re finding.

I ask this because we’re supposed to be on a path to a balanced budget. We’re talking about finding, actually, $600 million of operational savings. On a budget that has a $10 billion-plus operational deficit, $600 million is the net actual find that is being looked at. There’s $300 million in savings in this year, an extra $300 million next year, and that’s it, operationally.

[2:20 p.m.]

You can add them all together and yes, $300 million each year and then the extra $300 million so that you still get to the $1.5 billion, but that’s cumulative. The actual impact to individual line items of expenses on page 22 is really $600 million of actual, real, year-in, year-out spending by government.

Just so we’re clear, that’s the level of seriousness this government is taking in tackling a $10.9 billion operational deficit: to find $600 million in operational savings over a three-year period. Shocking when you look at what school districts are having to find right now, in the here and the now.

The minister can say it’s not true all she wants. She literally just confirmed it in her previous answer. And if I’m wrong, the minister can reconfirm, then, if she is insisting.

Is the $600 million in plan ’26-27 the same $600 million in plan ’27-28, or is the government going to find an additional $600 million in ’27 and ’28 the way it’s laid out in this book and intended in this book now?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s $300 million in savings in the first year, $600 million the next, $600 million the next. This is ongoing reduction. These are very prudent numbers. They’re part of our efficiency work.

The first part, as we’ve described, is the expenditure management. That’s where these numbers come from. We know they’re achievable. We used the design of the expenditure management to project the $300 million, $600 million and $600 million.

[2:25 p.m.]

Obviously, that would not be enough for us to get back to balance. That’s part of the work. There are additional parts of the work to get back to balance, including the review that we are doing now with all of the ministries. Every single ministry is participating in this significant review. In addition to that, work to grow the economy. So there are multiple things happening.

The member is specifically looking at the expenditure management program, which is $300 million, $600 million and $600 million. Of course, each year, you add them together for the fiscal plan of $1.5 billion.

If we’re able to continue to bring, and we will be, spending down, that will have impacts over time. That is the goal. Part 1, expenditure management. Part 2, the ministry reviews. That’s ongoing right now.

Peter Milobar: The point being it’s not a new $600 million that’s being found in the third year. To use a round number, if something was at a $700 million expenditure this year, it would drop to $400 million. It would drop to $100 million next year, and it would stay at $100 million. There would not be a second area that was suddenly looked at to find another $600 million.

On page 23, switching to the revenue side, have there been any significant concerns the minister has on any of the taxation revenue side of that ledger that gets us to the $84.003 billion? If so, what would those revenue sources be?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Of course, with every budget, there are risks. We are two months into the fiscal year, and there are puts and takes, of course, that occur throughout the year.

This particular fiscal plan has additional risk, obviously, because of global trade and the uncertainty that comes with the moment that we’re in. I will share with the member that some of the prudence and risks are outlined on pages 56 and 57 of the budget.

Peter Milobar: Oh my, my. This is going to be a long afternoon.

Has the minister made any legislative changes since this budget was introduced that might have any fundamental impacts to the taxation revenue listed on page 23? She doesn’t seem to want to talk about the over $3 billion of carbon tax. I’m assuming she’s still expecting to collect that from industry then.

[2:30 p.m. - 2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The numbers on carbon tax are as follows. In 2025-26, revenue would have been $2.76 billion, less the CATC — which, as the member knows, we cancelled — of $769 million, and the net revenue loss before other offsets is $1.991 billion. Those are the actual numbers.

It’s important to recognize that that amount is notionally funding programs. There is a review going on, looking at other trade-offs that we might have to make from having this revenue no longer available to us, but I want to back up to the bigger view for a moment. In any fiscal plan, there are changes that happen to revenue and changes that happen to expenses. This, obviously, is a significant one.

There are also significant pieces that have come forward in regard to the revenue side. For example, through the work of our Attorney General and our Premier, when he was in that role, there has been a successful outcome for the tobacco legal case that we were involved in. We’re expecting more than $3 billion to come in, and it’s just being looked at for how that accounting treatment will be.

All of that to say, yes, there are significant pressures on this fiscal plan. There are also positive intakes coming in on the fiscal plan. This is important, and it’s why we do Q1, Q2, Q3 updates. It allows us to flesh out new information as it comes in, and we’ll have those updates, as we always do.

Peter Milobar: Just under $2 billion of net revenue loss. To be clear, then, what is the remaining industrial carbon tax that is still projected to be collected?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: For ’25-26, that number is $286 million.

Peter Milobar: What is the overall cost, in what gets paid out to industry? That’s the revenue side of the carbon tax, under the OBPS and other programs that industry can tap into. There’s also money outlaid to industry for emissions improvements. What is the cost of those programs to industry?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: What was taking us a little bit of time there is that OBPS and the programs that are in place for industry…. This is not a tax question, so it doesn’t actually fall under my ministry, but we’re happy to take this on notice and reach out to ECS for information if the member would prefer that.

Peter Milobar: Well, I would have hoped there would have been modelling done when decisions like removing a net $2 billion of tax revenue…. And the implications of that program-wide, not only what it’s funding, what CleanBC initiatives were being funded by that $2 billion, but also on the industrial side…. Lots was being funded there. Heck, we had contingencies last year dedicated to CleanBC, $320 million.

The decision-making was pretty fast to cut out the low-income tax credit. That’s the only fast decision this government made in relation to removing of carbon tax.

When did the government start modelling the potential implications of removing carbon tax from this budget?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Lisa Beare: In the House, we have Wood Elementary School joining us with their teacher, Jeven Gill. We’ve got 25 grades 5 and 6 students and their parent volunteers.

On behalf of the Minister of Health, who’s in meetings right now, I get to welcome you. Thank you so much for joining us today.

Would the House please make them all feel very welcome.

The Chair: Welcome, everybody.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ll join the member in welcoming the students from Wood Elementary. We’re in the budget estimates for the Ministry of Finance. I’m here with a respected colleague on the opposition who’s asking the Minister of Finance questions about our budget. Thank you for being here.

[2:45 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The question, as I understood it to be, is: when did we start modelling this out for the budget? The answer to that is that we didn’t model this out for the budget. This decision was a post-budget decision.

Peter Milobar: Did the ministry themselves do any premodelling around what would happen if carbon tax would be removed, ahead of the minister becoming the minister?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There’s a reporting mechanism that goes throughout the carbon tax regime and its history, including annual reporting through the climate change accountability report. The member is asking about modelling specifically on removal of the carbon tax. That modelling did not occur until we had the direction that we’re, in fact, moving that way.

Peter Milobar: Well, that’s remarkable.

On page 59 of the budget book, we have changes that happened to the Income Tax Act: an increase to Film Incentive B.C., introduce major production tax credit, amend regional and distant location tax credits for animation productions, increase the interactive digital media tax credit to 25 percent and make permanent. Those all together total $53 million. In fact, there’s no actual material impact to taxpayers in this fiscal. It’s actually next year’s fiscal that that $53 million would be an impact, according to the government’s chart on page 59.

I say that because, when I asked questions about some of those tax measures on Bill 5, this is what the minister had to say:

“There are a couple things I would like to say in regard to this question. One is my civil service associates have advised me that during the interregnum period, it is very common for bureaucrats to work on all of the platform commitments from various parties as they make them, knowing that whoever is elected, there will be a rush to accomplish some of those commitments.

“So yes, there’s some work that was occurring even during the interregnum period in a non-partisan, broad kind of way, I would say.”

There was apparently work being done in that period — in a non-partisan, broad kind of way — on four or five tax measures that resulted in a grand total of $53 million, and not even until next tax year, on campaign commitments that were only referenced by one of the parties running. I checked. Our campaign didn’t make any of those commitments.

Yet, on something that collects almost $3.1 billion of tax revenue…. That was a political hot button federally and provincially that saw the Premier do a 180-degree turn in the space of a couple of months, from saying he would never back down and that if the rest of Canada got rid of carbon tax, the NDP was going to $170 a tonne, to a few months later, in the heat of an election, saying: “Oh no, no, we’ll get rid of it.” Pretty clear the B.C. Conservatives have always wanted it gone.

The minister is trying to now tell us that the civil service was doing no non-partisan, broad-kind-of-way work on campaign commitments around carbon tax and the potential implication of removing carbon tax because, you know, there’d be a rush to accomplish some of these commitments. No work was done on $3.046 billion worth of tax revenue that both parties had committed to removing, but there was work done and preplanning done on the impact of $53 million of film and digital tax credits that only one party campaigned on and that actually don’t even hit the financial plan until next year.

Is that what we’re honestly supposed to understand is the level of preplanning that was going on within government moving forward?

[2:55 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The work to understand the implications of cancelling the carbon tax doesn’t really require in-depth modelling, in fact. The numbers are quite straightforward, and those numbers, as I mentioned to the member, are available through the annual reporting in the climate change aaccountability report. Those numbers are available to us.

The hard part is now, in fact, the careful work that’s happening on the other side of it, the implications of not having that revenue on those programs that were notionally funded by it, and that’s work that is underway now.

Peter Milobar: So is the minister saying, then, that the cut of over $1 billion to low-income households was of no concern to the government, didn’t require modelling, had no economic impact assessment done on what it would mean to those individual homeowners on the low-income side of the scale? That was just a throwaway, easy-to-make decision that didn’t require any advanced modelling because it’s pretty straightforward?

Yet trying to figure out how to balance off the needs of industrial users or EV rebate programs or electric charging station programs or municipalities and their transit funding needs that come out of carbon tax or bike paths, those are much more complex. Those actually require months and months of study and a long-term thought process by the government as to whether or not those programs will still be funded.

But low-income people, you’re on your own. We can just make that cut, and we don’t have to worry about checking in and making sure we understand the impact to that household on that cut.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To the member, I couldn’t disagree with his characterization more strongly. To mix the question of complexity of a financial decision through economic modelling and suggest that that means that a policy implication is easy or not important or not impactful…. You’re mixing two entirely different things.

Something can be relatively simple in terms of its math and deeply important and meaningful in terms of policy, which obviously this is, and we took this very, very seriously. We also looked very carefully at what the numbers were for people who were receiving CATC and what the implications were, and we continue our very important work to ensure that we’re addressing affordability in many other ways.

I reject the premise that, in saying that something is not complex mathematically, it somehow equals not being important in terms of policy. This was deeply important, and it was deeply meaningful. We understand that it had implications for people, which is why we continue the really important work on affordability.

[3:05 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Well, it’s not complex to decide whether or not to continue to pay for EV charging stations. It’s not complex to decide whether or not to continue to subsidize EV sales. It’s not complex to decide whether or not you want to continue to fund transit from carbon tax or bike lanes from carbon tax. None of that is complex. All of that is a straightforward, simple mathematical calculation. In fact, it’s at least $1.991 billion.

The simple math on low income was that it was a little over $1 billion. The implication and the modelling which I was referencing that the minister said did not happen…. The minister can’t have it both ways. It’s not like there are other affordability measures, after carbon tax was removed, that have been added for those in the low-income side of the equation. This was removed from the basket of services and tax credits and supports that they receive.

Any of those other measures the government was planning on doing while actually promoting, in language around carbon tax going up in this budget book, those same supports for low-income households to go up at the same time…. This is why I’m focusing in on the carbon tax aspect of support for low-income households. The rest of it was happening. It’s happening whether carbon tax is there; it’s happening whether carbon tax was removed.

I’m asking about the modelling and the impact on the everyday lives of those low-income people. The only decision this government seemed to make about the removal of carbon tax revenue is removing the support to those low-income households.

So the minister, just to confirm, is saying that the quick and easy mathematical decision, although obviously gut-wrenching for the government to remove that support from low-income households, was to remove it without doing any economic modelling in a time of extreme affordability crisis, at a time when we see food bank usage going up and up and up, one would hazard to guess by the same people that get that low-income carbon tax credit.

There was no modelling done about the overall impact to that household by losing their carbon tax credit. It was just a mathematical decision, as gut-wrenching as it was to make that one decision. And we’ll have to wait, at a minimum, until the first-quarter update in September to find out if anything else is going to change that carbon tax is funding. Am I understanding that?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I just want to take a moment to talk a little bit about the reality of what people were paying in carbon tax and what they were receiving, those who were receiving the CATC credit.

Now, the reason that we designed this repayment to people who are most impacted by the carbon tax is to provide a levelling out to ensure that the most vulnerable aren’t having to experience this tax, and we structured the tax credit in that way. I’ll share with the member opposite that the average family paid about $410 in carbon tax, and through CATC, the average family would receive $485.

I’m certainly not saying that $75 a year is nothing, but it’s also important to recognize that that’s the amount that we’re talking about.

Peter Milobar: Just to be clear for the viewers at home, when the minister says “we structured,” this tax credit was structured back when carbon tax first came in. It went up every time the carbon tax went up. So it goes back to the days of the B.C. Liberals. I believe 2008 would have been the first tax year that it actually came into effect, and it continued on.

[3:15 p.m.]

Then it plateaued out when it was at $30. Then when the NDP got power and they started to put up carbon tax, long before the federal government mandated it to go to $50, it increased as it went up.

It froze the one year during COVID, when the then minister, Carole James, acknowledged, essentially, that carbon tax does impact affordability. Under COVID, she was worried about cost and impact. So they froze carbon tax for a year. Then the next year, apparently not as worried about it impacting affordability, and the march went on.

Then the feds changed the rules, and we started to see the $15-a-year increases after it got to the $50. So that’s the Coles Notes version of the history of carbon tax in B.C. But the Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit has been around since the inception of it.

My point is this. Decisions were made. You know, the minister has made it very clear that, on other tax measures, the public service had no problem modelling out and thinking about the implication of a tax change happening. Something as significant as $3 billion — $3 billion, I would point out, out of just under $50 billion of overall taxes collected; so about 7 percent of the tax revenues of this province — was openly being talked about by both parties in a campaign. Yet there was no pre-modelling done by the ministry to figure out what the implications of that would be.

Here we are — what are we? — almost three months post-budget being introduced, seven months post-election, changed since April 1. That was brought in and rushed through pretty fast — 14 hours worth of debate. With all those various timelines and checkpoints, still no clear direction from this government on what they’re going to do on the missing $1.991 billion worth of revenue.

By my math, at a minimum, that makes our deficit now go from $10.9 billion to $12.8 billion. We’ll continue on throughout the rest of the day to figure it out, because bond-rating agencies have already pegged it at $14.3 billion. That didn’t seem to bother the minister, who shrugged it off as not a problem instead of trying to defend and explain why, no, it’s not really $14.3 billion because here’s our plan to deal with the revenue shortfall.

I’ll likely come back to carbon tax in a little bit, but there’s a whole lot of revenue sources. We touched on property transfer tax a little bit yesterday. That’s $2.247 billion. We established last night that the budget accounts for 13.2 percent of projected sales growth, with an average price going up by 2.4 percent. The minister says sales volume is actually 1.7 percent, not 13.2, and that sales are actually negative 3.6 in value percent, not positive 2.4 percent.

It seems like that will be…. I agree with them. The minister said, when I asked the first question about sales volume and number of transactions: “Well, it also depends on what the purchase price is.” I totally agree with that statement, except the purchase price is 6 percent lower than we were projecting, as well, in the budget. It’s not exactly the way you want those two numbers to go when they’re both tanking.

So you jump forward to page 27. Property transfer tax revenue growth is expected to average 7½ percent annually over the next three years, consistent with expected annual changes in residential sales values and an assumed response to the expected lower mortgage rates. Well, we know the sales values are dropping, and we know the actual sales volume is dropping and way below anything projected. However, the line above it is property tax as well. That’s $4 billion.

Now, I recognize that not all of that will be lumped in with this. But its description is: “expected to grow by an average of 5.5 percent annually over the next three years, consistent with gross assumptions on housing starts,” which we know are lower.

[3:20 p.m.]

Yes, it incorporates speculation and vacancy tax increases, but those, as we saw on page 59, really only account for $12 million this year and $47 million next year. When you’re talking $4 billion, that’s not really what’s going to stabilize things, one way or the other.

With the $4 billion of property tax, and recognizing not all of it is directly tied to the housing starts, how significant a part do housing starts actually play in that $4 billion worth of projected property tax revenues?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I do just want to begin this part of the conversation by reminding the member of something I’m sure he knows, which is that we’re seeing volatility in the market. It’s important, when we’re talking about an annualized budget, that we recognize that just taking data from two months at the start of the year doesn’t really tell us the full story. I just want to ensure that we’re recognizing that.

For example, yesterday we talked a bit about how housing starts are down. We also know that we’ve got the numbers in for April now, and while housing starts were quite low in the beginning of the year at 30,000, April housing starts were 53,000. The number we used in the budget is 46,000.

We are seeing volatility, and it’s premature to make assumptions about what the year will look like. Of course, this is what we track very closely, and again, it’s why we report out every quarter on what we’re seeing in terms of both revenues and expenses.

The member asked specifically about how this revenue impacts the budget, and I’ll bring the member to table A5 on page 138, under property taxes. On the far right-hand side, there’s a sensitivity analysis in regard to property taxes, which I believe the member was asking about. I’ll just read it out: “Plus or minus 1 percentage point change in 2025 new construction and inflation growth equals up to plus or minus $30 million in residential property taxation revenue.”

Peter Milobar: Thanks for that. Yeah, there are a lot of charts, so it’s good there’s always staff to point to the charts.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

In terms of the overall other taxation areas, what studies have been done on tobacco taxation? It’s kind of a static $450 million across the board. However, we’ve heard repeatedly from industry…. Again, I’m not trying to be an advocate for big tobacco by any means, but there is a very real-world reality out there of black market cigarettes. We can pretend they don’t exist. We all know smoking is not great for you, but the reality is, just like with illegal gaming, it’s a revenue hit to government.

What does the government typically forecast as the revenue hit of illegal cigarettes, and how does that impact our tobacco taxation number over this budget and in coming years?

[3:30 p.m. - 3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’re talking about the black market in regard to tobacco and how we do estimates on revenue from tobacco. I’ll tackle this in two parts.

First, it’s very difficult to get data for the black market. Of course, they don’t fall under the same disclosure rules and we don’t have access to information, but it’s important to know that we take this very, very seriously. In fact, within our ministry, we have an enforcement branch that works on this. I’ll share with the member opposite that on May 15, we had what the police described as a very significant amount of illegal tobacco and cannabis confiscated. There was quite a significant bust.

As to how we do forecasting for tobacco, without strong data, obviously, from the side of the black market, what we use are prior revenues that come to us through taxation, through the legal market. That number, for ’25-26, is $450 million.

Peter Milobar: I guess I’m asking because when government is looking for every penny under the couches, one would think that there’d be a cost-benefit analysis — and not just on the public safety side, for obvious reasons, in terms of organized crime. These are not people, dealing with illegal cigarettes, that are not tied in with some form of organized crime somewhere. It’s a pretty large operation that happens across Canada and across North America.

There’d be the public safety cost-benefit analysis, but one would think, given the dire financial straits of a government that is now apparently running a $12.8 billion deficit, that they’d want to be making sure that illegal activities that are taking away from tax revenues were being properly investigated and cracked down on.

I’m hearing from an increasing number of businesses out there that they’re feeling like they’re being targeted with PST audits and other audits. I’m not going to pick one side or the other, but there definitely seems to be a feeling, anyway, that there’s an uptick in that or a more aggressive attitude from the ministry, hunting for those pennies under the cushions.

Then you have other operators, like the small businesses that run the corner stores and gas stations and that rely heavily on tobacco sales. You can argue the merits — the health, or not, of it. But it is a legal product, and they are allowed to sell it under certain conditions. They feel they’re not being supported while they’re still, in unison, being audited for other issues within the tax branch. They don’t feel they’re actually getting much support on the enforcement side.

Has there been any direction? Have there been any enhancements to the enforcement side with the ministry, around things like the caving of revenues due to the black market tobacco that’s out there?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I can certainly understand the sentiment from the businesses that the member has spoken to who feel that they’re doing everything right and by the rules, and they’re held to account and paying taxes and being good citizens, and down the road, somebody is selling tobacco illegally, and that’s really frustrating.

I’m happy to share with the member that, in fact, my reference to the May 15 significant enforcement that occurred, occurred in Kamloops. I hope that the member can share with the businesses that the member has spoken to that we take enforcement very seriously and that we understand the concerns that they’ve raised, and they’re very valid. Perhaps the member would like us to get some information about that particular bust, as they say.

I do want to share with the member an answer to the question: have we seen an increase in enforcement? In fact, we have reallocated internal resources to this investigations unit within Finance to increase their capacity.

Peter Milobar: Moving on to cannabis revenues, what is the overall cannabis taxation revenue, net, to government for this coming year, or at least anticipated?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To the member’s question in regard to the cannabis revenue, I’ll share with the member that this is a federal excise tax that is collected by the federal government and then shared out. It shows up on page 141 under “Other federal contributions,” the second line. B.C.’s share of the federal cannabis excise tax is $110 million.

Peter Milobar: How much of that has been agreed upon to go back to UBCM and municipalities? There was supposed to be a funding agreement agreed upon with the provincial government when cannabis first came in. What is slated to go back to municipalities this year?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The province does not share cannabis revenue with the municipalities.

Peter Milobar: Well, that’s concerning. When cannabis was first introduced, that was the deal, that there was going to be revenue sharing.

Is the minister saying that that agreement has never happened with UBCM and that there has, in fact, not only never been cannabis revenues shared with municipalities but that there’s absolutely no intention of the province to make good on that commitment to share cannabis revenues with local government?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member has said that was the deal, and that is not my understanding. The federal-provincial-territorial agreement on cannabis taxation was signed in 2017. It did not outline any specific requirements for the province to share cannabis revenues with municipalities, nor was there mention of any such expectation included in the federal releases or ministerial statements in regard to the agreement.

Peter Milobar: Well, it’s going to be news to UBCM that the government has changed their tune, because there was very clearly…. It’s not the federal side. There was a commitment made, and there were negotiations made. In fact, the current Transportation Minister, who was then the Solicitor General, was frequently quoted talking about it. I know the former mayor of Kamloops was always wondering when the agreement was going to be made.

I had assumed, with as many years as have passed, that the government had fulfilled that commitment. It has been quite a stellar couple of weeks for this government with UBCM. That’s for sure. I’ll move on though. Obviously, that doesn’t seem to be something that’s going to be moving forward. I’ll leave it to UBCM to decide if they want to press that any further or not.

In terms of the illegal cannabis side of the equation though, there’s a lot of talk about grey-area cannabis, but my understanding is that you have to go through the same government warehouse that you would for B.C. liquor. It gets shipped through that. It gets tracked that way. You get a licence, set up your store, and you operate.

Now, private liquor stores operate the same way. They get licensed by the government, and they move forward, and the government gets their revenues off that. A liquor store, whether it’s operating in a municipal boundary or on reserve lands, would still need those provincial licences. In fact, if they didn’t have those provincial licences, every drop of liquor would be deemed to be illegal in that store, and they wouldn’t last very long. It wouldn’t be open very long at all. I can say that as a former liquor store owner. That’s what would happen.

Yet cannabis, which is regulated and controlled by the exact same organization in government and operates the exact same way, seems to be treated differently. The on-reserve stores do not have access to those government warehouses. They do not have access to the government-controlled supply of cannabis. So by virtue, it’s not grey. Everything in that store would be considered illegal under the law. But very minimal enforcement gets taken, usually only if the host First Nation asks for some intervention to happen.

What is the lost revenue? Surely that’s been investigated by the Minister of Finance, given they have the investigative crew with tobacco and cannabis. She mentioned cannabis when she answered about the illegal tobacco. These are stores that are up and running, physically there.

[3:55 p.m.]

We know what we’re taking in on the legal stores. We know roughly what is happening for volumes in those illegal stores. What is the revenue loss that the Minister of Finance has calculated, on a yearly basis, by not enforcing the rules as they pertain to cannabis, unlike trying to enforce the rules as they pertain to tobacco or liquor?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There’s sort of a question of overlapping jurisdictions here, so I just want to provide a point of clarification.

The investigation unit within the Ministry of Finance does not investigate cannabis. I previously mentioned Kamloops-area enforcement. We were involved because of the tobacco side. It was work with the police, and they were involved in regard to the cannabis and tobacco.

Also, it’s actually the CRA that collects the excise tax on cannabis, not the province, so they’re responsible for the enforcement from the tax perspective.

In the province, the Solicitor General is responsible for looking at enforcement from a legal perspective.

Peter Milobar: Just looping back, in terms of municipalities, it’s been a position of UBCM and a discussion point with the government — 2018, 2019, 2020. The latest resolution is 2023. Last year was an election year, so it probably got lost in the weeds, but it is not something that, frankly, should be a surprise conversation. Perhaps to the minister, who I appreciate is new in her role…. I find it hard to believe or actually shocked, frankly, that the ministry itself was unaware of UBCM’s desire and discussions with the province over the course of, like, multiple years.

The pretty consistent ask and demand and discussion by the province that they were at least entertaining and discussing the revenue split of the excise tax, the federal tax…. I get it’s federal. But it’s meant to be a split of whatever comes to the province, so that is a concern.

[4:00 p.m.]

Some of these I’m just pointing out because, again, it’s the minister talking about trying to find efficiencies, trying to find the pennies under the couches and all of those great buzzwords, while we’re staring down the barrel of a $12.8 billion deficit and counting. We know that a property tax of $4 billion may or may not have some changes to that, but the property transfer tax at $2.2 billion very much looks like it’s in trouble, based on how it gets calculated differently than the property tax gets calculated.

Yet we have school districts held to a very high standard of balancing their budgets, regardless of what cuts they need to make with the revenues they’ve been provided, by the provincial government, in this budget. We have municipalities that are seeing a drop in their local gaming host community grants, as we established last night when questioning B.C. Lotteries, somewhat connected with the proliferation of illegal online gaming happening and the impacts that has on bricks-and-mortar in those host communities.

We have municipalities that have been walked away from with a conversation around cannabis excise revenue share. We have municipalities that don’t know what’s going to happen on the carbon tax side of the equation when it comes to things like active transportation, bike lanes and potential extra transit funding or not — all things that this government has repeatedly pointed to, as carbon tax paying for.

No certainty, no clarity, no clear path: “You guys just figure it out.” Yet when we try to ascertain where any efficiencies or cuts are happening, in real time with this government, we get met with: “It’s a work in progress.”

Every other jurisdiction that falls under the watch of this government is expected to do it immediately, do it right away, and the only definitive decision this government has made on anything has been to remove the carbon tax in a 14-hour period, and then the only thing they removed, from that revenue drop, is the tax credit to low-income people in this province.

There’s a lack of concern around credit downgrades by the minister. What is the impact projected to be to our debt borrowing costs, in the long term and the short term, for B.C., with those credit downgrades and the trajectory of our debt that’s in this budget?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Hon. Chair, I’d request a bio recess, if we may, please.

The Chair: Sure. We’ll be back in 15 minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:03 p.m. to 4:18 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call the committee back to order, continuing Committee of Supply estimates for the Ministry of Finance.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Bringing us back to the question at hand, the member has asked about the downgrades that we experienced: what they were and what the implications are and how it’s been impacting our borrowing costs.

S&P and Moody’s downgraded us on April 2. Two other rating agencies did not choose to downgrade but did change their trajectory to negative in terms of long-term view.

We’ve been working very hard on our relationships with investors, on our bond tour and, also, with the relationships with the agencies.

The way that it’s measured in terms of the borrowing cost is really against Ontario. Ontario is considered the benchmark province, and we actually haven’t seen a negative impact to our borrowing costs. In fact, our borrowing costs have gone favourably in our direction by 1½ basis points.

Peter Milobar: So it hasn’t impacted it yet. If it did impact it throughout the rest of this year, if it added, say, $100 million…. Again, I’m just using a round number — the minister can use whatever order of magnitude number — more for illustrative purposes than anything else.

If it impacted by $100 million, say, in borrowing costs in this fiscal year, to keep all things being equal, then on page 22, does that mean that the government would need to find $400 million worth of savings? Or would it just absorb it in the overall operational costs and see an extra $100 million added to the $12.8 billion deficit that we’re now at?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: No. Just no, in regard to how the member framed this question. This is not a yet. We are fully engaged in the issuance of bonds. We’ve already issued $6.6 billion in Canada, and we’ve had outstanding reception. We also have issued the equivalency of $2.7 billion Canadian in euro bonds, again to outstanding reception. So no, I’m not accepting the member’s premise for the question.

The reality is that, while we have experienced a downgrade, it is also true that the entire world is being impacted by what’s happening with the tariffs.

[4:25 p.m.]

The member makes a face about this, as if the tariffs aren’t happening. They are happening. They are having implications worldwide, obviously, including in the bond market. British Columbia is comparing very favourably, as indicated by these issuances.

Peter Milobar: The minister might not want to play poker with me, then, because I wasn’t making a face about the tariffs.

At any rate, tariffs would absolutely have an impact on the budget. We’re not disputing that, but they’re not showing up anywhere in the budget in this moment in time anyways. We can only work with the numbers and the information that we have in this moment of time with this minister.

We have a $12.8 billion deficit. We have projected corporate taxes dropping. Was there any modelling done around the CFIB requests around, I think, steps that could be taken to make small business and medium-sized business more competitive in B.C., particularly around things like removing PST on equipment and inputs?

I mean, it was good enough during COVID, yet again. We had a carbon tax freeze during COVID to help with affordability issues. We had PST removal on equipment to try to spur on reinvestment and help stabilize industry. Now we’re in the middle of a tariff crisis that some in government have tried to liken, well, to World War II. Others have tried to liken it to the COVID crisis. We’re not seeing the same type of measures being taken.

Now, we did see carbon tax completely removed, but let’s face it, that was grudgingly done and that’s what’s got us to the $12.8 billion deficit we’re staring at right now. The real question is around, you know, trying to reinvigorate and listen to our business community. We don’t seem to have very many tax measures in this budget.

One would assume there was some modelling done. Was it done on the CFIB recommendations, which have been pretty consistent for a few years now? If so, what was the outcome of that modelling, and why was it not part of this budget?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ll answer this question in two parts. The first part is there was modelling done on the deficit, and that number is 10.9. I would appreciate it if the member would stop his misinformation campaign and use the actual number of the deficit in our budget, which is what we are discussing today, and that number is 10.9.

We’ll answer the second part of that in a moment.

[4:30 p.m.]

In regard to the question about CFIB and meeting with small businesses, we take very seriously the thoughtful recommendations from the business community, and I enjoy a positive relationship with the CFIB.

We met quite recently. We’re just looking up the date. It was in March or April. I’ll share with the member opposite that I worked closely with the CFIB and with GVBOT on their recommendations — adopted not this budget, the prior one — in regard to changes for the EHT, which was the most important and pressing request coming from business at that time. They had made that very clear to me when I was at JEDI.

We didn’t do budget consultations this round, due to the election, but I’ve had the opportunity both to meet with CFIB and also, just last week, with BCBC to listen to their recommendations on taxation and other issues of importance to the community.

Peter Milobar: Well, the minister seemed to take great umbrage with me stating a $12.8 billion deficit, so I feel I’m compelled to correct the record, then, based on her strong words there. My comments were based on the fact that on page 1 we have a $10.912 billion deficit in this budget book. When you take the answers of today….

Again, the minister is fond of talking about a moment in time. Well, in this moment in time, with this budget, the minister very clearly stated that we have $1.991 billion of carbon tax revenue that there have not been cuts to spending for. There has been no attempt to make up the difference one way or the other. They can’t point to it.

I’m not even talking about the $300 million that’s notional, just the $1.991 billion in carbon tax revenue, so I would like to correct the record. It’s not actually a $12.8 billion deficit. It’s a $12.903 billion deficit, if we want to get accurate. The minister can point me to where the $1.991 billion in lost revenue of carbon tax appears. I’m not even putting in a number anticipating the caving of the property transfer tax or other things. These are strictly just adding the minister’s own answer around carbon tax revenues.

She can take great offence to it all she wants. I will correct the record. It’s not a $12.8 billion deficit; it’s $12.9 billion. Who knows how much it’ll grow by the end of the day?

[4:35 p.m.]

It’s interesting. The minister keeps trying to lecture us and tell us that it’s all about a moment in time and that we must stick to this book. Yet they have no problem, the government, talking about other programs or things that have happened after this book. It makes it a little bit difficult to try to deal with the budget estimate with a minister that’s not forthcoming.

Now, I want to quote a Finance Minister: “The moment I had reliable information to bring before this House, information that may not be politically advantageous, as the members opposite no doubt realize, I brought it before the public and before this House. I am committed to being forthright as a Minister of Finance, whether it favours me or does not favour me. I have done that here, and I am damn proud of it.” Andrew Petter, July 2, 1996. That was from a series of fudge-it budget quotes that I have.

The point being, to Mr. Petter’s credit, at that time, based on that quote, he was at least attempting to acknowledge that massive changes were happening. I could talk about other quotes that he has on the 1996 NDP budgeting process. But there was acknowledgement of shifting in projections and assumptions.

Now, I didn’t press the minister for a firmer number on property transfer tax last night or today. I accept that the market is going to keep moving around, so it’s not reasonable to think that the minister could give us a more updated number today on the property transfer tax of $2.247 billion. But there is a pretty safe assumption that that’s not going to meet its target, just like there was a safe assumption when the first target was set in the first place when this budget book was made.

I haven’t added that to the $12.9 billion deficit that this minister seems so offended by, but it’s her numbers. It’s her book. It’s her book she has changed as of April 1. It’s her book that she confirmed today on carbon tax, in particular, a revenue drop. The minister can suddenly now try to pretend there’s not a $1.991 billion hole in revenues, but there is.

Is the minister now saying that there is not a $1.991 billion drop in revenues of carbon tax, net drop, in total contradiction of her answer in this place an hour or two ago?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Where I take objection to the member’s approach of making up a number that he is now referring to as the deficit is that it implies that that is in fact the deficit in this budget. The member is asking very specific questions that feed that argument. There are puts and takes that happen during a fiscal year. The member is highlighting some of the risk.

Absolutely, there is risk in this budget — absolutely; and we’ve been discussing it. But there are also areas where we’re going to see revenue increases. We’ve already identified the tobacco win, for example. That’s not part of the member’s calculation. There are other areas where we will see revenue lifts.

It’s not back-of-the-napkin work to determine what a deficit of a province is. This is serious stuff, Member, and we take it very, very seriously on this side of the House. The correct way of things is to rely on the intelligence before us, which tells us the deficit is $10.9 billion. Then, as we have the information from the next quarter and it’s modelled in, we revise those numbers based on facts, not based on things that are chosen politically to make an argument, which is what the member is doing. That’s why I take offence to it.

The actual deficit number for the province of British Columbia this year is $10.912 billion. That is the number we’re talking about.

The member knows that we are underway with deeply important work to reduce spending across government. The member knows that we are making reviews of programming because of the offset of the carbon tax. That’s not part of the member’s calculation.

That’s politics, Member, and that’s what I take offence to.

[4:40 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Well, it’s not politics. We’ve had the better part of two days already, and we still have a couple hours to go today. I have asked repeatedly where the $300 million in savings that’s been booked is going to be found in this budget and have been stonewalled on that. That’s not politics. That’s the minister refusing to answer questions about expenditures.

The government actually has more control over expenditures than over the revenue side. The government refuses to even say where they’re going to come up with $300 million, yet we’re supposed to believe that they’re going to magically somehow offset $1.991 billion in carbon tax revenue.

The minister can talk about the tobacco claim. Great. B.C. won in court. It’s $3.7 billion over an 18-year payout. It’ll be about $200 million a year.

Can the minister then confirm that we’re getting all $3.7 billion? Every news report I have seen says it’s an 18-year settlement, and B.C.’s portion of the $32 billion will be $3.7 billion in the settlement. Or were all those media reports wrong? Because now that the minister is going down the tobacco settlement road as somehow going to magically fix our structural deficit…. Even if it was a $3.7 billion one-time payment, that still leaves this government — what? — $9 billion in the red.

So what exactly are the terms of this tobacco settlement that is supposed to be the saviour of this budget, when the minister is so opposed to me talking about the revenue loss of carbon tax added to the deficit, when she’s unwilling to show any substantial areas of revenue growth or expenditure decrease in this budget at the same time?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The example that I gave of the incoming revenue from the tobacco settlement is an example of the fact that there are also revenues as well as increased expenses.

Now, the member has received answers from me on every question the member has asked, and I’ve explained how we are doing this work. You know, a one-time settlement isn’t going to solve the deficit problem that we’re in. The work that we are doing is going to solve the deficit problem that we’re in, and I’ve described it to the member. I’ve pointed it out on page 20. We are under an efficiency review. We already have booked $300 million. We’re doing deep work across the ministries in order to bring down the deficit.

The member might scoff, but this is important work. We’ve made a commitment to British Columbians that we are going to be on the path to balance. That is the work that we’re doing. Yes, I find it difficult when the member makes up numbers that are not reflected in the actual numbers. Our deficit is $10.912 billion. There is significant work underway for us to reduce the deficit over time, and that is happening. There is work underway to address the loss in the carbon tax revenue. That work is happening.

Throughout the year, there are challenges with revenue. There are benefits to revenue. There are additional expenses. Things change within a fiscal year. That’s why we report out every quarter. To draw on those numbers and refer to them as an updated deficit number is completely appropriate, but to draw your own conclusions from small examples is not appropriate. That is not a deficit number. A deficit number is based on fact, and the facts are that the deficit currently projected for this year is $10.912 billion.

Peter Milobar: Well, it’s not. It just fundamentally is not. It’s a deficit projected on projections and assumptions that have already been blown out of the water. Property transfer tax is not a relevant number in this book, and I’m not even pressing on that one, because I recognize that it’s only a two-month sample size in this fiscal.

Carbon tax was a policy choice by this government to remove net $1.991 billion of revenue. It’s no longer an assumption. It’s done. It’s quantified. The minister gave the number. It’s not that it might be slightly slower fuel consumption, so instead of the $950 million of fuel consumption tax we’re down to $910 million fuel consumption tax, but if it gets a little busier with trucking and everything else, maybe it bumps back up to $960 million in the second- or third-quarter update. That’s not what we’re talking about with carbon tax.

We’re not talking about property transfer tax that might have a rebound in the second half of the year and still get back to closer, which is why I haven’t added that in to the $12.9 billion deficit. We’re not talking about the projected personal income tax, corporate income tax, employer health tax that could still whipsaw a little bit.

[4:45 p.m.]

We’re talking about carbon tax. I’ve added that directly because the minister is unwilling to say if electric vehicle charging stations will no longer be funded with carbon tax revenue that’s gone — bike lanes, transit, EV vehicle rebates, whether or not that is a savings.

We couldn’t even get an accurate number out of the minister on what the cost back to industrial suppliers that were being paid for by carbon tax would be, so whether or not the $286 million in carbon tax they will still pay is a net positive or if we’re actually providing $300 million worth of grants back to industry. We couldn’t get that number today, in this moment in time.

In this moment in time, we know there’s $1.991 billion of revenue gone out of the $49.699 billion. In fact, that number would be different because it should be the…. Well, that’s less the $2.8 billion. We know that. These are the minister’s answers, not mine. I didn’t create the $1.991 billion number. The minister gave that to me today as a net negative revenue to government. There was no other option, based on the amount of times I’ve asked questions about where other cuts in spending would be, than to say it’s a $12.9 billion deficit in this moment in time.

The minister can correct me on the first-quarter update. That moment in time might show something different over the next month, but it’s only one month to go, and then those numbers are locked in. The first-quarter update might not happen until September 15. It might not be released. My bet is it gets released on the Friday of the long weekend, try to bury the story a little bit ahead of time. We’d love to be proven wrong on that.

In this moment in time, that’s all the information this government and this minister have provided us to operate on. For the minister to get offended that we would suggest a $12.9 billion deficit, when Moody’s is saying $14.3 billion in their projections…. I guess bond-rating agencies don’t know what they’re talking about when they look at budgets either, or understand budgeting, as the minister seemed to indicate. Yesterday she thought I didn’t understand how budgeting works.

Until the government can show, with credibility, revenue projections that are far exceeding any of their assumptions in this budget book, or spending that has been reined in, in this moment in time there is no other option than that it’s a $12.9 billion deficit as we sit here today.

Can the minister point to any one of these tax revenue lines that has significantly been exceeding the assumptions and the revenue targets over the first two months of this fiscal?

[4:50 p.m. - 4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member and I are engaged in a challenge of timelines, largely. The reality is the work that’s underway is going to be reflected initially in Q1. When the member takes one side of the ledger and argues that doing the math that he’s done is the new deficit number, it doesn’t account for the work that we’re doing and it doesn’t account for any puts and takes that come on the expenditure side or on revenue.

Now, I want to point out two things. I recognize that the member is frustrated hearing about Q1, and waiting is hard. I am seeing already the results of the work that we’re doing on expenditure management. I will share with the member, just in the last week I have had two meetings with private sector vendors who have come to me with concerns, concerns that I take very seriously, concerns because they’re seeing such a decline in their revenue due to government making choices because of our expenditure review.

One is in the transportation sector, and the other is in the advertising sector. One decline was 30 percent, and the other was 50 percent. These are two of the areas that we’ve asked government to focus on to reduce spending. Now, it’s important to us that we work with the private sector to make sure that the changes that we’re making in government are not causing unintended consequences. When we talk about being careful in the work that we’re doing, that’s part of it, frankly.

But I know that we’re having impact. I know that we’re having impact within government, within the efforts to bring down these costs. They will be reflected in Q1 and the quarters after. It’s important work. We’re doing this carefully. We’re doing this very thoroughly. The fact that I see these results coming in, you know, counters what the member is doing with his back-of-the-napkin math.

I also want to point out — and this was an answer that was provided — that people can see we’re serious about this work. Despite the two downgrades that we received, one from S&P and the other from Moody’s, we are not experiencing negativity from those downgrades. In fact, as I’ve said, our offerings, compared to Ontario, which is considered the baseline, are favourable to the point of 1½ basis points.

That is because of a couple of different factors: (1) of course, the reality of what’s happening in the world and how B.C. compares. And B.C. compares favourably. That’s good news for us. It’s also, I believe, because we’ve met with them. We’ve gone on these bond tours, and they can see how serious we are about deficit reduction. This is serious work that we are doing.

I think it’s important that those factors are taken into consideration, but I look forward to the member’s next question.

Peter Milobar: Well, that’s astonishing. So a week ago the minister met with advertisers who expressed concern about a cut in advertising spending. Twelve hours ago, 24 hours ago the minister refused to say if GCPE had been directed to cut any advertising money.

Today, after hours of asking for examples of the $300 million in savings that are supposed to be getting found, magically, advertising has been cut to the point that suppliers are getting hold of the minister and having a minister-to-supplier, face-to-face meeting about said drop in revenues, because it’s that significant of a drop.

[5:00 p.m.]

Can the minister confirm today what she was unwilling to confirm yesterday, that GCPE has cut their advertising budget or been directed to cut their advertising budget, or is the minister talking about some other form of government advertising out there?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’re talking about that $300 million and the expenditure controls. As the member understands, we have the efficiency review of two components: one being the expenditure controls, the second being the program reviews. The expenditure controls across government include — as we mentioned yesterday, when we went through the different STOBs that were included — advertising.

Peter Milobar: Why did the minister refuse to acknowledge that yesterday under direct questioning around advertising budgets and if any cut was going to happen to advertising budgets?

I asked repeatedly. I highlighted that GCPE is directly under the minister’s control, that they have a $3.5 million advertising budget. It would show leadership to the rest of cabinet and the rest of government. The answer was: “No decisions have been made.”

Today we get a completely different answer. How are we supposed to be doing our jobs as opposition if fundamental questions like this continue to change day by day?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’re talking about two components: expenditure controls and program reviews. Expenditure controls…. I read out to the member yesterday the STOBs that were covered and included some advertising.

The member was asking specifically about GCPE. The GCPE, as part of our program reviews within the Ministry of Finance — that is work that is underway. It’s a separate category that the member is asking about. That is work that is underway. It’s not being directed, in terms of the exact number, but we are working with every single ministry, mine included, to review all of the opportunities and to make decisions on that. That work is happening right now.

Peter Milobar: Is the minister suggesting…? I mean, surely to god there’s a little bit of good faith here in the context of the questions. And I’m waiting for the Blues to get delivered up to me.

I’m asking about advertising; I’m asking about GCPE specifically. You have the head of GCPE here advising you. The answer I get back is that all STOBs are being looked at, but all ministries have those same STOBs. I then ask: “Are there any specific ministries under specific STOBs that are being asked to do more or less?” The answer is no.

[5:05 p.m.]

We asked specifically about advertising. The minister clings to the fact that I was only asking about GCPE advertising under that specific STOB for GCPE and the direction to overall government and then hangs her hat on saying, “Well, but under those STOBs, other ministries have advertising savings that they can find too.” That is what she is saying today. And: “GCPE is still under review.”

The opposition and the public are supposed to think that’s a reasonable, straightforward answer from a minister that very clearly ought to have known exactly what I was driving at when I was asking questions about advertising yesterday, a minister who’s taking great umbrage with the fact that I’m calling it a $12.9 billion deficit because she can’t show any actual direct savings after hours and hours of asking.

In fact, we’ve started down this rabbit hole yet again on advertising, chewing up even more time on estimates, covering old ground with the minister that completely avoided the first question I asked three questions ago, which was: can the minister point to any revenue source on page 23 that in the first two months of the fiscal has already dramatically shifted enough that gives the minister confidence to say that in the next month, when this first quarter ends, that $1.991 billion of lost revenue will magically be made up in any significant way to avoid a $12.9 billion deficit? We already know they’re obviously not achieving it on the expenditure side.

Since the minister seems to want to be very, very accurate, I’ll start at the bottom and work my way up. Commercial Crown corporations net income — B.C. Hydro, Liquor Distribution Branch, B.C. Lottery Corp., ICBC and other combined — is $4.011 billion.

Does any one of those components of commercial Crown corporations net income over the first two months of this fiscal seem to be trending in a way that will dramatically exceed the revenue projections and assumptions that went into that $4 billion in the first place?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As the member knows and as I’ve said repeatedly, we don’t have the numbers for this year, Q1. However, I think the member brought up the example of Crown corporations revenue, and it’s an excellent example.

Let me point out to the member the type of volatility we see in revenue projections. This is ’24-25. In the Q1 update for Crown corporations total revenue change, it was up $247 million; in the fall 2024 update, down $322 million; in the Q3 update, up $1.420 billion. Total change was $1.345 billion to the positive.

Again, there is volatility in revenue as well. That really speaks to the point that I’ve been trying to make to the member that by choosing specific things and not waiting for Q1, which captures a broader picture, it’s not a fulsome representation.

Peter Milobar: It doesn’t sound like anything…. Again, housing in the first two months has trended. There are trend lines, and that was the question, around trend lines and assumptions: is it exceeding or below trend lines that were in the budget?

Housing had trend lines, 13.2 percent and 2.4 percent. We know it’s now at 1.7 percent and negative 3.6 percent. That’s trending negative on the property transfer tax side of things. But we can’t put a number on that, and I accept that.

I didn’t ask for an exact revenue change of the assumption. What I asked was: within the commercial Crown corporations, has there been anything to indicate a substantive change over what was already made in the assumptions to create this budget book? It sounds like the answer is no.

I’ll ask about contributions from the federal government. Health and social transfers and other federal government contributions total $15.277 billion. Has there been any substantive change or indications in the first two months of this fiscal that any of those transfers from the federal government are expected to significantly change, positively or negatively?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member misquoted me and said that the answer is no, that we don’t have the information on Crown revenue. That is incorrect. The information is not that there are no changes; the information is that we do not have this information yet. It will be in Q1, which is what I have been saying again and again.

For the member to say there has been no change, it’s not correct. This will be captured and expressed in Q1, when we have the data.

[5:15 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: The question is about trends and assumptions. Most of these areas would have monthly trends and assumptions associated with…. It’s not just the real estate industry that does that. We’re talking about billions of dollars being tracked by government.

Businesses submit PST returns regularly. Income taxes and corporate income taxes get filed, get updated. There’s back-and-forth with the federal government. Yes, there’s about a 20-month lag on the final reconciliations that move forward, and that creates some of the swings on corporate and personal income taxes. I fully understand that.

The question is about assumptions. The minister is completely offended that I keep saying it’s a $12.9 billion deficit, but she can’t point to anything to discount that. The reason I’m saying that is not to be antagonistic. It’s because the minister has made it very clear that there is a $1.991 billion hole in revenues created because of government policy, not government assumptions, not time lags of income tax, not outside market forces.

Government made a decision, apparently, that was in both parties’ campaign promises. It had no modelling done, no assumptions being done by government, despite the minister previously saying, during Bill 5 debate, that that work actually happens during an election with the ministry, behind the scenes, in a non-partisan kind of way.

Pretty large election promises being made by both parties. No modelling being done, no work being done ahead of time on how to offset. And the minister now, just as the Premier is, is fond of saying over the last week and a half: “Just trust us.” A month to go in this quarter: “Just trust us. We’ll give you all the information on September 15.”

Then, after repeated questions about the most basic thing, like a $3½ million advertising budget, the minister references, on day 2, that maybe there has been a little bit of a cut to advertising, but just not GCPE’s advertising, because that was a completely different STOB area, even though the minister didn’t want to talk about any specific STOB areas that were referenced by her in these budget estimates.

We have an evasion of answering whether or not there’s been…. By not answering, and me assuming that means there has been no…. I’m giving the minister the opportunity to say: “Yes, there has been a large shift in our projections on commercial Crown corporation income. We’re seeing that Lotteries is doing much better than we thought. ICBC is doing better than we thought. B.C. Hydro, you name it.” And the only reason it went up was that B.C. Hydro last year was projected to be at zero, break even, and then they found some money.

Government transfers last year were projected to be $14.446 billion. According to this budget book, this snapshot in time, it’s $14.189 billion. It has actually dropped.

Natural resource revenues last year were projected to be $3.015 billion. According to this budget book, they’re now $2.334 billion for the updated forecast of ’24-25. Again, I’m getting the first number from their budget book from last year.

Assumptions, projections. I agree with the minister, they can move, but they’re not moving by much.

Where it did move was in personal income tax and corporate income tax, and those numbers do have to wait for the quarterly updates. With a 20-month lag and a slowing down on our economy, they could actually not be the windfall that they’ve been in past years.

[5:20 p.m.]

The $6 billion surplus the government had when the Premier came into office was largely due to close to $10 billion worth of corporate and personal income taxes that they weren’t expecting to find, because as most jurisdictions did through COVID, they underestimated what they were going to get. The impacts weren’t as severe to people. People stayed employed. People still paid income tax, and every jurisdiction underestimated. The lag finally caught up, but that lag is coming on.

Now we’re running deficit after deficit, and the minister is greatly offended somehow, that $10.9 billion is dramatically better than $12.9 billion. I’m giving her every opportunity to show me where any revenue sources in the first two months are trending in a significantly more positive way than they were when the snapshot in time of this budget book was created.

The minister likes to say, “Well, it’s not a backward-looking document,” but she wants us to talk about a document that was created in February and to not talk about what is going on in the world at the end of May. At the end of February, this book was created; we’re at the end of May. April 1 this government blew a 1.99 net negative hole in their budget. April, May, first two months of the quarter and still no direction from this minister on what’s going to make it up.

The minister alludes to a tobacco settlement but can’t provide any certainty to us on how that works. I’ve asked. Maybe I should ask again about that. I’ll come back to that, though. There are no substantive shifts, in the first two months of projections, for commercial Crown corporation net income of $4 billion and no substantive shifts in the modelling for contributions from the federal government, totalling $15.277 billion.

We’re working our way up. Let’s go to other revenue: post-secondary education fees, other fees and licences, investment earnings and miscellaneous. Investment earnings, that might be a questionable trend line over the last two months, given all things tariff war. And $12 billion….

Has anything in the area of other revenue, over the first two months of this fiscal, trended in a more positive way than what was originally projected in the budget? I’m not asking for the dollar figure. I’m asking if it’s trending in a significantly better way.

[5:25 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Before I respond to the question, I just want to correct two inaccuracies for the member. It is not correct to say that commercial Crown income is not improving. We do not have that data yet, and I have said that. I will say it again. They report to us quarterly. We don’t have the data. That does not mean there is not a positive change. It does not mean there is a negative change. It means that we don’t yet have the data.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second, it’s not true that I said GCPE was not included in our efficiency review. It is, in fact.

The member knows that we receive most of our data quarterly. I’ve already made that reference in regard to the Crown corporations. In terms of what we have from fiscal data, where we are in the fiscal year, we have one month of fiscal data. One month does not a trend make.

What we can say is that we do have, of course, financial data that comes in — and three or four months of that. Pardon me — economic data. There is an area that I’ll just highlight, one of the areas that we’re seeing some better-than-expected results, and that is in regards to retail sales.

Peter Milobar: Retail sales were not in the question. There was other revenue, post-secondary education fees, other fees and licences, investment earnings and miscellaneous. Again, the question was strictly a broad: “Is anything trending — indicators?”

These assumptions weren’t made on April 1. The assumptions in this budget book, as the minister fondly likes to point out, are a snapshot in time — a moment in time, a place in time, any version of that you would like — back in January and February, in conjunction with advice from the Economic Forecast Council, other trade industries, what’s going on in global markets as it pertains to things like natural resource revenues. All of those are projected out — what the markets think might happen in bond markets, all of that.

So there are trend lines that do form. It didn’t just start. The trends wouldn’t have just started on April 1. They’d be showing themselves month over month leading up to April 1, through April, well into May, as to these revenue projections.

Again, the minister takes great umbrage with me saying a $12.9 billion deficit. I’m trying to get from her anything, any glimmer of anything, that’s trending significantly positively to account for the extra $1.991 billion of lost net income that this government, by way of policy, decided to make on April 1.

She can’t show us an expenditure of any significance. She won’t talk about it. Grudgingly acknowledged the advertising but wouldn’t put a dollar figure to what the amount of advertising cut was. So 50 percent to one vendor? Was it a small vendor that’s desperate for advertising revenue, or is it Global B.C.? Was it because the Canucks didn’t make the playoffs? We don’t know. No detail.

Yet shame on us as opposition for daring to try to get answers out of this government, the same answers that we asked yesterday that suddenly became forthcoming around advertising, with very scant detail. Ignored the question around other revenue, contributions from the federal government or commercial Crown corporation net income. Grand total is $31 billion of $84 billion of revenue. Can’t show one trend line that’s projecting significantly better than what assumptions that went into this budget document that was created back in February are.

Let’s go up another area, natural resource revenue. There are always updates on those. It’s not like oil and gas and minerals and forestry is a static thing. Natural resource revenue, natural gas royalties, forests, other natural resources — grand total of just under $3 billion, $2.997 billion. Has anything in the natural resource revenue started to trend in a significantly better way than what was anticipated in the development of this budget book?

[5:35 p.m. - 5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member opposite has asked about natural resource revenue and if there are trends. I just want to be very clear about the distinction between economic trends, which we are very aware of, and commodity pricing and what is in the fiscal report-back. We’re one month into the fiscal year, but what I’m talking about here are economic trends from January to April.

Most commodity prices are up on a year-over-year basis, except for coal and oil. Of course, we monitor commodity prices, and pricing and volume are up. Natural gas price is up 10.2 percent in the first four months of the calendar year, and volumes are also up.

Again, I want to caution, because we need to find out if this is a trend, and we will be able to report back on that on — anybody? — Q1.

Peter Milobar: Well, we’ve covered most of the other areas within the taxation revenue portion. Obviously, personal income tax and corporate income tax are not going to be available at this point. We do know carbon tax…. We do know property transfer tax is, in all likelihood, hemorrhaging but not a number to it. Sales tax sounds like it might be trending better than before. That’s, you know, arguable how much it will offset with property transfer tax. There’s going to be ins and outs on those.

You know, it’s fine that the minister wants to stick to her $10.9 billion. It’s very clear that we’re in and around that $12.9 billion as we stand here today.

[5:45 p.m.]

Going back to the expense side — because once again, government has that ability to control expenditures, as the minister rightfully points out — last year in the budget, the budget estimate had about $89.5 billion of expenditures.

The minister wants to talk about fluctuations. Maybe I’ll jump back. Last year the government projected $77.5 billion, roughly, of revenue. It actually came in closer to $83 billion. So the minister is not wrong. Revenues can jump up. The problem with this government is they don’t know how to control their spending. At the same time, expenditures were supposed to be $89.4 billion, and the updated forecast in this year’s fiscal plan is $92 billion.

This is the problem. The revenues, the projections are kind of outside of, actually, the control of the government, as the minister has stated several times. They’re global markets. They’re forces of what’s going on in employment, taxation in terms of personal and corporate income taxes, the property transfer tax. It’s nothing to do with government. It has everything to do with what’s going on in the market, which we know is substantially lower than projections in this budget.

We know $1.991 billion in net carbon tax revenue is gone under the revenue projections. We have expenditures that are actually $2 billion, almost $3 billion, higher than last year, which is almost $3 billion more than it was projected to be in the first place.

You know, when you run record deficits under the guise of wanting to protect health care and education, first off, you don’t still have parents protesting cuts to education like we’re seeing. You don’t have ERs closing everywhere and people screaming for doctors and access to health care, if that’s what you’re protecting. When you have a record deficit, the natural assumption….

The amount of people I’ve pointed this out to and the surprise when they hear it is quite something. I say: “Yeah, it’s a record deficit.” It was $10.9 billion. After today, I’ll be letting them know it’s $12.9 billion.

Here’s the problem. No one takes issue with protecting health care and education. As bad as what is being provided right now, at least it’s being provided in some form. But when governments run record deficits to protect those services, it’s because revenues have dried up because the economy really slowed. They explain it and justify it and get agreement with the public that that’s why it needs to happen.

In this case, the government has never collected, or at least projected to collect, so much money — $84 billion this year in total revenues. Last year they were estimated at $81.5 billion, came in at $82.8 billion. So their revenue projections were actually pretty close. No big, massive wild swings. A little bit higher but certainly not as high as spending went.

It’s not a taxation problem and it’s not a revenue problem this government has, running record deficits. It’s that they don’t know how to rein in their spending.

When we try to get detail about the spending, the one thing the government actually can control with some accuracy, we get: “Well, we can’t talk about it. We’re doing the hard work. We’re looking for efficiencies. We’re committed to it, though, but it’s hard work. It’s difficult work. We’re going to keep doing the hard work. Don’t worry. You’ll see the results of our hard work in Q1.” No decisions have been made even though Q1 ends in 33 days. We’re two-thirds of the way through Q1. Decisions still haven’t been made.

[5:50 p.m.]

There may be a savings in advertising. We’re not sure if it’s a blip or not. We’re not even sure who has reduced their advertising. It’s not GCPE. The minister didn’t mention if it’s ministries or if it’s a Crown that reduced their advertising. I don’t know why that’s a state secret, but apparently it’s cabinet confidence or something. I don’t know. It’s certainly not something the government wants to talk about.

Let’s talk about the actions and potential cost savings that cabinet could be doing to demonstrate leadership to the rest of government at a time when the public service winds up with a Zoom meeting, public service–wide, where their takeaway from it is, “Get ready to take a heck of a lot less, and if not, you’re going to have job losses,” from the head of the public service. Characterized as an intimidation call, characterized as completely inappropriate in the midst of the starting of negotiations — not my words.

In fact, the Deputy Minister of Finance laid it out pretty clear and pretty open. I applaud him for being that forthright about the dire straits of the finances in B.C. We certainly don’t hear that reflected back in the answers from the minister, other than: “Well, we have hard work ahead of us, but we can’t tell you what we’re doing. We can’t tell you where we’re going to find the money. Just trust us.” The new slogan of the NDP and this Premier: “Just trust us.”

The minister referenced a transportation company. Has a directive gone out to cabinet to no longer fly Helijet and, if not, to restrict it to at least one flight a week? Have there been any restrictions put on cabinet, whatsoever, or expectations of how they travel back and forth from Victoria to Vancouver?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The guidance provided on travel is STOB 57, which is discretionary, non-essential, travel, including conferences and meetings. People are encouraged to prioritize alternatives. The directives apply to all ministries, whether someone is a cabinet minister or not, but I will remind the member that the work of this House would be considered essential.

Peter Milobar: I’m not disputing whether ministers should travel for their job. I’m not disputing that we have a big province and that you need to get around. I’m from the Interior. It is not inexpensive to get around this province to do your job as an MLA or as a minister and it’s not for staff either. But there are expensive ways to do it, and there are less expensive ways to do it, plain and simple.

When you live in Vancouver, Helijet seems to be out of convenience. It is inexpensive; it’s a great service. I’ve flown it the odd time. The NDP staffers can go ahead and check my travel. I’m on there the odd time. Yes, I have the odd priority loading on my B.C. Ferries, as well, when I can’t get a reservation and I need to get over here.

I’m not disputing any of that. It’s about the frequency and/or the public perception around entitlement. There’s a difference in cost between Helijet and Harbour Air. Both fly out of the same harbour.

There’s a massive difference when several of us take the ferry every week, on both sides of this House. We see each other up in the dining area. I’m not saying it’s across everyone, and I’m not disputing there’s a cost to travel.

[6:00 p.m.]

At a time when we’re supposed to be finding the pennies, one would hope cabinet would be scaling back, that cabinet would be finding ways to be more efficient. Cabinet, who has wrapped themselves within their own ministries…. People work from home and Zoom and things of that nature, not just going to the default of popping back and forth. That’s the premise of the question.

I’m going to shock the minister here. I’m going to actually ask a Vote 26 question, because we’re on Vote 26. I do know, the minister knows and we all know several votes the minister is responsible for. This is just the one vote that triggers this process.

In keeping with the theme around leadership and direction and the Minister of Finance supposed to be in charge of finding the pennies and showing efficiencies and working leaner and meaner, can the minister explain…. As I read it, the total 2024-2025 operating expenses, on page 40, for the minister’s office is $1.112 million. It appears that this year, the minister needs a $338,000 increase to that budget to $1.45 million, which…. You might think, if you’re listening at home very quickly, that that’s just wage increases, except it’s a 30 percent increase to the minister’s office budget.

Can the minister explain the logic behind a $338,000 increase, a 30 percent increase to her office’s operating costs, in a year and on a backdrop of a budget that was already supposed to be getting created, with the direction of a mandate letter that was in existence well before this budget was signed off on, to find efficiencies and cost savings? And the minister felt it appropriate that her office needed a 30 percent increase to executive and support services?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That increase is driven primarily by three factors. The first is the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development moving over from Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation into the Finance Ministry, as well as an MA to support that work. Also, increased travel, which of course is related to the work of the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development, as well as an additional chief of staff in the Ministry of Finance.

Peter Milobar: Well, that’s interesting, except there hasn’t been a drop in the Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation Minister’s office. It went from $1.232 million to $1.253 million, so it actually went up.

[6:10 p.m.]

Again, this is supposed to be a government looking for the pennies, finding efficiencies. The answer to $338,000 is: “Oh well, that’s because the Parliamentary Secretary for Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation came over from that portfolio to my portfolio.” That might be understandable if there was a commensurate drop. Instead, their ministry’s office went up.

Can the minister explain corporate services then? Corporate services went up $550,000. It’s obviously not a 30 percent increase, but it’s still an increase from $45.494 million to $46.044 million — a $550,000 increase and $888,000 total to the minister’s office, in a year that the minister is responsible for finding efficiencies and cost savings. And government is saying: “Just trust us. We’re doing the hard work.” Can the minister explain that increase?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The $550,000 increase in corporate services that the member asked about reflects the shared recovery mandate, the wage increases under the collective bargaining agreement.

Peter Milobar: That does not include the soon-to-be negotiated collective agreement, or are these outside of that collective agreement?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That is the previous collective agreement.

Peter Milobar: So in fact, the $550,000 will increase once the collective agreement is solved, unless the head of the public service is correct and job losses might be necessary.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m not able or willing to speculate on the results of what’s happening at the bargaining table now.

Peter Milobar: Well, let’s try this a different way then. If a collective agreement is achieved and there’s any type of wage increase, whatsoever, or adjustment to benefits, cost-wise, from government, will that $550,000 actually wind up increasing, as it would in other parts of government?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes.

[6:15 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: The minister responsible for finding the pennies under the cushions needs $338,000 more for the minister’s office, with no commensurate cut to the other ministry that part of that was supposed to come out of. We have the Premier directing the Finance Minister — and seemingly, all of cabinet — to find the pennies and charging the Finance Minister to find the pennies needed for a $600,000 increase to the Premier’s office.

Can the minister…? I haven’t had the time. I’m assuming her staff would know. I can keep flipping through and looking. I’m hard-pressed to find a single ministry where the minister’s office is…. Oh, I found one; look at that.

The Minister of Education and Child Care — at least they saw a bit of a cut. They would have an expanded mandate, a bit too. Okay. That’s a good start — $300,000 there. I applaud them.

The Minister of Citizens’ Services? Nope, they’re up.

Other than Education, are there any other ministries that saw a minister’s office with any sort of cut at all to their operations — in a year that, while this budget was being developed, ministers were already instructed to find the pennies, be efficient and look to make sure that things are running as efficiently as possible, to find that $300 million that the minister is so confident we’re going to find?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member asked the question: how many minister’s offices saw a decline in the expected expenses in this fiscal? The answer, including Education, is six.

Peter Milobar: It was good to see. I was doing some flipping too, so I thank the minister for that. A couple other follow-up questions, though.

[6:25 p.m.]

The minister’s answer to why going up $550,000 was the collective agreement in hers — granted, that’s on a $45 million spend — doesn’t seem to collate, or totally match up, anyways, because it’s obviously different staff, in terms of the minister’s office. But there are lots of others that went up. Their corporate services didn’t really go up that much, but their ministerial offices still went up a bit. Social Development and Poverty Reduction, from $941,000 to a little over $1 million in the office. And the list goes on.

Anyway, point being this was developed under the lens of “already supposed to be finding efficiencies and cost savings,” yet only six ministers’ offices found some efficiencies and reshifting of resources or things of that nature, and the rest didn’t. That’s troubling in and of itself.

There was a lot made of the size of the cabinet, a lot made of all the parliamentary secretaries and ministers of state, and the reaction from the government was that this is a non-event. There’s a cost that comes with all that. There’s staffing that comes with that. There’s support that comes with that. Every minister of state winds up with some extra staff and some extra support. Every parliamentary secretary winds up needing some extra staffing and support.

Just to be abundantly clear, when we’re talking about finding efficiencies, now that these numbers are locked in, and locked into the budget expenditures on page 22 of the budget book, the only way to see any substantive cost savings in the ministers’ offices would be if there were job losses.

The ministers’ offices that have locked in within the expenditures on page 22 in the budget book — unless they start relieving themselves of some staff, their offices will not actually be finding any cost savings to help contribute towards the $300 million worth of savings that are supposed to be found this year. The burden of that will rest on the rest of the public service to shoulder whatever may impact. The ministers are…. Essential travel. Ministers’ staff are locked in.

Of all those STOBs that the minister listed yesterday — some are larger than others, in terms of expenditure; obviously, staffing is one of the larger ones, STOB 50 — where is the minister’s expectation that the majority of the $300 million is going to be found?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member has asked in the expenditure management controls which of the STOBs that I identified yesterday are we likely to see the biggest savings come from, and the team has identified three that they think we’ll see good savings from, the first one being the professional services. It’s a large expense historically.

For professional services, the guidance is: where possible, provision of services that will assist in the development of policy and programs or to improve or change the delivery of programs should be delivered by internal staff or transitioned to internal staff instead of through consulting services. We do expect that that will provide significant savings.

We also expect to see savings in STOB 50, through our hiring freeze and also through attrition, and STOB 57, which is the category of travel.

Of course we expect to see savings across all of these STOBs. I’m just identifying three that we think will see quite a large component of that.

Peter Milobar: You know, a lot of these questions I’m asking, because we always get accused of being too critical or negative and never offering solutions…. We’re simply trying to offer our insights into where government could save some of their much-needed money to avoid that $12.9 billion deficit.

In terms of toll revenues that the government is implementing with Bill 7…. I recognize Bill 7 hasn’t completely passed in the Legislature. I’m not here to debate Bill 7. It’s just waiting for third reading. Closure is coming tomorrow. It’s a fait accompli. I recognize that. I’m just assuring the Chair that I’m not trying to debate legislation.

[6:35 p.m.]

It’s been approved up to this point. It’s been approved to enable road tolling in this province. What revenue projections have been done by the government in terms of what they expect to potentially collect off of road tolling? One would assume that, if it’s a tariff response, there would be dollars attached to it to try to help to counter tariff issues.

What types of revenues has the ministry decided or modelled, based on what is moving forward, to government based on the provisions of the ability to toll roads in British Columbia?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The first thing I want to make abundantly clear is that Bill 7 is the tariff response act, and enabling legislation under section 14, part 3, tolls and fees, is specific to tariff response, which would enable government to put in road tolls for American trucks, should that be necessary in our non-tariff response. It’s still a tariff response but not a specific tariff, a different type of response to the threat of tariffs.

It would not be normal for Finance to model out this type of response prior to it coming into place. This is the enabling legislation. It’s not actually bringing it into place. So, no, there has not been any economic modelling done by Finance.

Peter Milobar: Fair enough. As I say, I’m not here to try to debate Bill 7 at all. I’d just point out to the minister that, in fact, the way it’s worded, it doesn’t just limit it. If the government wanted, by regulation, they could toll anything, anyone moving anywhere in B.C., not just American trucks. But fair enough. There has not been modelling done.

[6:40 p.m.]

I’m just wondering. The minister references STOB 50 as a place to find savings, in terms of salaries, with the hiring freeze. Now, I’m assuming that the expenditures on page 22 would be the existing complement of staff. So any hiring freeze would not see additions to that, but those numbers would have been accounted for in that. But the first hiring freeze was announced December 12. It was then made permanent February 13. Again, it was quite an auspicious day for my birthday. There were a few things announced on February 13.

At any rate, I’m just wondering, if the staff are already accounted for in the budget and there’s a hiring freeze, but the minister says they’re not wanting job losses, how many unfilled FTEs are currently on the org chart, then? Are those what will not be filled under the hiring freeze? Otherwise, the only way to slice through this to find the significant $300 million in savings would be layoffs and firings in STOB 50.

Remember this $300 million gets carried forward into next year and gets carried forward into the next year, which means any decision this year on staffing means the government is prepared to operate for the next three years under that staffing model.

I’m wondering if the minister could shed a little more light on how these savings in STOB 50 are going to be found without job losses, unless it’s connected in with empty unfilled FTEs that were previously planned.

I don’t understand why they would still be in a budget document when the government directed on December 12 that there would be a hiring freeze. Why would you still post, essentially, a budget that accounted for hiring people for empty positions when you’ve already introduced a hiring freeze that says you will not be filling those positions?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Hon. Chair, we’re about to switch out some staff. I thought it might be a good time for us to take a bio break. I wonder if we might request 15 minutes.

The Chair: Absolutely, we can do that, Minister. This committee will stand at recess for 15 minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:43 p.m. to 6:59 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll call this committee back to order. I believe we are awaiting an answer from the Minister of Finance.

[7:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To the member, I’ll just draw his attention to language that we’ve used in the letter, the direction to all deputy ministers, referring to STOB 50, salaries: “Through attrition, hiring lag, holding middle and senior management and executive positions vacant, managing down leave liability, reviewing the use of overtime, and/or deployment of existing staff resources within and across teams.” That is the direction that will help make sure that we are seeing the savings that we expect to see in STOB 50.

Peter Milobar: However, the first hiring freeze was announced December 12. One would hope, with government staring down the barrel, at that moment in time, of a $10.9 billion deficit — it now seems to be $12.9 billion, but at that moment in time it was $10.9 billion — there would have been vacancies and empty FTEs when it was first announced on December 12.

Is the minister saying that the ministry still budgeted as if a full complement of staff were going to be in place, despite the hiring freeze announced on December 12, and that now it’s a case of regressing back and starting to find those positions and not filling them or waiting for attrition to happen?

Again, let’s just use round numbers for ease of an example. Instead of 100 people across the public service, 50 of them are open positions and with 50 the government’s waiting for attrition. I can understand that. When the hiring freeze is announced, they still budget for the full 100, as opposed to only the 50 waiting for attrition? I’m trying to get a better sense of the logic around, if a hiring freeze were already actually implemented and in place long before this budget would have been finalized, why would empty positions still have been budgeted for as if they’re going to be filled?

[7:05 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The answer is no. We budgeted the FTEs, and STOB 50, like all of the other STOBs we’ve identified as part of the review, will contribute to the $300 million.

Peter Milobar: I guess that’s where we’re trying to wrap my head around this whole budgeting process. The minister talks about it being a snapshot in time, a place in time. I’ve lost track of the terminology.

[7:10 p.m.]

The expenditure management line item will be $300 million this year, $600 million next year, and then that $600 million will be the same $600 million. Actually, only half of that $600 million will be new next year because the first $300 million is the first tranche; the second $300 million is the second tranche. That accounts for all of it, of expenditure management — 0.6 percent of the overall expenditure budget for this year, let alone over the course of it. So 0.6 percent.

Significant savings, one would assume, would be STOB 50, the employment income side of the equation, yet despite a hiring freeze that was supposed to be a firm hiring freeze, announced December 12, the budget doesn’t go to King’s Printer, likely, till mid-February for March 4. It doesn’t get finalized. A hiring freeze is announced with much fanfare. It gets reannounced before the budget, as well, mid-February.

The government’s response is to still fully fund within the budget, at least on paper, all the empty FTEs that the minister is now saying will not be filled. We can’t put a dollar figure on those to this day despite, from December 12 moving forward, a hiring freeze in place. A hiring freeze that we’re still trying to understand — what is or isn’t exempt from the freeze — because at different times, the minister and the Premier have indicated that political staff are not part of the freeze.

We’ve seen ministers’ office budgets go up, all but six, despite a hiring freeze and a “check for the pennies under the cushions” mandate. Again, it seems like a lot of this could have been saved, to have just not funded the empty FTEs.

When I was at the city, if we were bringing staff on, by the time we got through our budget process, and we needed to add an FTE, we would only budget for half a year in the first year and feather it in, because you weren’t going to reasonably hire someone until the last six months of the fiscal. There’s no point budgeting a full year’s salary for that employee by the time you could on-board them, by the time a budget gets passed.

Same with the RCMP. If we had to bring RCMP in, we would make sure that we budgeted accordingly. RCMP…. If we had year-over-year surpluses because of unspent funds, because of people on long-term leave or paternity leave or long-term disability and they go off the payroll books for the city’s portion of the RCMP contract, we started budgeting at 90 percent of the cost of the RCMP so that we just weren’t pre-taxing people and made sure we still covered the expenditure of the RCMP.

It kept people’s taxes lower, kept the RCMP fully funded, but it accounted for historical trends of long-term absenteeism. When we got a bit better and a bit more staffing, we bumped that up to 95 percent. So it can be done.

I want to assure the minister I do understand budgeting, especially in a governmental context. I’ve done it a long time. I don’t understand, in the backdrop of a hiring freeze — if it’s a true hiring freeze, where the government is truly trying to find $300 million, that is going to have to actually be the same $300 million of savings this year, next year and the following year — why there would be a false expectation of open FTEs.

How many FTEs were empty on December 12, and how many are currently empty? Because there’s supposed to be a hiring freeze, one would assume that number would be the same from when it was first announced by the government to today.

[7:15 p.m. - 7:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is a complicated one. The first thing I’ll say is…. I don’t say this to make light of the member’s significant experience. I share it just because I think it’s quite different, the municipal government, simply because of the size of the B.C. Public Service. It’s about 40,000 people. It’s the size of a small city, so it is a little bit different in the way it operates and the complexity of it, simply by the size.

The member has asked about vacancies. It’s a tricky thing to answer for this reason. Let me explain it in a way that…. I’ll try to explain it as best I can.

Let’s say we have an official bubble-blower, and the official bubble-blower decides to go and work elsewhere. We make the decision not to fill that role and eliminate the role of official bubble-blower. Therefore, there is not a vacancy, because that position no longer exists.

[7:25 p.m.]

It’s hard for us to then look at a moment in time of…. I won’t use that language, comparing the request December 12, the time we brought in the hiring freeze, to now, because vacancies have been eliminated. Therefore, we can’t do a comparison of that nature.

I’m not trying to be evasive. It’s just simply the tool that is used. If the position is not something we’ve deemed necessary, we will remove that position. The vacancy no longer exists. The position is gone. The request that the member made is not something I can answer.

What we can do is look at FTEs from December 12 until now, or some close association of that. I have the team working on that, but I thought, for a question of time, we should keep moving.

I will highlight that the reason that it’s challenging to answer that more quickly for the member opposite is that there’s a lot of hiring going on right now because of seasonal hires, particularly for wildfires. So the team will continue to look for the answer I think the member has requested, and I suggest we continue to move on.

Peter Milobar: Yes, I appreciate it’s a larger operation and more complex in terms of numbers of people, but ultimately, it’s numbers on a balance sheet. It’s numbers of FTEs. It’s a number of shifting priorities. It’s a number of political decisions.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

It’s all representative. I used to have this debate with Surrey when we were talking about policing, because the mayor at the time, Dianne Watts, and I were on committees, and she’d say: “But that’s $10 million to Surrey.” And I’d say: “Yeah, and it’s $1 million to us. You’re ten times our size.” It’s the same. It’s all relative. So I appreciate what the minister is saying. I can understand how FTEs work and positions within collective agreements and everything else like that.

Shifting gears, because we are nearing our wonderful time together here.

DigiBC tax credits. In terms of the budget, I’m just wondering. On page 59, they come up as a $5 million hit, not anything in this year’s. It will be into next year’s. However, the forecast went from, on page 146, $126.1 million last year to $141.3 million this year, so almost a $15 million difference. Then it jumps $10 million, not the $5 million.

Now, I can appreciate some of that might be in anticipation of more activity happening and things like that, so I’m not really dwelling on that side of it. The bigger question I have is that increasing the tax break to 25 percent and making it permanent used to be thought to cost $22 million a year. The numbers don’t seem to match up, and I appreciate that might have also been some previous years’ calculations.

The question, I guess, really, I have for the minister…. We touched on this briefly in Bill 5, and I thought I would leave the rest till now because it does interplay with more of the other budgetary issues.

Again, at a time when money is scarce, we now seem to have a $12.9 billion, not $10.9 billion, deficit. We have industries all over the place screaming for help. I don’t take issue with the advocacy of DigiBC for the digital space lobbying. That’s what they should be doing. That’s what all lobbyists and industry associations do for their industry.

But it’s about the only one that saw any change, and the change was to make it permanent, and the change was to go to 17½ to 25 percent, instead of the sunset clause of 17½ percent. Who exactly asked the minister for the permanency and to go to 25 percent?

[7:30 p.m. - 7:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We made a decision to advance the full creative tech sector. What I mean by that is film, animation, visual effects and digital media, as well as AR, VR and XR. This sector has tremendous opportunity for growth in British Columbia.

The member asked about consultations on increasing the IDMTC, both the amount and getting rid of the sunset clause. We consulted throughout the sector, and DigiBC has been advocating for both an increase in the IDMTC to get closer to those across Canada — frankly, many, many provinces are far ahead of us on this — as well as removal of the sunset clause.

Peter Milobar: Well, it’s interesting. When you go back to the budget presentations of Finance Committee…. In fact the minister presented for DigiBC when I was on Finance Committee in 2018 when she was working for them. I don’t take issue with that. People have jobs. People do lobbying. That was the request: to go to 25 percent.

DigiBC. For the next couple of years, it was 25 percent. Then it was training and 20 percent and make it permanent. That was 2022. In 2023, no request to actually increase it from 17½ percent. In 2024, no budget presentations because we were in an election year. So DigiBC, as a lobby group, specifically, had walked away from the 25 percent quite a few years ago in any official presentations to government.

I guess that’s what I’m hearing from other industries, as well, that have been left out of tax relief and help. The CFIB has made very specific requests for business in general. Forestry has been making requests. Forestry said: “Oh, $5 million? We have a program we could’ve run for $5 million that would’ve helped our industry immensely around training and things of that nature to help solidify us.” And the list goes on and on.

I get it. Ministers have that prerogative to make decisions, especially Finance Ministers. But it seems that the decision and the percentages landed upon are more in line with what the minister years ago was advocating for, for DigiBC, than what DigiBC most recently was advocating for, at least in any public forums out there.

Again, this isn’t about being anti–creative industries. I’ve toured a lot of the people and the companies that would qualify under these, and they do great work. I’m not taking issue with that at all. I don’t take issue with the fact that they would lobby. But so do other industries, and other industries were left out of this budget in a big way. Small business was left out of this budget in a big way.

The digital sector actually exceeded their most recent requests, which were two years old, by a far measure because it was, really, to keep training programs that were already in place and have continued.

Can the minister explain, and not just to me but, frankly, to all these other industries and small businesses that have been left out of this budget, why it is that what she used to lobby for with DigiBC was what found its way into the budget, despite the most recent requests by DigiBC not lining up with that, and other industry requests and small business requests in other sectors that are struggling and desperate for help have been left out in the cold in this budget?

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: First off, the member isn’t correct in his characterization of the timelines and lobbying efforts of the industry at all. Even in May of 2024, staff members from this ministry, from TACS and from JEDI were on a site tour at EA, and exactly this request was the request brought forward.

I also want to point out that there have been many different programs to support sectors throughout the economy. I’ll highlight one, which is the manufacturing jobs fund. The manufacturing jobs fund first came in at $90 million, and the then Minister of Forests — I think I can say his name, because he is no longer sitting in this House — Minister Ralston, advocated for a doubling of that fund so that an additional $90 million could specifically be geared towards forestry. And that happened.

We know that the ratios of investment from government dollars into the businesses that have benefited from that fund, including those in the member’s own riding, to Mercer, which received funding to update a very important piece of equipment and make them more competitive…. We know that that unlocks $6 of additional investment; 1 to 6 is the ratio.

There have been a number of different tools that have come in place at different times for different sectors. This sector has been a sector that, frankly, has been neglected and was suffering.

I’ll also share with the member that it’s important to know when there is an opportunity to act on. In the interactive digital media sector, our largest competitor to British Columbia is Quebec. Quebec has made some changes to its IDMTC that haven’t been viewed favourably by the industry, and the industry is considering moving, some of the industry. We want to act on that. We want them to come here. We’re interested in that investment feeding our economy.

[7:45 p.m.]

We also know that some of the decisions that have been made in regard to French language have led to different investment decisions for that sector, also for film. It’s an opportunity and an opportunity we wanted to realize.

I’ll mention to the member that we’ve taken a number of steps to support B.C. businesses through the taxation system already. We expanded access to the small business corporate income tax rate so that businesses can invest and grow while still benefiting from the reduced rate. We reduced the EHT in last year’s budget. That was a very important request made by multiple business organizations; it was their number one priority, and we got that done for them. We eliminated the provincial sales tax on electricity for business.

Just some examples of some of the work we’ve done.

Peter Milobar: Well, again, I can only work off of the publicly accessible documents I have of lobbying efforts, which I’m sure, as the minister reviews the transcripts, you’ll see that’s what I was referencing. I’m not on tours. When JEDI goes on tours, I’m not on any of those.

Just another question or two and then I’ll be turning it over to my colleagues from the Green Party.

In terms of the overall budget, though, we’re still trying to come to terms with where the overall cost savings are going to come, where the true, meaningful measures will be taken in terms of revenues, in terms of expenses. We’ve already heard that there’s been no tangible change to the assumptions, to the good, anyways, other than a slight uptick in retail sales, which cuts both ways.

The minister wants to say, and rightfully so, that if only a month or two sample size of what’s going on in the real estate industry is not representative of the whole year with the negative hit to revenues, the same holds true with retail sales — probably more so with retail sales, frankly, because it’s a lot more about disposable income and the ability for people to get out and spend money or not, which seems to be dropping.

I guess the real question is, again: can we get past the language that’s been used around hard work, looking under the couch cushions, all of that type of stuff and get a definitive, clear line of sight on what this government’s plan is to truly get back to balance?

What has become abundantly clear over the 2½ days so far is that there’s no actual meaningful plan. There are concepts. There’s precious little detail. There are precious few dollar amounts attached to any of the actions the minister has talked about.

It took two different days of questioning just to get a basic answer around advertising, and there was not even a dollar figure attached to that. We still don’t know if there’s been a dollar figure or a percentage mandated to ministries to look at, to try to find. We know that cumulatively it’s 0.3 percent this year, but that’s it.

That’s just a simple calculation based on a $94 billion spend and trying to find $300 million in savings. The $300 million this year is the same $300 million that will be next year, which is the same $300 million that’ll be the year after that, which means an additional $300 million gets found next year, and the efficiencies end, at least in this fiscal plan. No clear direction.

That doesn’t even get us close to solving the $1.991 billion revenue drop of carbon tax, which is now permanent in those. We haven’t even got clear answers today on whether the government expends more than the $268 million it collects on industrial carbon tax with industrial tax breaks and incentives for emission controls. We couldn’t even get a clear answer out of that program.

[7:50 p.m.]

We couldn’t get a clear answer and line of sight on what’s going on with CleanBC programming that is funded by that $1.991 billion of net revenue loss. Municipalities don’t know if that means bike lanes are at risk, if that means transit is at risk. Homeowners don’t know if that means charging-station programs are gone for electric vehicles. The list goes on and on of things that CleanBC was supposedly funding. CleanBC was funded by carbon tax. We can’t get answers out of that.

In fact, when I asked the first question about if there were any major changes to the revenue projections on page 23 from the time the budget was published, the minister refused to even acknowledge carbon tax in the first answer. I had to remind her that carbon tax was removed by government policy.

That is the backdrop that we’ve been scratching and clawing, trying to get answers of transparency from a government that professes to want to be on a track to a balanced budget, that is running what appears to be now a $12.9 billion structural deficit. Massive work would need to be done to try to tackle that — massive.

We can’t get a clear answer. We can’t get clear answers around hiring freezes. We can’t get clear answers around the cost implications of that. We were told STOB 50 will form a large part of the cost savings for the $300 million but no dollar figure associated with that.

How can the government reasonably say that they’re actually taking meaningful action to try to wrestle this massive deficit under control when they can’t even give the faintest crumb of a dollar figure attached to any cost savings they’re trying to find? Just going in a room with cabinet and telling a bunch of cabinet ministers they need to find money, when only six of them found money in their own office budget this year…. Everyone else needed more money to operate their budget.

This is a government that seems to think the way to rein in bureaucracy is to have a bigger bureaucracy. The minister’s own office budget — $338,000 more in staff, $550,000 more in administrative services, so $888,000, a 30 percent increase in staff alone, by the minister responsible for finding savings in government. And the answer was: “Well, it’s because staff transferred over from JEDI.” The problem with that? JEDI’s budget didn’t go down.

It doesn’t exactly invoke a lot of confidence from the public when the minister and the Premier, who are supposed to be the two in charge and driving this bus of cost savings, are two of the more egregious offenders in overall budget lifts within their own offices, in a backdrop of a hiring freeze, in a backdrop of having the public sector characterizing Zoom calls as intimidation meetings and totally inappropriate. Not my words; those are the union’s words.

The minister can take issue with the union all she likes. She can talk to the union about how they characterize things, the BCGEU. I haven’t seen a retraction. I haven’t seen a correction from how they characterized that meeting. Makes one believe it was accurate. So that’s the backdrop we’re at.

I’m going to ask one last time. What are the yearly targets, over and above the $300 million this year and the extra $300 million next year, that have been identified in the budget as being an aspirational goal to target? What other cost savings is this government targeting? What is the dollar figure that this minister is trying to achieve in savings over the next few years and the life of this fiscal plan?

[7:55 p.m.]

Otherwise, continuing to say we’re driving long term to balance the budget, when you’ve literally gone from a $10.9 billion deficit to a $12.9 billion deficit in the space of a month and a half, doesn’t really hold a lot of credibility. No acknowledgement. No costing to any of those programs I talked about.

What is the actual target, over and above the aspirational $300 million this year and $300 million next year, that’s supposed to be found that will actually get us towards a balanced budget?

Finding the $300 million this year gets you, even by the minister’s own budget book, to $10.9 billion. Finding another $300 million next year only gets you down a few hundred million dollars. That’s not getting to balance. That’s treading water.

The track record of this government is that each year’s deficit grows from what they projected the year before. This was supposed to be a $7.8 billion deficit. That’s now $12.9 billion. This time last year the budget book showed $7.8 billion deficit for this coming fiscal. It’s a $5 billion difference.

So what is the plan? Where is the actual target? Not the platitudes, not the language around working hard and tough work and important work and critical work, thoughtful work. What is the actual target to drive down a record-setting deficit at a time of record-setting revenues coming in?

It’s not sustainable. The deputy minister told the public service that very clearly. Again, not my characterization. The Deputy Minister of Finance made it very clear that it’s not a sustainable path this government is on.

We can’t get an answer out of the minister as to what that roadmap looks like. What is the target? These are just spreadsheets. These are numbers. They’re large numbers. It’s just a number on a sheet of paper. It’s got a few extra decimals. Can the minister please provide what is that target, what is that goal? Because as I say, her own deputy minister has confirmed to the public service that this government is not on a sustainable path.

I think the public deserves a clear answer of what that path actually is. Is it just that they’re going to keep running record deficits? Just own it. Say it. But trying to do this “Oh, trust us; we’re doing the hard work. We’re going to find the money and balance the budget when we’re $13 billion in the glue” isn’t going to quite cut it.

What’s the path? What’s the target? What are the dollars that this government is actually looking for in substantive savings, because you are going to need savings as well as revenue growth. I’m just talking about the savings. What substantive savings is this government actually looking for?

We know, based on last year, they couldn’t keep their spending in check. They overshot the spending of their budget last year by a few billion dollars. If they do that again this year, we’re in real trouble.

Spending is what the government is supposed to actually have control over. That’s not supposed to be an assumption. That’s not supposed to be a projection. If you start to overshoot your budget, that’s when hard decisions get made. That’s what the business owners that are pleading for help right now are having to do on a daily basis and school boards are having to do on a daily basis. The only people that don’t seem to want to have to make those hard decisions are the cabinet.

So when can we expect that to actually have any meaningful targets and action and deliverable behind the flowery language? That sounds really good but is not delivering affordability for anyone in British Columbia at the rate we’re going. In the words of this minister’s deputy minister, it is not sustainable.

[8:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I first want to speak to the member’s comment. He has mentioned a couple of times that the deputy minister made a statement that the trajectory we’re on is not sustainable. Those words are also my words. The deputy minister and I are working in very close collaboration on this. Were we not to make the changes we’re making, we’d run the risk of a fiscal plan that would not be sustainable, but we are making these changes. That’s the important point: we are making these changes.

The member has asked for specific numbers of what percentage cuts we have told each ministry to do. Well, I’ll share with the member, and the member well knows this, that a previous government set arbitrary numbers and did deep cuts based on those arbitrary numbers. It was devastating.

If you don’t want to take my word for that, I suggest that the member pick up George Abbott’s book on this topic. He specifically reflects on this time in government and says how he would do it differently.

We have chosen a different path than that. We are careful, collaborative, putting people first, people that work here, the people of British Columbia. We’re making the changes that we need to make and the adjustments to best serve British Columbians.

[8:05 p.m.]

The member doesn’t like a lot of the words I’ve used. The member chose the words “this is massive work.” Well, there’s a point where we absolutely agree. This is massive work, and we are doing it right now. I’ve told the member that we’ll start to see results in Q1. We’ll see them reflected in the budget, and we will get back to balance over multiple budgets.

That is the work that we’re committed to, and that is the work that is undergoing.

Rob Botterell: There have been many days spent on Finance estimates. Probably, by necessity, some of the questions I’ll raise have been canvassed in different ways, but it would be helpful to use the hour that I have to get a picture. That’ll certainly help British Columbians, and everyone in the House, to sort of see a summary snapshot that I’ll endeavour to cover in the hour.

Today what I’d like to do is use this time to get to the heart of the government’s economic strategy and overall vision. It may end up being a bit of a summary of discussion over a number of days.

I recognize that this fiscal year falls within very uncertain economic times, and this is precisely why we look to the minister to continue providing strong financial leadership. But we also would like to better understand the vision that is the basis for that financial leadership, and we appreciate the need to respond to economic threats.

We also would like to better understand the overall vision and strategy over several budget cycles — really, for the province’s economy in the next ten years. The fiscal plan certainly commits to standing strong for B.C. and protecting the essentials, not making flashy announcements. We totally support that.

But it has become increasingly clear that we’re going to need to do a lot more to support people in this province. Day in and day out in this session, we have discussed areas where there is a need to build the fiscal framework and the revenue base to actually do a lot more for people in this province.

In order to better understand how that would work, we’re also going to want to have a summary assessment, in the time we have, of how we’re going to tackle some of the financial issues that we face, whether it’s economic threats, the affordability crisis, climate change or a growing deficit. It’s a multifaceted challenge. And we’ve talked about this before, to really have an understanding of where much-larger-scale innovation plays into building the economy of the future.

British Columbians deserve strong financial leadership, and this needs to be backstopped by a comprehensive and proactive vision for the economic future. So we are definitely curious about this government’s overall vision and the proactive plan that you have for the long term.

[8:10 p.m.]

We’ve broken our questions down into several areas, but in terms of general economic strategy, can the minister outline the long-term economic strategy for the B.C. economy over the next ten years and, specifically, how this year’s fiscal plan builds towards that long-term strategy and how you believe it will allow us to meet what you envision over the next ten years.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Good evening to the member opposite, and thank you for the question.

I’ll share with the member that I have to behave myself a bit here, because I could talk about this for the rest of our time. With respect to you, hon. Member, I’ll keep it very brief, but please ask any specifics that you would like.

I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about where we see the province going and the extraordinary opportunity that lies in front of us. This province has everything we need to succeed, absolutely everything. First and foremost are the amazing people in this province, people who have access to excellent education. We’ve got some of the best universities in the world right here in British Columbia. People who are learning trades at our amazing colleges and trade schools, people who are learning engineering and computer skills and medicine, and all of it helps drive our economy.

We see a vision that really sees British Columbia as the economic engine of Canada. You’ve heard the Premier speak about this, Member. This involves us really accessing our natural resources, accessing our clean energy, using the access to critical minerals that we have in the province to ensure that we’re driving forward on electrification not only for our province but being a provider across the country.

We do this in a way that also harnesses technology. This is a point that I’m so excited about and what it means for the future of the province, because technology can make us more competitive. We’ve got the raw goods, and you combine that with the talented people that we have and the technology that’s being built in our province and elsewhere, and you have a winning combination.

There are so many examples: the technology that is coming forward now in mining, making mines so much safer than they used to be and so much cleaner than they ever were. The clean tech sector is booming in British Columbia.

In fact, as the member very likely knows, this week sees the largest tech conference in the world. It happens in Lisbon. It’s called Web Summit. It’s the Olympics of tech. We’ve been successful in attracting Web Summit right here into British Columbia. It’s here for three years. We stole it from Toronto. It had been called Collision. It has been rebranded in the Web Summit brand. There’s one in Rio, there’s one in Europe, in Lisbon, and now there’s one here in British Columbia.

[8:15 p.m.]

This shines the world’s light on our tech and innovation right here in British Columbia. Every major media outlet in the tech world is right here in British Columbia this week, 15,000. I’m hearing, in fact, they’ve oversold. Seventeen thousand people in British Columbia this week looking at our innovations, looking at our technology, engaging with our start-up ecosystem. When this conference was held in Toronto, there were 1,200 deals signed. We need to attract investment into this province, and that’s what this conference can help us do.

The vision is one where that coupling of innovation that drives forward safety and low-carbon solutions and ways to do things more efficiently and unlocking value…. Combined with our natural resource sector, we’re winners. That’s it. That is the strategy that is going to help us win. We have everything we need to make that happen.

There are many other things I could say, but thank you for allowing me to get the conversation started with that framing.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

The success of achieving that vision very much depends on being nimble but also being able to manage for the curveballs that we can all expect. Some of them are going to be curveballs in a very positive way; others won’t.

In this session, we have seen the government stepping back commitments it made in the budget. The government committed to meeting environmental standards and growing a green economy, but the targets aren’t being met. Clean energy projects like the EV rebate have been cancelled. The government committed to diversifying the economy, yet we’ve seen taxes cancelled that brought in significant revenue streams, with no proposed alternative as yet.

This is not to say that economies like B.C.’s don’t have challenges to face, but as part of implementing this vision, how will this government hold itself accountable to its long-term economic strategy and vision and ensure transparency over its fiscal plan as it executes on the vision?

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

The first thing I’ll mention is in regards to the question about accountability and transparency. Our budget is built in accordance with the Budget Transparency Act, and we are committed to accountability and transparency and to update, of course, every quarter. The member may have heard we’ve got a quarterly update coming up in September.

But I take the member’s comments in regards to being nimble, particularly at this moment in time, which is such a challenging one for people internationally, with global trade having been disrupted in ways that were just unimaginable a year ago. We’ve increased our contingency in this budget and each of the years in the fiscal plan by $1 billion. The contingency is now at $4 billion for each of the three years.

The member described the potential of curveballs, and that really is the tool that we have to handle curveballs — for example, like the initial response that may be necessary for the tariffs — to support people. But I do want to share with the member that we retain our will and passion in regards to the environment. Despite having to have made a very difficult decision, one I did not enjoy doing, to remove the carbon tax, we do look forward to working with the members opposite on the CleanBC review and for looking at opportunities to continue to advance the environmental agenda.

I’ll share with the member that really important to that work is aligning it with affordability. That is the work ahead of us. We mustn’t be in a scenario where a British Columbian is compelled to choose between affordability and climate action. We need to find solutions that marry those two things together. That’s the work ahead.

Rob Botterell: We just spoke moments ago in terms of the resources and skills and talents we have in the province. We have, obviously, very strong universities; strong trades, as the minister mentioned; the resources; the clean energy sector.

We really see major conferences, and so on, as a springboard, given the scale of challenges we face and the scale of opportunities still to be realized, whether it’s in delivery of health care, education, a whole variety of areas where there’s so much more we can do.

Innovation. I couldn’t agree with the minister more that innovation is going to be the cornerstone of building that long-term fiscal framework.

[8:25 p.m.]

I wondered if the minister could offer us a sense of how, in the minister’s vision, we’ll be able to scale up the innovation, whether it’s in mining or whether it’s in the clean tech, in any number of sectors, because, really, what we have is the beginning, in a very positive way, of a very significant, innovative economy. But in order…. The question I have really relates….

How do you see getting that scaled up over the next ten years? Really, where we all want to be is having $15 billion or $20 billion more in terms of spending capacity to do many of the things that we’ve all talked about, but not through debt, obviously. So that means really scaling up the innovative economy.

I’d be interested in the minister’s vision in terms of scaling up what’s a promising start.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s really about the whole ecosystem, isn’t it? How we grow it all, and multiple tools needed to continue to do that. So I’ll share some of those tools and how we see them helping with scale.

Of course, a major component to scaling companies is investment. It needs to happen in a number of ways. Investing in start-ups is important. We’ve got a wonderful start-up community. It was just Startup Week last week in British Columbia, amazing work being done.

Through Innovate B.C. and the many number of accelerator programs throughout the province, there’s quite a lot of support available to start-ups. We’d like more. There’s work to be done. Accelerate Okanagan, Hubspace up in Prince George, Innovate in Vancouver, VIATeC here — these are amazing organizations that identify very promising start-ups and help them grow.

Finding money to go from…. When you get to a medium-sized company and to become a larger-sized company is also challenging ,a couple of different things there. We need to ensure that we create the tools to invite investment into British Columbia. But we also need to invest ourselves.

A couple of things happening there. We created and stood up InBC. InBC is a $500 million strategic investment fund that’s specifically designed to align with government priorities and help companies grow. And those government priorities include clean technologies, companies led by people from diverse backgrounds, who are often underfunded, and regional components to ensure that companies that are outside the Lower Mainland and Victoria are getting opportunities to grow as well.

We’ve seen some really, really encouraging investments — many I could point to. Two I’ll mention.

One is Clarius technologies, which is a portable ultrasound. It looks like…. It’s kind of the size, if I could use a prop very quickly, of an iPhone and is a really powerful tool.

Say, for example, I was a person living in a community remotely and having a difficult pregnancy. Travelling to a hospital could be really challenging, but this is a solution that can get real data very quickly to a physician or a nurse in town. So that’s a British Columbia company that received funding through InBC and is seeing an excellent growth trajectory.

Another one that I’ll mention is 4ag, which is a mushroom robotics company, I think in the Kootenays, that has a world-leading solution for mushroom harvesting. There are many other examples.

InBC is also investing in investment funds to help investment funds with their reach, including Indigenous investment funds, so a really important model and part of the solution to the question you’re asking about how we scale.

Web Summit is another way to draw the attention of investors into our innovation hub here in British Columbia, to ensure that they’re getting in front of investors. It’s sometimes hard for small and medium-sized businesses to make the trips they need to, to get the attention that they need. So for us to bring them there is an offering to those companies to help them with growth.

[8:30 p.m.]

We also have increased, in this budget, the small venture investment tax credit, which now goes to $500,000, were you an angel or super angel investor. Again, that is to help exactly what the member has identified. These are all working in conjunction with each other.

At the same time, Innovate B.C. We’ve rewired Innovate B.C. to really give it the tools it needs, and it needs more. We need to continue doing this work, but we’ve given them additional tools to help them. They’ve got an intellectual property strategy, which is so important.

One of the pieces of our history in British Columbia is that we build very good quality tech, good companies built on tech, and they exit. They exit with the IP. The IP is where the value lies. We need to work to keep intellectual property here in British Columbia.

You know, for people who don’t really kind of get IP, what’s a way to understand it? It might be similar to saying that we’ve got a challenge in the forestry industry when you ship raw logs to Japan, for example. That’s what I grew up with, the challenge I remember my dad talking about. Well, this is kind of the same thing. We ship it off without unlocking the value. We’ve got to unlock the value here, keep it here, grow the IP here.

That IP strategy is very important, and that’s work that Innovate is doing — teaching people about the value of IP, how to protect it, how to use it as both the sword and a shield, how to keep it here.

Through our life sciences strategy, we’re making direct investments into companies that can be anchor companies, that are now anchor companies in British Columbia, to ensure that they grow here and that their IP stays here. We’ve made a number of investments in companies like AbCellera, $75 million matched by $225 million from the federal government and $400 million from the private sector — a $700 million life science campus, more than 500 jobs created. This is good work.

Same thing with Aspect Biosystems, a very promising life science company doing extraordinary things. Made an investment, landed them here, keeping them in British Columbia where their IP lives. They’re part of what we’re growing.

We have the fastest-growing life sciences sector in Canada, largely because of the work we’re doing. These are good examples This can be a pathway of how we do this work to continue this growth.

I have many other things that I would like to say, but I do want to honour the member with having time for him to ask his questions, so I’ll stop there.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

Another key part of the vision is tax system review and reform. I’d be interested in the minister’s vision for the B.C. tax system and what the minister sees as the largest barriers in achieving this vision.

You know, over the past several years, our tax system has become even more complex than it used to be. It comes with concerns that our tax system is not functioning as efficiently as it could be. I’d be interested to know if the government would consider a comprehensive and systematic review of B.C.’s entire tax system so that we can ensure that it’s appropriately modernized and efficient and not overly complex for individuals or businesses.

I’d welcome the minister’s view in terms of looking at bringing the tax system into the 21st century.

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ll answer this in quite a broad way.

Of course, taxes really are such an important tool in our efforts to raise the money needed to provide the supports we need for British Columbians. There are two sometimes competing important philosophies going into this. One of them is that British Columbia is a small, open market and we must remain competitive. That is an important factor as we consider the tax regime. So too is the question of equity and a tax regime that is progressive and supports the most vulnerable.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

I certainly acknowledge the need for equity and the need for tax competitiveness, certainly the motivation for raising the previous question around conducting a comprehensive review to really ensure that our tax policy and our taxation framework are suited to the vision we’re discussing and also the challenges we face.

[8:40 p.m.]

A couple of examples. The first one is that there’s certainly a heavy reliance on personal income tax to generate a significant portion of the revenue. This fiscal year it’s projected that personal income tax will make up over 20 percent of government revenues, which is an increase of 3 percent since 2017-18.

I’ll probably raise two questions because I think they are interrelated.

Certainly, the first question is: what is the government’s plan to avoid overreliance on personal income tax? Let me link that to another contextual piece in question.

In Canada, the richest 1 percent control 25 percent of the wealth in the country, and the 87 wealthiest families hold more wealth than the bottom 12 million Canadians combined. We have a big wealth gap in Canada, and there’s nothing to suggest B.C. is different.

As part of not having overreliance on personal income tax, so a question around how we are going to tackle that. Then also, how do we ensure that the wealthiest in this province are paying their fair share? For example, should the government consider implementing an additional marginal tax rate for incomes over $350,000?

[8:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I can hear your point that perhaps there are areas that could use an update in our tax regime. I think that that is true.

Before every budget, we do look at tax recommendations from many stakeholders — many business groups, First Nations, other stakeholders — and review those recommendations quite thoroughly. I will share with the member that we have taken measures in the direction that the member is inquiring about. Specifically, I’ll share that British Columbians benefit from some of the lowest tax rates in Canada. People earning up to $150,000 actually pay the lowest personal income taxes among provinces.

On the other hand, since 2017, we’ve brought in a number of taxes that are specifically geared towards high-income earners — for example, a tax increase on big corporations in the top 2 percent of income earners, as well as a luxury car tax, which is 20 percent on million-dollar cars. I will also mention the speculation tax, which, of course, is a tax that is designed to bring homes into the market and that has shown quite good results in that way. Those are some examples.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

Another area that we’ve touched on already, which certainly is part of the long-term vision, is in the area of building a long-term, clean, green economy. I’d be interested in how the minister sees that transition occurring over the next ten years.

[8:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I will speak about some of the work that we’re doing, moreover the three-year fiscal plan that we have been working on, in regards to how to continue the transition to a clean, green economy. Some of this work is being led by my colleagues — for example, in ECS.

While we have made the difficult decision to remove the consumer carbon tax, I will point out to the member that we have retained the carbon pricing system for industrial polluters. Of course, this includes a design that is really more of a carrot than a stick, in that, for these emitters, they can sell the credits for revenue for the investments that they’ve made in cleaning their operations, for example. I know the member is going to be engaged in the CleanBC work that will help us move this agenda forward.

I do also want to just come back to the Innovation file, I think, a file that I have a strong passion for, and I believe the member shares that passion. There are many examples, but I’ll draw to one that we’ve increased funding in, in this particular budget. There were very few increases of funding in this budget, by design, of course, but one of them was for the IMI.

[8:55 p.m.]

This is a program that’s run through Innovate B.C. I’m such a believer in this program. I’ve seen the incredible results that this program can bring.

What does it do? It addresses the challenge when we have a promising up-and-coming company and they can get smaller customers but they need to land a big customer to show that they can work at scale, show that their technology can be successful at scale. What the IMI does is that it looks for large players that have a particular challenge and partners them with a solution here in British Columbia, brings them together, and our investment de-risks this partnering.

It allows these businesses to really show their stuff, to be successful with a large partner, which then they can show to the world. This is really a way of doing strategic procurement, I would argue.

I think the member perhaps might be familiar with the company Moment Energy, which is a company out of Coquitlam that benefited from an IMI investment and has gone on to grow quite significantly. It was, very impressively, one of the companies listed on the clean 100 list internationally as a very promising technology.

We’ve invested an additional $40 million into that program this year. These are the kinds of tools that can really help accelerate the innovation and clean tech agenda.

Rob Botterell: One of the joys of having a number of critic portfolios in a caucus the size of two is that we get to participate in numerous estimates. I do have some questions that the ministers that we were in estimates with deferred to the Minister of Finance, demurred to the Minister of Finance. This is sort of like the lightning round. I’ll just ask a few questions that came out of other estimates, and in the time we have left, maybe we can touch on some of them.

One of them is that the first-time-homebuyers program allows people to get property transfer tax exemptions if the property has a fair market value of $835,000 or less. Yet the average price of homes in B.C. is around $965,000, creating a barrier for entry into home ownership.

My question to the minister is: would the minister consider raising the property value cap for the first-time-homebuyers program to reflect increasing housing costs?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In respect to the lightning round, I’ll give you a quick answer. It will be that, yes, we’d be happy to take a look at that, and we’ll take it under advisement.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

The capital regional district has repeatedly reached out to your ministry since 2022, asking for the speculation and vacancy tax to apply to the Salt Spring Island electoral area. As of this morning, they advised they had not heard back from the ministry.

Can the minister share where things stand with the request to apply the speculation and vacancy tax to Salt Spring and what the timeline might look like to have a decision?

[9:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In honour of it being a lightning round, I’ll give you a very quick response, which is that we’re not aware of that specific letter, with the group we have right here. If the member would allow me to take that request away and get back to him, I’ll do so.

Rob Botterell: Thank you very much, Minister.

When the flipping tax was launched last year, the Minister of Housing and the Premier said that they expected the tax to make over $40 million in revenue and that it would also help free up more homes.

Is the minister able to tell us how much revenue has been made from the tax so far and, perhaps as well, the estimated tax revenues for this fiscal year?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: While the flipping tax was announced in the previous budget, it did not come into play until January, so it has only been four months. It’s too early for us to have that data. But we will have that data, the initial information, in Q1.

Rob Botterell: I’ve always wanted to say this. Noting the time, I would like to thank the minister and the minister’s senior staff for helpful answers to my questions. I realize that this will be the beginning of, perhaps, an annual event, asking questions in estimates of the Minister of Finance, so thank you.

The Chair: Did you have any brief closing remarks, Minister?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In closing, at the end of our first experience going through estimates, I would like to begin by thanking the support of my incredible team at the Ministry of Finance, some of whom are here now, many of whom are in a room behind us. I’m very pleased to have been supported in such a strong way.

I do also very much want to thank my critic, the member for Kamloops Centre, who brought some challenging questions and also brought some very insightful questions. I appreciate the member’s commitment to this process, his diligence and the work that he puts in.

I too would like to thank the House Leader of the opposition for the time that we got to spend together. We have a couple of things to follow up on, but thank you very much for your time today as well.

Thank you very much, hon. Chair.

[9:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Hearing no further questions, I now call vote 26.

Vote 26: ministry operations, $426,950,000 — approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I have a number of votes to move, so I’ll move through them relatively quickly.

Vote 27: government communications and public engagement, $32,453,000 — approved.

Vote 28: B.C. Public Service Agency, $71,872,000 — approved.

Vote 29: benefits and other employment costs, $1,000 — approved.

Estimates:
Management of Public Funds and Debt

Vote 47: management of public funds and debt, $2,762,120,000 — approved.

Estimates: Other Appropriations

Vote 48: contingencies, $4,000,000,000 — approved.

Vote 49: capital funding, $7,258,544,000 — approved.

Vote 50: commissions on collection of public funds, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 51: allowances for doubtful revenue accounts, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 52: tax transfers, $3,408,000,000 — approved.

Estimates:
Legislative Assembly

Vote 1: Legislative Assembly, $138,852,000 — approved.

Estimates:
Officers of the Legislature

Vote 2: Auditor General, $26,981,000 — approved.

Vote 3: Conflict of Interest Commissioner, $893,000 — approved.

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $14,802,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Human Rights Commissioner, $7,668,000 — approved.

Vote 6: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $10,933,000 — approved.

Vote 7: Merit Commissioner, $1,697,000 — approved.

Vote 8: Ombudsperson, $15,332,000 — approved.

Vote 9: Police Complaint Commissioner, $8,866,000 — approved.

Vote 10: Representative for Children and Youth, $12,603,000 — approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:10 p.m.

The House resumed at 9:10 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Finance, of the Legislative Assembly and of officers of the Legislature and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on Bill 15 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Nina Krieger: Section C reports progress on Bill 14 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9:11 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:08 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 15 — Infrastructure Projects Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, to order. We are on clause 4.

On clause 4 (continued).

Kiel Giddens: Welcome back to committee stage debate here on Bill 15.

With regards to clause 4, we started off with the member for Langley–Walnut Grove asking some questions around that definition of “provincially significant” and asked about the threshold. We’ve tried to dive into how that designation is made.

We also had the member for Kelowna-Mission join the debate for the past number of hours and asked about the intentions of the government and the powers that cabinet is actually gaining here.

A serious concern that the opposition has outlined is insiders gaining some sort of a track on provincially significant category 2 projects, and we see a real problem with that. It’s not just the opposition that’s saying that. We’ve heard all along from…. Every successive day, we’re hearing more First Nations speak out. We’re hearing more local governments speak out. Just yesterday, the Urban Mayors Caucus was the latest.

[2:10 p.m.]

Here in Victoria, Mayor Marianne Alto and, in Chilliwack, Mayor Ken Popove have just written an open letter as well, aimed, really, at the government, stating that: “We’re worried about B.C.’s new Bill 15, and you should be too.”

We say that the opposition’s line of questioning in this regard is not without a lot of support out there in the public. People are worried about cabinet’s broad, sweeping authority — and again, I use the words “arbitrary authority,” in this case — to pick winners and losers. Really, when we get down to category 2 projects, naming projects that are provincially significant, we have broad concerns.

The member for Kelowna-Mission outlined very clear concerns on lobbying efforts for provincial projects and what that could mean. We don’t think that provincially significant should mean provincially significant to the NDP. We think it should be for all British Columbians, and that really has not been established yet in the course of this debate.

With that in mind, we’re going to just dive into some more questions around category 2 projects and would like to learn a little bit more for the public’s benefit, for First Nations and local government benefit and the general public as well. But we really want to understand what provincially significant projects actually are, what government’s intent is here.

I’ll start off by asking: what objective criteria will the minister be using to designate a project as category 2?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We canvassed this question a few times yesterday, but recognizing it’s a new day and the start of a new several hours of debate, I’m happy to repeat the response I provided yesterday, which is that the detailed eligibility criteria, including objective thresholds, will be established by regulation.

The province had previously publicly announced our intentions around the kinds of projects we believe would be suitable for designation, around designation as provincially significant. However, we also recognize our duty and obligation to consult and cooperate with First Nations and the need to be willing to come to that conversation with a clean slate. That work will be done in consultation and cooperation with First Nations.

That will also create the space for broader engagement with other stakeholders and interested parties throughout the province, including local governments, federal government, environmental groups, industry sectors, and so forth.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just because we have talked at length in our previous discussions about category 1 projects in that regard…. I do appreciate the minister’s repetition of that. But I think category 2 has some extra attention on it, and I think it deserves a little bit more delving into what the criteria actually would look like.

I’m wondering why…. I appreciate the minister has described that the criteria will be outlined in regulation, but there is just so much uncertainty on what that could look like.

Why did government choose not to include the criteria for category 2 projects in the legislation itself? Further to that, could the minister outline some of the examples where provincially significant could be applied?

[2:15 p.m.]

I’ll just repeat my question quickly here. I just would ask again: why did government choose not to include the criteria in the legislation itself, outlined, as opposed to what the minister has described, leaving it to regulation?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It was always our intention to develop a regulation around the detailed criteria for a category 2 project, for projects that would be designated as category 2 projects and deemed provincially significant. In doing so, that regulation would be created in consultation and cooperation with First Nations as well as broader engagement with other interested parties and stakeholders, such as the business sector, local governments, federal government, environmental groups and other key interest holders.

We did, however, publicly disclose kind of a starting framework for discussion on the concept of what projects could be deemed provincially significant, which we have since repeated publicly many times, which is: a project of provincial significance must have First Nations support and provide significant social, economic, environmental benefits to British Columbians and significantly contribute to the priorities of British Columbians, such as public infrastructure, critical mineral supply, food or water security, human health and safety, energy security, post-disaster recovery, trade diversification, access to new markets, supply chain security, replacing U.S. imports, British Columbia’s climate goals and housing.

We had also publicly stated, however, that it would be our intention to explicitly exclude pipelines, LNG facilities, low-barrier housing and overdose prevention sites.

Kiel Giddens: I do recognize that list was provided publicly. It is pretty general. I think a lot of projects could really fit into that list, so I think that’s where some of the questions from nations and governments and other entities are coming from.

As the minister stated, there will be consultation with First Nations, with local governments, with the business community and with other various interested stakeholder groups on this. In the regulation-making phase, will the government be willing to entertain parameters, essentially, that these groups put on government scope, just to ensure that it is more limited, and if so, what would that look like?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The regulation could include prescribing conditions, circumstances or prerequisites as eligibility requirements. Certainly, we would be developing all of that in consultation and engagement with the stakeholders that we previously mentioned.

We would be interested in receiving feedback on the types of projects that could be considered for designation, maybe some of the core requirements that need to be met. For instance, an imaginary or speculative project is probably not appropriate for designation. They would need to meet some level of readiness. And what readiness thresholds those are — we would want to hear about that.

There might be financial thresholds that need to be considered. We would want to engage on that question and hear about that. Any co-benefits that should be considered and certainly any designated project would need to have the approval and support of First Nations. What does that look like?

All of these questions we would be canvassing through the process of developing the regulation, which will be in consultation and cooperation with First Nations as well as in engagement with all of the other stakeholders that we’ve both described previously.

Kiel Giddens: To the minister: thank you for providing that answer. I think that will be helpful for groups as they’re looking to figure out how to engage government on this topic with their interests and ideas and potential concerns.

Just on that, to follow up from that answer, once these criteria are established, I’m wondering if there will be, essentially, a decision matrix or guideline that will show how the minister evaluates whether a project actually meets that criteria. I assume some sort of a scoring mechanism will take place. Is that something that would be made public? Is that scoring matrix and that framework something that is also able to be consulted on, and will it be public?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I think it would be safe to say that the conversations that we welcome include all of these aspects around the determination for the possibility of a project or eligibility of a project to be designated as category 2. Anything that makes it into the regulation and is important, particularly in our consultation and cooperation efforts with First Nations — that is important, from their perspective, to be put into the regulation…. If it makes it into the regulation, it will be made public. So all of that will be public.

It is important to note that the decision-maker on the regulation is the Lieutenant Governor in Council, so it is passed by the entire cabinet. Any project that is designated under this legislation is also done by OIC. They are also publicly disclosed in the same way as other regulations in OICs.

One other factor that will need to be a fundamental part of the conversation around eligibility for a designation as a category 2 project is whether or not the problems that face the project are actually problems that could be helped in some way by a tool in Bill 15.

[2:35 p.m.]

We’ve repeatedly said that Bill 15 is not a magic piece of legislation. It doesn’t automatically approve any projects. It doesn’t guarantee approval of projects. It doesn’t guarantee positive outcomes on decisions in terms of permitting decisions. This is especially true on category 2 projects.

There is a whole host of reasons why a project might not be viable, might come up with challenges along the way, might not be able to be delivered on time and on budget and all those sorts of problems that projects can come up against. This bill contains six very specific tools. So it won’t address all of those problems. If a project wants to be designated as a category 2 project, it would only make sense for a proponent to seek out that designation if their project could actually benefit from one of these tools.

So that’s another factor that would need to be weighed in the consideration of what might be eligible for a category 2 project, in addition to all of the other factors that we’ve previously discussed.

Misty Van Popta: Okay, so we’re going to reverse backwards on this topic in the sense of criteria and regulation. If we have a project that a proponent came to the ministry requesting to be deemed a category 2, because of needing to use a tool within the toolbox, what kind of criteria or disclosure would happen in the case that a category 2 project — which again, is a privately owned project — say, becomes insolvent, or there’s some fraud, or something like that?

What would be the government process to disclose that project or to reverse out of designating it a category 2?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: For greater clarity, a category 2 project is not only a private sector project. A category 2 project would be any project other than a provincially owned and operated and delivered project — so anything outside of core government. It could also include a project that is delivered by other public entities like the local government, the federal government, a First Nation, a Crown corporation, as well as private sector projects.

But to the point of the member’s question about a designation of a project, should that project need to be de-designated for any particular reason, an OIC by the Lieutenant Governor in Council can also be amended through an OIC by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It’s the same process to amend or remove a designation as it is to put it in.

[2:40 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Would that be outlined in regulation, the process for which it would be de-designated? It’s not built into the bill what that process would be.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I really want to thank the member for this line of questioning because I think she raises a lot of important considerations that need to be taken into account in the development of this regulation. It also speaks to the value of this process here.

We have the authority, generally, in government to amend or repeal an OIC without it needing to be an authority that is provided in our legislation. That authority exists. And the regulation would set out conditions that a project would need to meet in order to be eligible. Should those conditions no longer be met, an OIC can be repealed.

I again want to thank the member for prompting these questions, because it will be important for us to also build into regulation, and in our conversations, other conditions that need to be met in order to maintain a designation.

Kiel Giddens: Obviously I’m trying to understand the OICs, and I appreciate the minister’s answer.

OICs is a tool that is…. And the way that they’re publicized is, I think, well recognized in the province.

[2:45 p.m.]

In this case, it might not provide enough information for the public to recognize how a project was actually designated, so I’m wondering if a rationale will be provided for each designation to be included once that process is completed.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The regulation around the eligibility criteria for a project to be able to be considered as provincially significant, or a category 2 project designation as provincially significant, will, as we previously talked about, be developed in consultation and cooperation with First Nations, developed with open engagement with other stakeholders.

That regulation will be made fully public, and the legislation then outlines the kinds of information that must be made public as part of an OIC when each project, or class of projects, in the case of category 1 projects, is designated. This includes the scope of the infrastructure project, the intended purpose of the infrastructure project, the anticipated constraints, if applicable, the name of the proponent of the infrastructure project and any other prescribed details of the infrastructure project.

I know that B.C. Conservatives yesterday were canvassing to some extent the disclosures being required by the legislation under an OIC and expressing concern that this would be too much information to expect to be disclosed of a private proponent project, but we believe that these are important disclosures for the public.

Misty Van Popta: I think yesterday’s line of questioning in regards to that had a lot to do with category 1, but in regards to also category 2, looping back to the anticipated constraints, is there a way to challenge? If the public wants to challenge that something for an anticipated constraint was removed or wasn’t included, whether it be an environmental or a fiscal risk, is there a way for the anticipated list that’s included in the regulation to be challenged by either the proponent or the public if they know that there’s some sort of risk associated that hasn’t been outlined? I’m thinking of….

I know that it has previously been said that “controversial” projects wouldn’t be looped into what are category 2. But that could be perceived differently community by community. So something that might be contentious to a small group of people…. Maybe from an upper level of government, it might not be viewed as a controversial project, but to a small group, it might be anticipating protests or otherwise.

When I think about anticipated constraints, is there a way to…? If somebody feels that the list is incomplete about the anticipated constraints, how does that get amended?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I just want to make it clear again, because I know, even if not intended by the member, that there’s often a misperception that having a project designated as a category 2 project and provincially significant somehow allows that project to access a whole lot of benefits across government. It is not the case. That designation only allows those projects to access the six specific streamlining tools of the act.

In the disclosure under 4(3)(c), constraints refers to the defined word “constraint” under section 1, which, in relation to an infrastructure project, means a measure that, unless replaced under section 12 or 19, may impede or otherwise interfere with the completion or operations of the infrastructure project.

[2:55 p.m.]

What 4(3)(c) refers to is that we must disclose what constraints the project is looking to resolve with access to streamlining tools within the bill.

As we move through the bill, we’ll also be able to see that designation of a project does not automatically give that project access to all six streamlining tools either. The tools are assigned case by case depending on the constraint that the project is looking to resolve. Thus, understanding the constraint it is looking to resolve is important and also equally important to disclose.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for that clarity. I understand that much better now.

Yesterday the minister talked at great length about the process for category 1 projects, and when they become a project. After they’ve been funded and such, they are now deemed a project. If we come back, in regard to category 2, my understanding is that a proponent has come to the ministry; it’s already a project at that point in the sense that somebody else is funding it and things like that.

My question comes more to disclosure of a category 2. On the category 1 or provincially funded projects, anything over $50 million needs to be disclosed by the public. Under that threshold, it’s not as transparent.

My question on a category 2 would be in the same vein. What are the disclosure requirements for a category 2 project, especially if it’s under the $50 million threshold? Say you’ve got a little tiny bridge, and a small community requires the ministry’s help with completing it, and it’s under $50 million. Are all category 2 projects going to be disclosed?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Without presupposing the actual thresholds around eligibility for a category 2 project, because of course we have to do that work in consultation and cooperation with First Nations, any category 2 project that is designated under this act will have to follow the disclosures that are outlined in section 4(3).

Misty Van Popta: Just more of a general question, especially when it comes to regional or projects…. Clause 4 does not require any type of regional or local government resolution that they support a category 2 project. I can think of some cases where a project is not deemed appropriate by a local government, but a proponent has come, private sector or Crown or otherwise, to the ministry.

I’m wondering why a piece is not required…. Especially in light of some of the commentary that we’ve been hearing in regard to consultations, why are there not provisions for either local government or council or regional director support for or objection to a category 2 project?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The requirements are not set out in legislation. They will be set out by regulation. The requirements for a category 2 project to be deemed provincially significant will be set out in regulation. Through the development of that regulation, we certainly expect and hope to hear from local governments as to what kinds of thresholds we need to consider, including a level of broad support, and so forth.

I will also note that sections 10 to 20 talk extensively about how we will work with local governments to collaboratively come to creative solutions or help resolve disagreements, and so forth, in a step-by-step, escalating process.

I’m really looking forward to canvassing those sections because I know there will be a lot to learn from the member.

[3:05 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: We’re spending a lot of time on clause 4, but clause 4 is a central provision of Bill 15. Over the last 24 hours, we’ve canvassed a variety of questions and issues, and I have a lot of questions still on clause 4.

I want to start by thanking the minister and thanking the minister’s senior staff for all the time and effort that is going into answering these questions. We have our differences. Sometimes you’re surprised we have differences, but I just want to emphasize that we’re bringing these questions in good faith, and we really appreciate the effort and the time that is going into this.

For this afternoon, this evening and yesterday, I certainly don’t want you to take anything from my comments and demeanour at times that I don’t fully appreciate the great effort that’s going into having what is an important democratic process.

I’m going to provide a bit of context for a series of questions. Yesterday, the Premier received an open letter on Bills 14 and 15 from the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, essentially three of the most important, long-standing governance councils for First Nations and Indigenous people in B.C.

In the last paragraph of that letter, the leadership council, UBCIC and the B.C. Assembly of First Nations stated:

“We were dismayed with your summary” — that is, the Premier’s summary response — “at the May 15 meeting that you will not withdraw Bills 14 and 15 to allow for meaningful consultation between our government and First Nations in B.C. over the summer on necessary amendments. We need you to understand that there are 204 First Nations in British Columbia, and while you may find support among a select few, who we wish well, your refusal to withdraw the bills will have serious impacts on the First Nations and many First Nations relationships with your government. These impacts could well be irreparable.”

It is in that context that I’ll be raising a variety of questions in relation to clause 4.

I just want to make the point that we’re in a time allocation framework right now, where we in the Green caucus sought and requested evenings till midnight, Fridays, weekends, to extend the session to allow the full amount of time to actually deliberate on this bill. Because of time allocation, we’re probably ending up loading questions into clause 4, although it is a key clause that we would, in the normal course, raise later.

The point that the nations are making is that you either deal with the nations now or you deal with the nations later. I understand the motivation to move this legislation through and to have it passed and have royal assent by Thursday at 4:30.

We know the Premier is in Asia next week, and I’m sure the Premier would like nothing better than to be able to say: “We’ve passed legislation related to trade barriers and tariff response. We’ve passed legislation to streamline and accelerate renewable power projects. We’ve passed Bill 15, which will allow us to streamline the approval processes and designate provincially significant infrastructure projects, private or public, to take advantage of the six tools in this legislation.”

[3:10 p.m.]

That will be announced in parts of Asia and other stops on the Premier’s trip or in meetings with the Prime Minister or other Premiers. The message will be: “Well, we’re open for business.”

But you’re not, because the next question will be, “Have you got First Nations in British Columbia on board with these bills, particularly Bills 14 and 15,” and the answer will be an emphatic no.

What will happen is that as regulations or development projects are designated, there will be litigation. I mean, the communication from the nations is clear. These impacts could well be irreparable. The trust has been broken.

What we’ve been saying is we need an exposure bill. The government has the ability, with the support of the Green and Conservative caucuses, to actually stop this process, to take this out of time allocation, to take the summer months to do the work and restore the trust with nations and then be able to say to people and agencies and organizations that the Premier is meeting next week that we’ve taken the first step, that over the summer we’re going to build the consensus with First Nations and address local government issues, and that in the fall, we’ll be finalizing this legislation. That would be just as effective a way to say that we’re open for business.

On to the legislation. There are several aspects to clause 4 that relate to reconciliation, to core territory, to prior consent on private projects, to prior consent on public projects and to analysis of whether, in fact, clause 4 is consistent with UNDRIP.

I’d like to begin by discussing the issue of consent in relation to clause 4. I want to also touch on the Declaration Act. Once again, let me quote from the representatives of 204 First Nations in this province.

“Section 20 in Bill 15 and section 13(2) in Bill 14 are the only provisions that refer to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the Declaration Act. Neither of these provisions state that the legislation cannot be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the protections of the Declaration Act or UNDRIP. Rather, they merely adopt the definition of Indigenous peoples from the Declaration Act.

If the intention behind these provisions is to set out a requirement that the legislation not be interpreted inconsistently with the Declaration Act or the UN declaration, amendments to the wording are required. If that was not the intention, we do not understand how you could make statements that were made to that effect on May 15.”

My first question to the minister is: will you amend Bill 15 to make it clear that clause 4 — and all the rest, but let’s focus on clause 4 — has to be interpreted consistent with the Declaration Act?

The Chair: Thank you, committee members. We’re going to take a brief two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:14 p.m. to 3:19 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, back to order. We are on clause 4.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’m pleased to rise to respond to the last question of the member for Saanich North and the Islands. I can confirm that section 8(1) of the Interpretation Act does apply to Bill 15.

[3:20 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: In the same letter from First Nations across the province, despite the Premier’s statement suggesting that consent from First Nations would be a prerequisite to projects, it is clear on the face of the bills that they do not contain a requirement for consent from First Nations before a project can proceed or, as in the case of clause 4, be designated for streamlining.

At the May 15 meeting, the Premier clarified that future regulations would set out that a private project can only be designated for fast-tracking if the First Nation in whose “core territory” the project is located consents to the designation. Having this requirement in a regulation is materially different than having it in the underlying legislation. The Premier’s comments about consent being part of the bills is hard to understand if the intention is to put such a requirement in regulations.

This is more than just semantics. If the consent required is not set out in the legislation, it will be much easier for future governments to change the regulatory requirement as opposed to amending a statutory requirement. And I would just add that this has been at the heart of much of the debate around these bills.

The ability of the Legislature, which represents 55 percent of the population of British Columbia in the Conservative and Green Party caucuses, would have no direct role in that process. Legislative oversight would be replaced by cabinet decision-making.

My question in relation to clause 4 begins with the question of reconciliation. I’ve heard, certainly from numerous ministers and from the government on repeated occasions, that the B.C. NDP government is committed to reconciliation with First Nations. Is that a fair statement?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

Would you agree that designating a project as a category 2 project under clause 4 that is not supported by the First Nations in whose territory it is located would not advance reconciliation?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We believe that any project that is to be designated as provincially significant as a category 2 project must have the support of First Nations.

Rob Botterell: I’ll note for the Chair that within the first week of being a rookie MLA, I was alerted by the minister that it would be very important that I stand up immediately or I’d lose my opportunity to ask a question.

The Chair: Excellent guidance.

Rob Botterell: I’m still learning, Madam Chair, but I’m getting there.

Where I would like to go next with the questions is…. The Premier has indicated and the minister has indicated that the prior consent of First Nations for private category 2 projects would be required to have them designated, if the First Nations in whose territory the project is located have consented. In effect, prior consent is required to designate private projects as category 2 under clause 4.

However, it is noted in the letter that the language is not clear, and having that type of consent designation and regulation does not provide the certainty that First Nations are seeking because of the much easier ability to amend and adjust regulations.

My question to the minister is: will the minister amend the legislation to include a clause requiring prior consent of First Nations in whose core territory a project is located prior to having it designated as a category 2 project?

[3:30 p.m. - 3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We attempted to table an amendment yesterday that would have required for government to consult and cooperate with First Nations in the development of a regulation around the criteria of a category 2 project. This includes the defining of consent and participating First Nations around that question. It was not accepted.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. That wasn’t my question. My question was whether the minister is prepared to amend the act to provide a requirement for prior consent for the designation of a First Nations in whose core territory the project is proposed before it is designated as category 2.

So my request, just to be clear, and I may have confused matters, because I referenced in this legislation…. My question is whether the minister is prepared, as requested by 204 nations in the province through their representatives, to make an amendment to the act to require prior consent of nations.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It would be important for us to consult and cooperate with First Nations around the definition of consent and core territory, and that work will be done through the development of the regulation.

Rob Botterell: Let me ask the question another way. Are you prepared, Minister, to work with First Nations, as per the interim approach, to develop an amendment to the act that your government would be prepared to introduce to make prior consent of nations in whose core territory the project is proposed a precondition to designating a project as a provincially significant category 2 project?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Could the member repeat his question one more time? I want to make sure that I capture it and hear it accurately.

The Chair: Can you please repeat the question?

Rob Botterell: Is the minister prepared to work with First Nations in accordance with the Interim Approach to Implementing the Requirements of Section 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, prepared by the Declaration Act secretariat, dated October 2022, to use that approach to work with First Nations to develop and introduce an amendment to Bill 15 to make the prior consent of First Nations, in whose core territory a project is proposed, a precondition to designating a project as a provincially significant project, a category 2 project, for the purposes of clause 4(1)(b)?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We will consult and cooperate with First Nations on the development of a regulation associated with section 4(1)(b) in accordance to the interim approach.

Rob Botterell: Just to be clear, the minister’s response relates to the development of a regulation, so that necessarily infers that the minister is not prepared to entertain an amendment to the act as opposed to the development of a regulation.

[3:45 p.m.]

I won’t belabour the point. I’ll simply note that in the record and move to the next question.

The letter from the leaders representing the 204 nations across the province expressed concern about the words “core territory.” I’ll quote from the letter.

“As was expressed at the meeting,” so that’s the meeting with the Premier, “we remain quite concerned by your statements that a project must be in a First Nations core territory before it can be designated for fast-tracking. This concept echoes the postage stamp approach to Aboriginal title that has been roundly rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada and has been rejected by First Nations from the outset. No explanation is provided as to what core territory means nor who will determine whether a project is or is not in a First Nations core territory.”

Let me just add a bit more context, and then I’ll go to my question. Whether the government establishes, working with First Nations through the interim approach, a free, prior and informed consent provision related to designation of projects as category 2 under clause 4…. Whether that is done through act or regulation, the same issue arises: what is core territory?

The 204 nations are making it quite clear in this letter that that is not a concept that they understand or support. It’s a foreign concept, and I can say from my 25 years of practising law that it’s true that the Supreme Court of Canada has roundly rejected that type of approach.

Nevertheless, the interim approach does say: “It also suggests the possibility for Indigenous peoples to make a different proposal or suggest a different model as an alternative.” Initiating the development of an amendment to the act or an amendment to the regulation using the interim approach would enable First Nations to participate in the development of something that First Nations could support and that would be in accord with their preferred approach to defining the scope, content and impact of free, prior and informed consent for designation of a project.

When the Premier met with the nations, the Premier used the specific words “core territory,” so the Premier and the minister must have had some sense of what they thought core territory means for the purposes of consent. My question, then, is: what is meant by core territory?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I think the member has succinctly outlined why it is important that the development of the regulation around a designation under section 4(1)(b) needs to be done in consultation and cooperation with First Nations.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

The meeting with First Nations that led to this letter was presumably intended to address the concerns of the nations. I’m sure it was a respectful meeting and a candid and frank discussion. But respectfully, the minister and the Premier must have some concept of what core territory is. How can one expect First Nations to support legislation where the commitment for prior consent is undefined?

Let me give you some examples. Salt Spring Island, within my riding. There are 14 nations that have Salt Spring Island in their territory. They’re all in overlap. That would be an example where there would be no requirement to get prior consent because all of the nations are in overlap.

If the definition of core territory is territory that is not in overlap, there’s no territory that is not in overlap. So there’d be no requirement to get consent of those 14 nations — although they may well have very important rights, title and interests — because core territory is basically a foreign concept.

[3:55 p.m.]

The Premier and the minister must have had some definition to go on. I’m sure that prior consent for projects in core territory was not something that was dreamt up on the spot. The minister and the Premier are well respected, knowledgeable, experienced and choose their words carefully. I hold them in high esteem. They must have had a reason. They must have had a definition in mind.

So to the minister: is it true that you had no definition for core territory in mind when you raised it with the representatives of 204 nations?

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The requirements around consent in relation to the designation of a project under Bill 15 will be developed in consultation and cooperation with First Nations.

The Chair: The Chair calls a recess for 15 minutes until 4:15.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:18 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, clause 4.

Rob Botterell: For the purposes of clause 4(b), category 2 projects, as you’ve noted, there would be regulations developed in relation to provincially significant infrastructure projects. That would include provisions related to working through the interim approach with First Nations, provisions related to consent.

Would those consent provisions…. I know we’ve discussed private projects. Would they also provide for prior consent on public projects being considered for designation under clause 4(1)(b)?

[4:20 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We are open to all conversations around the designation of category 2 projects as we work to develop regulation in consultation and cooperation with First Nations.

Rob Botterell: When Bill 15 was drafted, did the minister or did the government prepare an analysis of Bill 15 on whether or not it is consistent with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: An analysis was completed.

Rob Botterell: Sorry. I think I heard that analysis has been completed. Could the minister make that analysis available?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The analysis was legal advice. The member is a lawyer. He’ll know that all legal advice is privileged information.

Rob Botterell: There’s a significant lack of openness and transparency in relation to Bill 15. It is at the core of concerns being raised by representatives of the 204 First Nations in this province, local governments and others.

[4:35 p.m.]

The lack of clarity, the opaque nature of the legislation is the reason that we’re here asking numerous questions, because on the face of it, the legislation doesn’t answer those questions. There is always the option, as someone familiar with the law and someone who led the team that developed B.C.’s freedom-of-information legislation, to waive privilege and provide this information.

This is a fundamental issue for First Nations across this province. If there’s analysis on whether or not Bill 15 is consistent with UNDRIP and the legal advice is that it’s compliant or if the legal advice says it’s not compliant in certain ways, that’s work and advice that the taxpayers of British Columbia have paid for. That’s information that is vital to First Nations being able to understand the connection that the government and its legal advisers see between Bill 15 and UNDRIP.

Will the minister seek to have privilege waived so that the public and First Nations across this province can understand what that analysis says about whether or not Bill 15 is consistent with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I do not have the authority to waive privilege.

Rob Botterell: Would the minister then consider requesting that the Attorney General, Niki Sharma, give a direction to waive privilege?

The Chair: Just a reminder, Member, that we don’t use names.

Rob Botterell: I apologize.

[4:40 p.m. - 4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The information is subject to solicitor-client privilege. I don’t have the authority to waive that privilege.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

The response of the minister is unresponsive to my question in the sense that I didn’t ask whether the minister has the authority; I asked whether the minister would request that the Attorney General waive the privilege. And you know, in fairness, I don’t know that there’s too much benefit in pursuing this line of questioning, because my expectation is the minister is not going to respond to the question.

So let me move on. But before I do, let me highlight the reason that a request to the Attorney General to release the legal advice, legal opinion analysis, of whether the act is in compliance with UNDRIP is germane.

In this province, on this bill, there are grave concerns being raised by the representatives of 204 nations across the province, by local governments, by many others. But in the case specifically of First Nations, the concern — and the concern the nations are bringing forward in a sincere, good-faith manner — is that this act does not comply with UNDRIP and the Declaration Act.

The minister has the legal advice that will settle that question in terms of whether or not it is consistent or whether or not the minister was acting…. And in the absence of that information, everybody fills the void, and they sort of decide.

[4:55 p.m.]

There are a number of scenarios.

One is that Bill 15 is entirely consistent with UNDRIP and with the Declaration Act.

Another scenario is that it is not consistent with UNDRIP and the Declaration Act; and there are, just hypothetically, five things that would need to be done to the act in order to bring it into compliance.

A third scenario might be that it’s not in compliance. By not having that information, we’re all left to speculate. That just creates uncertainty, mistrust and an inability to pull together a consensus around this legislation.

So we’re left with an unanswered question that just reinforces the concerns that First Nations and others have about this legislation. Of particular importance is the rush to get this legislation to royal assent on Thursday afternoon this week at 4:30 before the minister is in Asia or wherever the trade mission is and be able to speak to it.

What we don’t know is whether the minister and her advisers decided to proceed with the legislation knowing that it was not in compliance with the Declaration Act or whether it was. That’s a big concern. I mean, in terms of spending of money, as my colleagues raised yesterday, the issue comes up: well, if you’re confident it’s compliant, then you should be confident to be able to seek to have the legal advice and analysis released.

I’ll leave it there. This is a very unsatisfactory answer to a simple question that would resolve a lot of uncertainty around Bill 15.

I have two or three more questions, and then I’ll turn it to my colleagues.

I want to talk about one specific category of, potentially, provincially significant category 2 projects, and that is mines.

An audit published in the Royal Society of Canada journal, FACETS, brought together researchers from Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia to examine 27 B.C. mines granted environmental assessments since 1995 with plans to open by 2022.

What we hear from industry and from politicians on a fairly regular basis is: “Oh my god, we need to accelerate and streamline permitting for mines because they just take years.” Well, this audit found that of 20 delayed mining projects, the most common cause of delay was economic factors like commodity prices, not red tape. B.C. mines were found to take an average of 3.5 years to go through environmental assessment, far less than the 12- to 15-year timeline cited by Canadian industry and politicians.

That study’s available. It’s not subject to privilege, and if it was, it would need to be waived because everybody would be asking what’s their source of data and be able to understand that.

How does that relate to clause 4? First of all, there should be no reason to designate any mines as provincially significant infrastructure projects because they’re not suffering delays as a result of red tape.

My question to the minister is: will the minister take steps to exempt mines from Bill 15?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The member had a number of components involved in his question. First, I do want to state again, as I have many times before, that we are confident that nothing in Bill 15 runs contrary to our obligations under DRIPA or the Constitution Act.

[5:05 p.m.]

To the member’s second question, I want to clarify that Bill 15 does not resolve the economic conditions that may impact projects. What it does is provide tools to help streamline government processes without reducing environmental standards or reducing government’s commitments to First Nations.

Rob Botterell: The Mineral Tenure Act, which bears direct relation to Bill 15 and the designation of projects, is one of the oldest pieces of legislation in B.C. and one of the first colonial-style tools.

The province committed to reform the Mineral Tenure Act prior to the Gitxaała court case. The province committed to this work as part of the DRIPA action plan. The province promised to repeal and amend the Mineral Tenure Act by the fall of 2026, yet no stakeholders have been consulted, and the province has not met with anybody about the legislation.

How will the province reconcile their commitment to reform the outdated Mineral Tenure Act with passage and implementation of Bill 15, which provides several tools for projects that would be designated to be expedited? To be more specific, how can work on implementation of Bill 15 proceed in relation to mines when the Mineral Tenure Act is in the process of being completely revamped?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Mineral Tenure Act is about prospecting, which is far, far earlier in the project development pipeline than the state of a project would need to be in order to benefit from seeking designation under Bill 15.

In short, the prospecting phase of any sort of mineral extraction project would be far, far too early for that kind of operation to be able to demonstrate a significant benefit to British Columbians.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. That concludes my questions on clause 4. I understand my colleagues have some other questions to raise.

I once again wanted to thank the minister and her senior staff for answering the questions and taking the time.

I’m learning all sorts of new expressions as a rookie MLA, so I just want to say that I’m finished with questions on clause 4. Woot, woot!

Kiel Giddens: I just want to thank the member for Saanich North and the Islands for his diligence. I know, as he says, he is a rookie MLA, as am I. But his thoughtful questions and diligence are definitely noted and are very much appreciated.

I also want to echo his comments on thanking the minister and the staff from the ministry. I do think you’re providing a valuable public service for being here, so thank you. And to the minister, I appreciate the real respect for this process that she shows, and it’s very much appreciated.

[5:15 p.m.]

I want to just maybe comment on a couple of the things that the member for Saanich North and the Islands has said. Certainly he has asked some questions regarding the concerns that First Nations have really brought forward and something that we’re hearing loud and clear, certainly, and we’ve talked about that. Category 2 projects are an area that seems to be a real point of concern for First Nations.

But local governments are also really concerned with, as the member for Saanich North and the Islands eloquently put at one point, the consistent lack of openness and transparency to Bill 15. And that’s, I think, partly why we continue to ask for clarity around category 2 projects and clause 4 as a whole. This designation is important to note. This is a powerful tool that the government is requesting public ability to undertake.

Local governments, as I said earlier today…. I mentioned UBCM and their comments and then later referenced the Urban Mayors Caucus, who represent many of the largest municipalities in the province, including Prince George, Kelowna, Chilliwack, many of the Lower Mainland municipalities and Victoria here in the south Island.

Comments from Mayor Ken Popove from Chilliwack and Marianne Alto from Victoria…. I want to read into the record a quote from an open letter that they provided: “What the province calls speeding up approvals and alternative permit authorizations looks more like overriding and dismissing. This legislation provides cabinet with the power to overstep local jurisdiction, including municipal bylaws and permitting, for the purpose of moving forward provincial priority projects handpicked by the Premier and cabinet.”

So as I look into clause 4 here, and at that really broad, sweeping category 2 power we’re looking at, I think local governments need to understand what steps actually are going to be taken. We’ve heard about some of the First Nations steps, but I’d like to….

On category 2 projects specifically, I’m wondering if the minister can provide a little bit more information to local governments on how impacted communities will be made aware before a designation occurs, how they’ll be consulted on that designation and what ability they’ll have to have a say in that process.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: A number of pieces that I think are relevant to the member’s question.

First, the development of the regulation around the eligibility criteria for a project to be considered for designation as provincially significant. That regulation will be developed in consultation and cooperation with First Nations under the interim approach. However, it will also create the space to engage more broadly, including with local governments. So we look forward to those engagements.

[5:25 p.m.]

Secondly, it’s important at this point to also reinforce that category 2 projects are not only large private sector projects but rather also those projects delivered by Crown corporations, by federal government, by First Nations and by local governments as well.

I’ve spoken to many mayors and local government leaders that actually see a lot of opportunity to work with our government through the authorities provided in this bill on projects that they also want to see move forward, be they category 1 projects, so those projects that are developed by the province, or their own priorities. As examples of projects that local governments deliver: treatment plants, water treatment plants, utility projects, community amenities like community centres.

It would be important for us to hear from local governments as to the kinds of projects that they deliver that they would like to see potentially have access to the tools available in Bill 15 so that the regulation is able to take that into account. We’re hoping to have lots of engagement from local governments to that effect.

In terms of once a regulation is set and we’re now into operation of the bill, in order for a project to be able to benefit from the tools available in Bill 15, they would have to meet a level of project readiness. We’ve said all along that we’re talking about real projects that are underway, not speculative projects that could exist in the future.

That means that they have a lot of work to do in order to get to that place. They will have to have had done their…. Again, I won’t speculate on the exact quantifiers in the regulation, but they need to have a level of project readiness. If they are deemed a provincially significant project, section 4 lays out the details of that project that would need to be released as part of the OIC, including for subsection 3(c), anticipated constraints.

We’ve referenced this word before. It’s defined in section 1. Constraints refers to a constraint that is removable under sections 12 and 19. Those sections relate to local government processes and basically mean that the proponent will have had to figure out what opportunities there were to streamline processes relating to local governments.

In order for them to establish what those opportunities are, they would have had to work with the local government and already be in active conversation with the local government to determine what those opportunities are for inclusion in the disclosure if they want to access tools, which we’ll discuss in later sections, relating to those constraints as defined under section 1.

In order for them to have that disclosure, they will have had to already been engaging with local governments.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I recognize we’re talking about projects that will be at a significant stage of project development. But I guess I’m just trying to understand before…. Putting aside the project development but turning more directly to the decision for the designation, is it something perhaps that by regulation there could be a formal notice period to local governments that could be prescribed by regulation?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It is not our intention to catch local governments unaware. The proponent of a project would have had to be already talking to local governments, and we, as a ministry, would also need to do our due diligence to fully understand the project and assess the applicability of the tools to the situation. We could only do that by talking with the local governments directly.

Kiel Giddens: I do sincerely hope that that can occur, to make sure local governments are aware of and actually support a designation as well before…. I know that the way it’s written, the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes a decision on the recommendation of the minister, but really making sure that it’s at the recommendation of also…. That input from local governments and First Nations, I think, is also very critical in this case, especially for category 2 projects.

With that in mind, one of the things that local governments have mentioned to me is that…. Looking forward in the bill, looking at the part 4 powers, the word that they used was…. They’re worried those powers will actually bulldoze official community plans. That’s something that they’re very concerned about.

In relation to clause 4, I’m wondering why it wasn’t included, or perhaps maybe this was something contemplated. I would like to understand further. Why doesn’t clause 4 require a local government or a council resolution or a regional district board motion of support before a local project can be designated as a project to be supported under category 2?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It is probably a good time to reinforce that the designation of a project as provincially significant under category 2 here, under section 4, does not in itself do anything for the project. It has to be assigned certain tools, and those tools are laid out in future sections of the bill.

There are six streamlining tools that a category 2 project could access. Again, as I said earlier, a category 2 project would not automatically access all six tools. They would be assigned on a case-by-case basis, depending on the challenge that they are facing.

Of the six streamlining tools, five of those tools actually point to provincial processes, and only one tool affects a local government process. Of the six tools, however, two of them do involve local governments. You’ll be counting on your fingers now. There’s an overlap here. That’s because one of the tools, which we can canvass in more detail later on, is a tool that local governments can use to request the province to look at our requirements.

The example of the official community plan is an example that we have used on a number of occasions. What it refers to is that tool that allows for a local government to ask the province to waive a provincial requirement that we have placed on a local government.

There is a process that we have set out in the subsequent sections around that tool, and it does include some of the elements that the member is asking about.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Turning to subsection (4)(b), and talking about the prescribed details of the class of infrastructure projects, I’m wondering if the minister could explain in a bit more detail what constitutes a prescribed class of projects. It would help if the minister could provide some examples of what that would look like.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I answered this exact question yesterday. I’ll provide the response again. It is a different day, after all. Section 4(4)(b) refers to a class of infrastructure projects designated under category 1. They would be a group of similar projects. The example I provided yesterday was all publicly delivered modular classrooms.

[5:40 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for clarifying. We want to make sure that it was in line with the discussion yesterday. I wasn’t sure if there was anything in relation to category 2 projects that that prescribed class would cover, but I think I understand the minister’s answer there.

Going back a little bit more to subsection (3), the description…. We’ve talked about a number of these already, including constraints, and spent quite a time on that topic in particular.

At this point, I would like to move an amendment to that portion and would like to table that today.

[CLAUSE 4 (3) by adding the underlined text as shown:

(3) A designation under subsection (1) (a) (i) or (b) must include a description of the infrastructure project that sets out the following:

(a) the scope of the infrastructure project;

(b) the intended purpose of the infrastructure project;

(c) anticipated constraints, if applicable;

(d) the name of the proponent of the infrastructure project;

(d.1) the budget of the infrastructure project;

(d.2) a timeline of the infrastructure project;

(e) any other prescribed details of the infrastructure project.]

The Chair: We will take a short ten-minute recess while we achieve copies.

The committee recessed from 5:41 p.m. to 5:57 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I now call the committee back to order. Members, we have an amendment to clause 4.

Would you like to make remarks on the amendment?

On the amendment.

Kiel Giddens: I move this amendment to clause 4(3), adding (d.1) and (d.2). And (d.1) reads “the budget of the infrastructure project,” and (d.2) is “a timeline of the infrastructure project.”

The reason we’ve done so is really about transparency. As I’ve said all along earlier, part of the concern with Bill 15 overall has been a transparency problem and that is that local governments, First Nations, the public, businesses still have a hard time understanding the entire scope of this bill.

Let me be clear. This amendment is not going to change the Conservative caucus position on Bill 15, but we do feel that this would strengthen the overall clarity for the public. I know in this particular section we’ve talked about concerns on anticipated constraints. Having private businesses provide some of those to government potentially could have problems. We’ve gone down and canvassed that road. But this is something that we do think is needed to be added in there.

Obviously this particular section talks about the scope of the infrastructure project, but that doesn’t necessarily demand that the actual budget and the timeline of a project is going to be included.

I know we’ve talked about a lot of infrastructure projects. We’ve canvassed them in question period a fair bit. We did even today. I know that the Minister of Transportation will go down a list of all these projects, and a lot of them — actually, in fact, nearly all of them — are neither on time, nor are they on budget.

So transparency into that process is very important for both category 1 and category 2 projects in this case. We want to make sure that, obviously, that’s clear, especially projects led by government.

I think also the private sector…. When we do have those projects that are designated as category 2, we need to make sure that it’s clear that when government is saying they’re going to fast-track a project…. Let’s make sure that we know what that budget is, know what that timeline is. Then we’re actually holding government to account on permitting and what they’re saying.

[6:00 p.m.]

If it’s a project of significance, as the government is saying, well, the proof is in the pudding in that case, because it needs to be shown that this has had any value whatsoever.

By and large, when we hear from First Nations, when we hear from local governments, transparency about this bill and trying to provide more clarity is something that we’re trying to inject into the process. I think this amendment does add some additional detail that will be useful for project proponents, for the public, for local governments, for First Nations and those who might have an interest in what Bill 15 means overall in this province.

With that, I hope others will continue to support this amendment.

I appreciate the time, Madam Chair.

Misty Van Popta: Just to add a few additional comments. In the disclosure and the transparency of project delivery are schedule and budget. I think it could also just be an interesting metric to have — that if we’re fast-tracking projects, regardless of who’s a proponent, whether it’s a provincial project or a category 2 project, fast-tracking or unlocking some of these tools may result in improved schedule times, which would result in cost savings to a project.

I think it’s prudent that we know what the estimate is at the beginning when it’s being designated so that we can track at the end if fast-tracking is ultimately creating…. I mean, on the government side, I think it’s great if we’re unlocking some of this, and it’s going to end up….

Unlocking some of these risk points would result in the schedule being saved. It fits on critical path being able to track that. But on the private sector side, if proponents are coming, they’re being deemed a category 2. If they’re saving money and saving schedule, it’s something that needs to be transparent.

That’s why I would be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: If there are no other members who wish to speak to the amendment, then we can take a short recess for the minister to deliberate on her response.

The committee recessed from 6:02 p.m. to 6:07 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: All right. I call the committee back to order.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to start by expressing appreciation for the member of Prince George–Mackenzie for this amendment.

I will say off the bat that, having heard the member speak in favour of the amendment, it was helpful to understand the intention behind the amendment and thus allow us to deliberate on the intentions on this amendment.

For clarity, we will not be supporting the amendment. However, it is not because we don’t think that there is merit behind the intention. I want to provide that context now. In releasing the information for budget and timeline of an infrastructure project, category 1 projects are already disclosed publicly. Category 1 projects, being projects that are provincially delivered…. We already have disclosure processes in place for these kinds of projects, so it’s already captured elsewhere.

When it comes to category 2 projects, particularly private sector projects that could be designated category 2, the member for Kelowna-Mission yesterday provided a very rigorous defence of commercially sensitive information. I think the execution of this amendment is challenged in that way.

In deliberating with our team, there is also uncertainty around what is meant by budget and timeline. Is the timeline referring to the start to the end of the project? To various phases of the project? Substantial completion? There’s too much uncertainty there for it to be built into legislation.

That being said, though, we absolutely agree that metrics are important. We will be working, in consultation with First Nations and in engagement with other business sectors, to understand what those metrics should be as part of the development of our regulation.

[6:10 p.m.]

If additional disclosures on projects are required for the designation of projects, it can be captured under clause 4(3)(e) as well. It does not necessarily need to be built in to the clause 4 as presented in this amendment. It could be captured under clause 4(3)(e), if required, on a case-by-case basis.

We will not be supporting the amendment because of the uncertainty around the budget timeline, the duplication of process around category 1 projects and the potential for release of commercially sensitive information.

However, we’ll be considering this as part of the development of regulation, and we agree that metrics are absolutely important. Government will be working towards gathering that.

The Chair: The question is the amendment to clause 4.

Division has been called.

[6:15 p.m.]

There are two minutes remaining. Are we in agreement to waive time?

Leave granted.

[6:20 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6
Kooner	Dew	Boultbee
Mok	Williams	Botterell
NAYS — 6
Brar	Kang	Higginson
Routledge	Ma	Chow

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make the casting vote. In accordance with recognized parliamentary customs, the Chair votes against the amendment to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted at second reading.

Kiel Giddens: I know that the amendment didn’t pass, but I hope that the discussion around that can help inform future discussions and regulation and disclosure. It sounds from the minister’s comments and the course of the amendment debate that, I do think, that’s something that will be taken into account, which we appreciate. So it would be something that I would like to follow up on after all this is completed to understand how that process is going to go, if that’s acceptable.

Just a few more questions with regards to clause 4. I know that there has been a little bit of discussion on mining projects, so just understanding the scope of resource development projects, in particular. I come from a resource-dependent community, obviously.

One of those really important kind of…. A project that is often overlooked is actually the access roads. I’m wondering. Under this authority of category 2 or category 1, I don’t know how resource roads could fit into this. In particular, category 2 — could a resource road be designated as provincially significant and, in effect, have a reason to be maintained and built and completed at a high standard?

I’m thinking of the fact that the Association for Mineral Exploration has raised a lot of concerns about backcountry access closures and their ability to get new access into areas that would be required for mineral and mine development in more remote areas. There are a number of mines even in my own riding where this would be the case.

[6:25 p.m.]

I know north of Mount Milligan, the mine that’s operating right now by Centerra, they have projects to the north of there that are actually in other stages of development that potentially could be designated as a category 2 project. But the access is limited, and there would need to be some sort of a potentially permitting kind of constraint to be taken care of. I’m wondering if a resource road could be included in this designation.

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I actually find this line of questioning to be really helpful. I recognize that in the format that we are doing this debate, the comments from members have to usually be framed in the form of a question. But also, I will say, I’m very eager to hear more suggestions from members around kinds of projects that they would like to see be potentially eligible for a category 2 designation.

The most accurate answer is that we wouldn’t know for sure until the regulation is set, because we anticipate that the regulation may include some quantitative thresholds, like around the size of the project. So it’s unclear at this point whether an access road could qualify on its own as part of a larger project that the access road is intended to actually provide access to.

What I believe I’m hearing, and the member can let me know if I’m correct or not, is that the member would like the scenario to be considered as part of the development of regulations around eligibility criteria for a category 2 project.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the minister’s response. I’m glad that the feedback is useful, and hopefully that can continue.

As the minister was speaking, I was trying to picture the types of projects that I could envision. The one that came to mind, though, was one that I think would be out of scope because it’s an LNG project: the Ksi Lisims LNG, which is in Nisg̱a’a territory.

I think that would likely be out of scope. A major mine would probably be a better example. It’s something maybe to consider down the road, certainly. I appreciate the thoughtful response there.

Maybe another one, just to understand. Obviously, B.C. has different projects that are regulated by different jurisdictions as well. Obviously, a CER-regulated project, for example, federally regulated…. We have the Port of Prince Rupert and other federally regulated entities as well.

I just wanted to confirm. Can those projects on federally regulated lands, such as a cross-border project or a port, for example….? Could projects within that context be designated as category 2?

[6:35 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Providing a project in the context that the member has raised meets the eligibility criteria set out by regulation. The answer is yes. Those projects could be designated as provincially significant projects.

However, we would want to keep in mind the confinements of the scope of the tools that are available to such projects through designation. For instance, none of the tools of Bill 15 affect federal regulatory or permitting processes.

All this being said, however, I think it’s also worth noting that in the federal government’s throne speech today, they revealed their intention to pursue — and “catalyze” I think is the word they used — projects of national significance.

We look forward to working with the federal government to better understand their intentions around projects of national significance and where it makes sense for us to work together.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair. I guess we know it’s been a long day when we’re cycling through back to the same seat, but welcome back, sir. And thank you to the minister for the update.

I actually didn’t catch any of the throne speech yet today, federally, so I appreciate hearing that. It looks like we’ll all be trying to understand the provincial and national significance and what all that means. That’s a lot of discussion to come in that regard, I guess.

Maybe I’ll move on. I appreciate the minister confirming that these projects that are federally regulated would still be captured. I think that’s useful for the public.

I’m going to move back to a topic that we covered a little bit in category 1 projects, but I just wanted to make sure that it’s clear for category 2, specifically.

Is there a sunset clause or limitation on the duration of a project’s designation status, or is that something that would be prescribed by regulation?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: There is no sunset clause in the legislation. The designation of a project will be done through regulation, keeping in mind that designation in and of itself does not actually do anything for the project. It’s about access to the tools and the use of those tools that will be defined as part of the OIC.

[6:45 p.m.]

A completed project that has completed the scope of the infrastructure project might still be designated as such but have no access to tools. It would exist in name only.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the minister’s response. I think in talking about category 2 projects, understanding the total duration of that designation matters, for private sector projects in particular, I would say, in this case, just because it could present a material change to the project if a designation had to be rescinded or anything like that.

I’m wondering if the minister could describe an example of circumstances that might warrant an amendment, or a rescission, of a designation perhaps. Along with that, if an amendment or a rescission is made, if the minister could also just add, the public disclosure or transparency requirements…. Would it be the same as the original designation decision, or what would that look like?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The eligibility criteria will be set out in regulation. The conditions that the designation is being issued under would be set by OIC under section 4(3) and release the details under 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). If a project was no longer eligible, or the conditions on the project had changed beyond what had been set out by OIC, then the OIC could be amended or repealed.

The disclosure around an amended or repealed OIC would be through the same mechanism as the original OIC. An example of this might be, let’s say, a mining project that has met all of the eligibility criteria, and the scope has been set out in whatever way it has been set out. Halfway into the construction or the development of the mine, they wish to seek an amendment on the scope of the mine.

[6:50 p.m.]

That amendment would have to be reassessed, because it is a change to the scope of the infrastructure project, and the OIC would either be amended or repealed depending on whether or not that project is still eligible, and supported, for the designation.

Kiel Giddens: I do think the mining example would be a good one to just discuss a little bit further in this case and that potential for an amendment, but more importantly, probably, a rescission by some sort of a decision.

The reason is that I’m wondering if the…. Say in that mining example, something material changed with the project and there was a decision to rescind, and it was mid-construction. If it were midstream and the project were to be rescinded, how would the contractual obligations and things like that be looked after?

I think it could impact investor certainty. If they see a change in the status of the project from the province, maybe that injection of capital doesn’t happen from private equity or something like that. Then, all of a sudden, we have these environmental obligations that maybe are not being met and whatnot. The province would have to put other environmental orders and things like that on.

I know this is kind of an elaborate example, but I’m just going down the rabbit hole of the case of a rescission being made mid-project in some way and of what challenges could arise from something like that. Is that something that the minister could respond to?

The Chair: Thank you, Member. I’d just like to mention that I was sitting in on this discussion earlier when your colleague the member for Langley–Walnut Grove asked very similar questions. I would hope that you would perhaps reframe your question or ask a different one. Thank you.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do believe that was in relation to category 1 projects as well.

The Chair: No, this was in regard to category 2, when she specifically spoke about subclause 4(1)(b).

Kiel Giddens: All right. Thank you, Chair, for the clarification.

The Chair: You’re welcome.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe asking the question in a different way, how can the public have confidence that decisions on projects of provincial significance are not going to undermine environmental regulations or laws or, for that matter, the obligations to First Nations in that case?

[6:55 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you so much, Chair. I appreciate the guidance from earlier.

I must admit, in the process of listening to the question, I worry that I might not have quite fully understood where we landed on the question. I’m going to provide a response, and I invite the member to ask another question if I did not get that last one right.

I think I understand where the member is trying to go with this. The order in council will set out a description of the project as well as the tools of the project. The tools are set out for each project on a case-by-case basis. Those tools are also subject to the terms and conditions and restrictions in respect to an authorization of use of those tools. Those are laid out in other sections following this section.

[7:00 p.m.]

If there was a material change to the project, it would be necessary for government to reassess the project. I’ll leave it at that.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just to finalize this line of questions I’ve been on…. It is possible that if designation was rescinded, that proponent may disagree with that decision. I’m wondering what legal recourse they would have if they disagreed with the decision to…. They may have other counterparty liabilities that they’re trying to cover, and they may want to understand if there’s some sort of legal mechanism with the government, or if it’s just through the courts or some sort of a judicial review process.

If the minister could describe that, that would be helpful.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: As is often the case, the recourse would be judicial review.

Kiel Giddens: I do think it’s important to understand that for businesses. I said that was kind of the end of the line of questioning. I consider this a bit of a different…. Similar topic, but it’s for a different purpose.

Obviously, First Nations or local governments could also disagree with a designation. I’m wondering if the minister could outline the process for them to challenge a designation and what that legal process, if it did get to that point, would look like as well.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I was wondering if the member could clarify his question. Is he referring to entities like local governments or First Nations that object to the province’s designation of a project as provincially significant, or is he referring to local governments or First Nations as project proponents that wish for their projects to be designated as provincially significant?

[7:05 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I was talking about the former, but actually, the latter would be quite helpful as well, if the minister can answer both of those. I hadn’t even considered that scenario. But the minister did describe, obviously, that that is something that local governments…. I recall that discussion we had earlier, so it does make sense that that could be how….

If they disagreed with a project being named as a category 2 project, what would be the recourse for them? That would be the main question I have, and if there are any comments on that latter point, that would be useful.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to preface my response by saying that it is government’s intention to be as clear and transparent as possible in the eligibility criteria for a category 2 project to be designated as provincially significant. It would be prescribed by regulation that would be developed in consultation and cooperation with First Nations and with the broad engagement of all parties.

In the designation of each project, government would endeavour to do their due diligence so as to prevent the scenario that the member is referring to from happening. So that would be our intention. We would hope to do all this to ensure that the designation can be strongly justified.

That being said, in the hypothetical scenario that government finds itself in the situation that the member describes, then the recourse for any entity in both scenarios that are being canvassed, the former versus the latter, would be judicial review.

Kiel Giddens: We’re talking in hypothetical scenarios here, but I certainly hope that that does not occur, because that would obviously be a huge impact to First Nations with limited capacity. Local governments, same thing. Their capacity is very limited. This would be a huge cost for taxpayers and for nations. I really hope that that does not occur.

[7:10 p.m.]

One other group that could potentially have a challenge could be…. If a project is designated as category 2 in particular, and if an adjacent landowner has a project that is something that they maybe disagree with…. We do have these cases around the province where a project happens in a landowner’s vicinity, and it actually devalues their property.

This something that local government zoning and planning and regional district planning is…. All those processes usually take place where landowners, neighbours, other businesses have that kind of ability to have their say in a process. But if a neighbouring adjacent landowner has a problem with a designation, and, in fact, they have had harms, including a devaluing of their property by an alternate process approval here, what sort of recourse would they have? Would it still be the same as the other cases, a judicial review?

The Chair: Member, I’ve given a bit of latitude here, but I feel that this line of questioning is getting a bit repetitive, in the sense that you are now going into various groups and asking which groups will have recourse. The minister has given an answer with respect to the type of recourse that would be available.

Perhaps you might be willing to reframe the question in a way that couldn’t apply to every single group. Thank you.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Chair. I guess part of the reason I ask is that the neighbouring landowners aren’t a group that we have talked about. I don’t want to belabour this point too far. I don’t have a number of questions on this. This is actually the last one in this particular line of questioning.

The reason I’m saying…. It’s not about NIMBYism or those types of things that are brought up in this context. But it is important, I think, particularly in this case where financial implications for a landowner….

I’ll use the example, say, of a wind farm that could be designated as provincially significant. There’s a neighbouring rancher that maybe has a challenge, obviously, on their property. They want to know what recourse they have to challenge a designation if they disagree with that provincial designation. What recourse would they have?

I think, Chair, if you may, this is the last question I have in this. But that example, I think, would be helpful because there are those types of scenarios in the province that could certainly happen.

[7:15 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate we have a very diligent Chair in the House right now.

Keeping in mind that section 4 is about designation of projects and that designation of a project does not in itself do anything for a project, it is the use of the tools that could enable a decision to be reached sooner.

In the scenario that the member is providing, under section 4, it would be difficult to imagine how the designation of a project in and of itself could devalue anybody’s land property. However, if a landowner, if any individual or entity wanted to challenge the designation of a project, then they could go for judicial review.

Kiel Giddens: I do think that it does materially change a project if it’s been designated as category 2. It does significantly. If we’re trying to fast-track it, I think it does make a difference. But I appreciate the minister’s clarity there.

One question I neglected to ask earlier that I just want to ask, so I don’t forget about it. Could a project first receive category 2 status and then, later, be reclassified as category 1? Is that possible? Is that something that the minister could comment on?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We cannot think of any example where that would occur.

Kiel Giddens: I want to wrap up clause 4. We’ve been talking about this clause for quite some time, all day yesterday and quite a number of hours today. But really, this has been a very consequential clause to the bill. This is where a lot of the public concerns have been that we’ve heard about, that the government has heard about, that have come up.

We had the House Leader for the Third Party, the Green Party, and us in the Conservative caucus…. You’ve seen us aligned in a lot of this, our positions on these things. You don’t typically see…. You wouldn’t think you would see the Green Party and Conservatives aligned, but we actually do share a lot of values around things like democratic accountability and oversight, not to mention conservation of our environment and things like that. But that’s a side topic.

I think fundamentally what we do share is that democratic accountability. Part of our concern with Bill 15 overall is that the Legislature is very much shut out of the process. These projects, as they’re designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, are a cabinet decision that becomes, really, in their hands. So we’re asking…. The public has to trust the government to be making these decisions, the cabinet to make these decisions. That brings with it concerns.

[7:20 p.m.]

I think there are concerns that we’ve heard. I’ve quoted Marianne Alto and Ken Popove from the Urban Mayors Caucus extensively, and they’ve said specifically, and I’ll quote: “Local governments are keenly interested in fast-tracking infrastructure projects, especially schools, health care facilities and housing, and we want to help the province do that work.”

That’s something we all can, I think, agree on. I think we want to see some of these projects fast-tracked. There are probably ways that that could have been done other than Bill 15.

I’ll go on to say, and I’ll quote again: “The province says we can trust them, but we know that we can’t give them a blank cheque.” In saying that, I go back to the fact that the Legislature is the accountability mechanism. This is our democratic oversight where all of us as legislators have our say. We’re doing that as part of this process, which is good, but we will be shut out of the later decisions of this.

As MLAs, we won’t have decisions to be made on which projects will be provincially significant. That will be solely within the hands of the Premier and cabinet. That blank cheque is just something that we still very much have concerns with as official opposition. The Third Party has as well.

My final question for clause 4. I’m wondering if the minister will commit today to table a report in the Legislature, a consolidated report, each fiscal year listing all active designations, their stage of completion and any cabinet-approved amendments, regulations, certificates or certificate alterations related to both category 1 and category 2 projects.

[7:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: All project designations will be published on B.C. Laws. Every permitting ministry has its own online site where all permitting decisions are also published.

We take the member’s point, though, that that information is, although easily searchable, not necessarily collated in the way that the member describes. We think that’s a very good, useful suggestion, and we’ll certainly explore ways to collate the information in that way.

But it is all publicly disclosed. In terms of category 1 projects, the member may be interested in knowing that project updates are provided and issued as a report through the service plan every year, annually. That will continue to be available to all members of the public.

The Chair: Shall clause 4 pass?

Interjection.

The Chair: We’re going to take a five-minute recess and come back with the division call. We’ll come back at 7:33 p.m.

The committee recessed from 7:27 p.m. to 7:33 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act.

[7:35 p.m. - 7:40 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is on clause 4.

Clause 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 6
Kooner	Dew	Boultbee
Mok	Williams	Botterell
NAYS — 6
Brar	Kang	Higginson
Routledge	Ma	Chow

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. In accordance with recognized parliamentary procedure, I’ll be voting in favour of clause 4 to keep the bill and clause in its original form as adopted at second reading. Thank you.

We’ll take a brief recess of three minutes and come back. Great.

Thank you, everyone.

The committee recessed from 7:42 p.m. to 7:46 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, back to order.

On clause 5.

Brennan Day: I do have a few questions regarding clause 5, specifically section 1. This is regarding how this bill relates to powers between various ministry departments, specifically with other departments, like water and land, that may have concerns.

I’ve been moving through a bunch of development projects across the Island with a bunch of people, and we’re having serious issues on consistency of the policy that’s being brought forward by those departments. So there is going to be a series of questions here just regarding how those will be settled under this bill.

Cabinet is going to have broad discretion to designate major infrastructure projects under this bill. What mechanisms are going to exist to reconcile contradictory assessments from within ministry departments, like water and lands, when it comes to issues?

[7:50 p.m.]

Disagreements between biologists and Water Act officials, for instance, are very common ones that we’re seeing across the province for something like wetlands before a project is designated. I’m just wondering what process is going to be used specifically here to clarify that.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: For greater clarity, section 5 doesn’t get into the details of particular tools. It is only about the assignment of tools to designated projects. But to help the member perhaps assess where he would like to delve deeper into the various tools, I’d like to provide a broader answer to the member.

The tools in Bill 15 won’t necessarily help to resolve all of the underlying challenges that the member is observing in permits for permitting processes of other ministries. But we can imagine — well, not just imagine. We can see opportunities where the use of certain tools in Bill 15 could also, on a permit-by-permit basis, provide greater clarity for a specific permit.

What I’m referring to is this: the use of the qualified professional certification process. In order for a qualified professional certification process to be used, a permit would have to be identified, and then clear standards and objectives for the achievement of that permit would have to be set out. In doing so, that would allow a qualified professional to make the assessment.

It would also then be a clear standard and objective that the ministry itself would apply to that permitting process, so we can see how the use and the development of the framework for the use of some of these tools could then also help to streamline, on a longer-term basis, that permit within the ministry.

[7:55 p.m.]

I will note that this work would be done collaboratively with those ministries, and we would identify which permits would go through these tools. That’s an example of how some of these tools might help, what the member is describing. The qualified professionals tool is described in greater length in section 6.

Brennan Day: I think that’s the perfect lead-in to, actually, part of the challenge that we’re seeing here in the qualified professionals. I’m working through another one, so I can use an active example to sort of set the stage. I think it’ll make things a little easier.

An employee of water and land, a biologist, has made a determination that undermines a qualified professional under the definition given in this act, in this particular case and a few other examples. They’re trying to apply legislation and qualification using U.S. standards to their definition of an active wetland. In this case, we have from the ministry itself: “Under the Water Sustainability Act, there’s a requirement for water bodies, such as the one in question, to be connected to a stream or water source.”

I note that WSA staff has indicated that no authorization under section 11 would even be needed to fill the pond. They’re saying, “Well, this doesn’t qualify,” but their own biologist, who is a registered professional, says that it does. It challenges here…. This is a member of that department. It does not demonstrate adequate knowledge of wetland science. So they’re overriding the qualified professional as outlined here.

I’m wondering how in those cases that gets resolved. If there’s a discrepancy between a ministry determination and the qualified professional on one of these qualified projects, how does that then get settled by your ministry, which would be the overriding ministry or cabinet in this case?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The scenario that the member is describing sounds very frustrating for somebody who is trying to navigate the system. I do want to be able to get into that line of questioning shortly, but respecting the clause-by-clause debate, it’s best canvassed in section 6 where we can really talk about the qualified professional reliance model more clearly.

Section 5 is about the assignment of tools to designated projects, and it only refers to the assignment of those tools. It doesn’t go into how the tools work.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the previous member for asking a specific question there. I understand that we’ll save some of our questions on qualified professionals and understand the minister’s answer.

Maybe we’ll ask a bit of a different one related to 5(1)(a). I’m wondering if it’s the intention that the ministry would publish the designation of a public registry for every one of these statutory permits that, under 5(1)(a), has been replaced by a consultant certificate so that neighbours know which safeguards have changed. If there’s a rule that has changed, it would be good to understand how that publication of that notice would happen.

[8:00 p.m. - 8:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Pardon me, Chair. A question came to my mind that I need to confirm with my team.

Chair, thank you for your patience. Thank you for the patience of the members of the opposition. It is becoming a late hour, and sometimes our brains aren’t quite as quick as they were in the beginning.

The tools and the permits that the tools will be eligible to be used for will be set out by OIC and assigned to those projects, so it will be publicly disclosed in the OIC.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that clarification from the minister. I do recognize it’s a late hour. I myself just had to go take a break to go eat a sandwich. The BLT is my go-to when I need to just get something really quick. Just letting folks know.

In any case, I appreciate the minister’s answer on that. I might move on.

[8:10 p.m.]

I think we may save some of our questions along this line for clause 6, because I think it will get into it as I keep diving into these questions further on this. I’m going to ask a couple more general questions about clause 5, given that we’re talking about authorizations in that time frame.

Project proponents, in looking at it, often get into timelines on that, and that’s the first question that they typically ask. I’m wondering how long it will typically take for a project to receive authorization under this clause. How long will it take for a determination to be made and for that authorization to be given? Is there a timeline that’s contemplated, I guess, on the issues in this clause?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Can the member clarify: is the question around timelines for the designation of the project and the assignment of the tools, as under section 5?

Kiel Giddens: I think that’s correct, but maybe I’ll frame it so it’s easier to get where I’m coming from.

For example, in reference to the Environmental Assessment Act, there are legislated timelines. There tends to be a stop-start kind of process, but ideally, we’d have a hard timeline.

If we are in fact trying to get authorizations — especially, for example, any terms, conditions, restrictions and respective authorizations to have those happen — is there some sort of service delivery timeline that can be expected for that decision to be made?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I actually heard two different questions in the member’s last remarks. I’ll try to address what I can.

If the question is, “How long does it take for a project to receive an authorization under section 5?” it should be clarified that an authorization under section 5 is the authorization of a project to access the tools, not the decision point of those tools.

The process is the second part of what I heard from the member. If the question is, “How long will it take for a decision to actually be made on a permitting process?” that’s dependent on the tools. We can talk about that on a tool-by-tool basis in future sections.

[8:15 p.m.]

When it comes to authorization of the use of the tools, it really depends on the complexity of the project. We would need to determine and assess the project against the eligibility requirements for designation. We would need to understand the permits required — and the constraints, if applicable, that the project is facing — in order to have a fulsome understanding of the tools that could apply. That process, particularly if it involves constraints relating to local government decisions, would need to involve conversations with the local government.

The timing would be different, depending on how large and how complicated the project is, but the timeline for authorizing a designated project to access tools under section 5 is different, once you have the tools and you have accessed these tools, from how long that tool takes to reach the decision.

Misty Van Popta: When I’m looking at section 5(2)(c), the thing that I would like to just get into understanding a little bit better would be the word “restrictions” in accordance with this clause. How I’m reading it — I’m going to assume you’re going to correct my understanding of it — is that the LG could, in theory, put restrictions on the use of a professional certification.

Am I correct in reading it that way? If not, could you give an example of when subclause (c) restrictions would ever be enacted?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes, section 5(2)(c) allows for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, in the authorization of designated projects, to use certain tools, to also “include terms, conditions and restrictions in respect of an authorization under this section.”

[8:20 p.m.]

A hypothetical example might be helpful. Let’s say under section 5, a project is authorized to use a qualified professional certification for an amphibian salvage permit, for all amphibians except the western toad because it is a species at risk. That would be a restriction under section 5.

Kiel Giddens: Just following up so that I understand, given what the minister just described, and it was helpful to have that specific example, could clause 5 feasibly be used to add conditions beyond what’s already required in, say, an EA certificate or even in just permitting conditions that already exist? Is that the case?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: No, section 5(2)(c) is only in respect to the authorization for a designated project to be able to access or use tools.

Kiel Giddens: Just looking at the overall clause, I’m wondering if…. Just trying to understand how it would work, as well, but could a project that has already begun work be forced to stop or reapply for new authorizations under this regime? Could that be something? If they already have their permit authorizations and then these powers in the clause are used, would they have to go reapply again to get new permits or would their existing permits remain valid?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: No, a project does not need a tool. Because they already have a permit, then they don’t require the tools.

Kiel Giddens: Actually, I think we’ll leave it at that.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Brennan Day: A little quicker this time.

Interjection.

Brennan Day: She did warn me.

Now we’re back to the qualified professionals. I sort of preambled it before. I won’t go back into that. We know that oftentimes qualified professionals are in opposition to, potentially, ministry professionals on specific issues or definitions in their interpretation.

So given section 6 gives considerable weight to certifications issued by qualified professionals, but we see that sort of disagreement internally within ministry staff that routinely challenge or override the findings, how does the…?

Brennan Day: So how will those contradictions be reconciled effectively through this? We know it happens very regularly. There’s a series of questions that sort of stem off of this, so we’ll start there.

[8:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: There are currently pockets of government that do some delegation of statutory decision-making to qualified professionals. When we’re talking about qualified professional certification in Bill 15, it is a new model designed through Bill 15. We are not talking about what I described previously, where pockets of government currently use qualified professionals to perform some delegated decision-making. So it’s different.

Under Bill 15’s qualified professional certification, the way the system would work is if a project proponent was authorized to use a qualified professional certification for a specific permit, that qualified professional would be the one certifying instead of a statutory decision–maker.

[8:30 p.m.]

So it isn’t the case where a project would go through both routes and then there would be some discussion at the end. It’s one or the other.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

In order for a qualified professional certification to be useful, permit by permit the ministry would have to work with the existing permitting ministry to identify, for that permit, clear standards and objectives against which these decisions and these certifications can be made.

There is a process. Qualified professional certification is not something that can immediately be implemented upon royal assent. There is work that has to be done in order to set that standard and then decide which qualified professionals could take on that standard. Then as a project proponent, you could ask to go through that route instead of the current route.

Brennan Day: I think that sounds like a fantastic idea across the board, honestly. You should take that to some of the other ministries. I think that would be a great start in clarifying some of the mess that we see with permitting.

I guess the question I’m going to ask, then, is about transparency of qualified professionals. We know, especially in certain cases under the list…. I was here and we reviewed that, so I won’t re-litigate what exactly each qualified profession is.

There are significant shortages. What would stop a project from basically binding up and conflicting out the majority of the qualified professionals available, and how are we going to…? How would you reconcile the inherent conflict of interest if a project owner is paying a qualified professional versus the balances we have right now with having, sort of, that check with ministry being able to override?

[8:35 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Qualified professionals would need to be determined on a permit-by-permit basis because we would want to make sure that they actually have the qualifications to be able to make the decision, that they would have the experience and expertise. We would expect the qualified professional…. We will be developing a registry of qualified professionals that could be engaged to provide the certification.

All of these details are actually available in section 28, as well, but I’ll kind of talk about it more broadly here. In order to be on the registry, not only would a person need to have the experience and the expertise, but we would also want individuals to be a professional under a regulatory body — a regulatory body that has a code of ethics, registration and government oversight; for instance, a Professional Governance Act professional. They would have expectations around conflict of interest, in order to maintain their professional designation as well.

[8:40 p.m.]

Brennan Day: Can you go into a bit more detail on the registry? So it’s not a conflict-of-interest registry, just to specify that. Would there need to be a conflict-of-interest registry as part of this?

I mean, if they’re governed under a body, that’s fine, but how do you determine…? If they’re working on multiple different projects, potentially under the same ministry, in this case, if it’s under Transportation or Infrastructure on one of these packages…?

I feel there’s a huge issue for conflict of interest in choosing the same qualified professional, for the same reason that you aren’t able to do that on regular projects, because you have ministry oversight. The ministry is passing that oversight over to a qualified professional designation under that.

How are we certain that we’re not cherry-picking the same qualified professional that’s going to say yes, even if it’s in conflict with other ministries?

[8:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you to the member for the question.

The registry, which is spoken to in more detail in section 28, is a registry of qualified professionals that government has prequalified to be able to make a decision. They would be engaged by a project proponent, but in order to stay on the registry, they would have to abide by government’s standards for existing on the registry. That includes their ability to assess projects according to our clear standards and objectives for a certification of a permit.

We will be setting up a compliance and enforcement regime to ensure that everyone on the registry is complying to the standard. If a qualified professional is demonstrated to not comply with the standards and objectives that we have set out, they will no longer be allowed to be on the registry. If a qualified professional wanted to be on the registry, they must demonstrate their ability to be a trustworthy qualified professional in that regard.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask to leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:46 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:09 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, to order.

[2:10 p.m.]

Before lunch, the member for Surrey–White Rock had moved an amendment to clause 8 to replace “prescribed” with “level 3.” It has been ruled that the amendment is in order.

Is there any debate on the amendment?

On clause 8 (continued).

On the amendment (continued).

Larry Neufeld: This amendment proposes to eliminate the ability of government to add any project they choose under Division 3, “Level 3 Streamlining.” If government believes that they need to add another project to level 3 streamlining, it is very easy to add as an amendment to this bill.

Currently this government does not designate any project for level 3 streamlining, so this amendment would require them to bring in an amendment which would designate a project with level 3 streamlining levels.

As we saw with the carbon tax bill this session, a bill can be brought before the House and passed in one sitting day. Eliminating this requirement does not inconvenience government. It only continues to ensure the supremacy of parliament.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It made me think how people would feel about a Bastille Day legislative session, but in any event, the member knows that the proposed amendment simply doesn’t work. It’s all very well…. I understand the principle of what the opposition is doing, so I don’t want to be unfair. We’ve seen amendments such as this from other members as well. I understand the political point they’re attempting to make, but removing “prescribed” and adding “level 3” would mean that there would be no way to identify projects that would be level 3 streamlined projects. Presumably, that’s the intent.

Level 3 streamlined projects, by definition, need a means to identify projects, or else this and other sections of the bill would be effectively redundant, which the member’s amendment removes. This would mean no projects would ever be level 3 streamlined and completely defeat the purpose of the bill, in terms of streamlining renewable energy project regulation. So the amendment doesn’t work.

I would just say, in principle, that we want to proceed. We’re going to be debating the level 3 process over the next number of sections, and I look forward to that debate with members of the opposition. But this amendment effectively opposes the legislation, opposes the intent, which members of the opposition have done at second reading and, presumably, will have opportunity to do again. It takes away the meaning of the bill’s successive sections.

Yes, we want to proceed with wind projects. We want to proceed with solar projects. We want to proceed with renewable projects, such as the ones we’ve identified and, yes, more in the future. We want renewable projects to be treated the same way that we’ve been dealing with natural gas projects for 25 years, and we want to do it the same way we’ve dealt with hydrogen projects — an amendment similar to this, unanimously supported in the Legislature.

I oppose the amendment, and I suggest members vote against it.

Trevor Halford: Yeah, I thank the minister for his remarks, but it’s not going to be no surprise to the minister.

We’re talking about guardrails, right? I think that part of the challenge is that we’re seeing in this room — we’re seeing downstairs; we’re seeing in the House; we’re seeing outside; we’re seeing on the front lawn; we’re seeing everywhere — that there is clear overreach by government in terms of this legislation and others that are before the House, which I won’t speak to right now.

It is a very dangerous situation for us to be in. The minister is quite rightfully talking about future projects, but we’re talking about a government, a cabinet, that is going to decide who wins and who loses. That’s what they’re doing in this legislation and other legislation.

The minister knows our opposition to all of this, but what we are trying to do, in good faith, is put forward amendments that curtail that power, put restraints on that power. That is the simplicity of this amendment.

I’m not surprised by the minister’s comments. This government welcomes amendments. I think that’s good. It’d be nice to see them support one. But with that, we on this side will be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: The question is the amendment to clause 8.

The amendment is defeated.

[2:15 p.m. - 2:20 p.m.]

Members, we do have everybody here. Do I have consent to waive the remaining time?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section C or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is shall the amendment to clause 8 pass.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6
L. Neufeld	Paton	Maahs
Wilson	McCall	Valeriote
NAYS — 6
Toporowski	Sandhu	Choi
Routledge	Dix	Malcolmson

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make the casting vote. The Chair votes against the amendment, to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted at second reading.

Clause 8 approved.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m wondering. We stood down clause 7. I think we’re ready to go back to it now. Members are ready to debate it. I would ask consent for us to go back to clause 7.

The Chair: We will go back to clause 7.

On clause 7.

Larry Neufeld: I would like to recognize and thank the minister and his staff for providing the statement that was read out before the break. That is certainly appreciated.

I’ll try to keep duplication to a minimum wherever possible. There are a couple of things that I did want to clarify, though, as a means of getting it into the record. As we’re all aware, these types of things could be looked at by justices as far as determining what the thought process was.

[2:25 p.m.]

With respect to clause 7(2)(c), which references ERAA section 34(2), my question is: what protections remain in place to protect the public from industrial trespass?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It has to do with the need for those rights, in this case. All of the laws dealing with trespass would continue to be enforced, in any event, which are other laws than this.

For level 2 streamlined projects, proponents will need to reach an agreement with any private land owners whose land they need to access. The surface rights board, which this section refers to, will not be able to order entry. Essentially, with respect to the laws on trespass, that’s not a change.

Larry Neufeld: A follow-up to that…. I appreciate the answer; I do agree. In my previous career, one of the most significant components of my work was dealing with the absolute need to stay within a surveyed right-of-way.

My concern with removing this section is that if a pickup truck is driven onto private land, does that remove the ability of the regulator to enforce the rules, and then force the landowner to go to civil means to execute that?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Because we’re talking about level 2 here, as a proponent, there is the capacity for B.C. Hydro, although I don’t think it certainly would be necessary in these cases, to use its expropriation powers, which are not dealt with in this bill in any event, and which they simply have. With respect to private land rights, as opposed to Crown land rights, they would do so by agreement, so landowners would effectively be protected.

This is just ensuring that a section of the existing legislation, which really isn’t intended for this purpose, isn’t used for that purpose. That’s the purpose of the legislation. The landowner’s rights would not be affected by this.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Just to clarify, though, there would be no recourse for private land owners against B.C. Hydro using the energy regulator. They would have to go through civil recourse.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I don’t think it’s an issue of recourse. If B.C. Hydro didn’t have the agreement, they wouldn’t be able to go on, right? Otherwise, if they had a contractual agreement with B.C. Hydro under any circumstance, they’d have recourse to their contractual agreement. That’s the circumstance of this provision.

Larry Neufeld: Just to clarify, I wasn’t talking about expropriation or moving into…. It was, again, going outside of the surveyed boundaries. In my previous life, that was an exceptionally serious offence.

Again, B.C. Hydro has the plot of land, as agreed with the landowner. No problem; that’s okay. But if they do drive off the site into someone’s crop, are they left to civil recourse only?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There would be civil recourse. You know, I hesitate to say B.C. Hydro wouldn’t do that, because I don’t think they would. If they did do that by some form of accident — things happen out in the world — they would be responsible for that.

[2:30 p.m.]

So there would be civil recourse, but also the recourse to B.C. Hydro making good on what happened.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

I’m going to move on to section 7(2)(e), where it references section 40(e) of the ERAA. On this particular one, I am curious. I do appreciate the thoroughness of this response that was provided to me in writing. I do.

Now that we’ve identified that the Energy Regulator is not responsible for regulating the infrastructure itself, my question is: who is responsible for regulating the infrastructure?

Hon. Adrian Dix: That would be the BCUC’s and B.C. Hydro’s responsibility under the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Act.

Larry Neufeld: Moving on to Bill 14, section 7(2)(h), again, this is something that rings very, very true to my previous life.

With respect to…. I’ll include (2)(g) in the same question. I do understand the rationale, and I do appreciate the rationale, for eliminating these two clauses from this legislation, as it is not overly applicable.

What I would say, though…. My question would be: with removing the dormant and orphan site provisions, what protection remains for the public with respect to final decommissioning, closing decommissioning, causes should there be extenuating circumstances where these facilities are left in place?

Hon. Adrian Dix: With the forgiveness of the committee, I’d just refer to section 13(c) of the legislation, which we’ll get to shortly. It addresses the regulation capacity with respect to orphan sites. What we didn’t want was to have parts of the legislation duplicated, but it’s there, and we’ll get to it when we get to section 13.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Moving on to Bill 14, section 7(2)(i), which references ERAA section 49(1)(a) and (4)(d) and (e). Obviously, we’ve talked about this, and it is clearly understood that a level 2 project does represent a power line. I believe that we’ve established the identity of that as both high tension and possibly other power lines.

My understanding is that…. Perhaps I do need to re-read this section. I meant to do that over lunch. But I will ask the question at this point, with forgiveness if it is redundant. With the powers being available to level 3 streamlined projects, is there…? I’ll withdraw that question.

I’m going to move on to Bill 14, section 7(2)(j), which references section 51 of the ERAA. Again, while I certainly appreciate the intent of why this clause was eliminated, my question would be: in the event of an incident on a rural, unpaved road or a forest service road, would this not be an appropriate clause to maintain?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: This provision does talk about highways, roads and other areas. They were developed, and it’s the reason we’re not applying them here, to address potentially hazardous conditions around pipelines and oil and gas facilities regulated by the BCER.

In the circumstances described by the hon. member, the Ministry of Transportation would have jurisdiction to do just what he’s asking to do. The BCER would continue to have, though, those responsibilities for natural resource roads, which are obviously differently regulated in the province.

In the circumstances and the concern he’s expressing, that power and authority still exists, and it would rest with the Ministry of Transportation.

Larry Neufeld: Once again, to establish it clearly on the record, does that include forest service roads?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, the BCER would have responsibility for forest service roads, as I described in the distinction between the Ministry of Transportation roads and the natural resources roads. The BCER would continue to have that authority.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

My next question to the minister would be: by exempting all of the sections that we’ve chatted about, what time contraction is expected to occur from the initial call for power to completion and operation, relative to what it would have been before this bill?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As described throughout, really, these are sections of the ERAA that don’t and should not apply to these projects, so it’s neutral in that respect, except it doesn’t apply specifically designed provisions for the oil and gas industry to these projects, to level 2 projects. In that sense, it just makes sense, under the law, not to apply provisions that aren’t intended for that purpose and wouldn’t work properly.

Whether these particular provisions affect the timelines is hard to say, but we’re passing legislation here, and we want it to be effective and understood and not to apply provisions that shouldn’t apply.

That’s the purpose, as we’ve gone down…. These are quite technical, as we’ve gone through them, and are described. They really say, in the case of a number of these provisions that are essentially designed for the oil and gas industry or really aren’t appropriate for a level 2 project, that they wouldn’t apply.

It makes sense for the regulator and everyone dealing with the law not to have legal provisions that are not needed, not necessary and, really, are inappropriate for the purpose.

Larry Neufeld: Again, thank you to the minister for that answer.

I’ll make this a broader question then. What is the hope of the ministry with respect to Bill 14 as far as a reduction in timeline from inception to completion of these projects that are included?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, understanding that timelines are not just dependent on the regulatory process…. They can be dependent, as we know and the member will know, on projects in the private sector, for example, everywhere. Sometimes they’re dependent on other circumstances. But we think that this form of regulation has proven its effectiveness for over 25 years in the oil and gas sector, so having the same style and same type of regulation for a renewable sector would make sense.

That’s not — as some, I think, sometimes suggest — any kind of revolutionary change, but I think it makes sense. We did the same thing for hydrogen previously.

This is better regulation, specialized regulation that will allow the regulator to also move more quickly in addressing it because of that expertise and because it’s a single-window regulation. We think that’s useful.

[2:40 p.m.]

We’ll talk about the provisions with respect to environmental assessment when they come up, but that also has advantages. The member will know, as I discussed and put on the record at second reading, the lengthy environmental assessment proposal timelines of wind projects, which we’ve now done in a number of cases. We know the issues, and so on. So there’s that question, which we can get into when we have that discussion.

I think this is better regulation. It allows more streamlined regulation and allows us to get to decisions more quickly. How it deals with individual projects, of course, remains to be seen.

The experience in oil and gas — and I think we had that experience from the immediate period after the legislation was proclaimed and put into force in the late 1990s and then going forward; then the act was significantly amended and redone in 2008 — has been positive. It’s not because the regulator doesn’t say no and yes — it says yes and no all the time — but because we’ve developed expertise, understanding, a committed group of 300 professionals at that regulator. This was true in oil and gas.

One of the reasons it was done in oil and gas — I’m embarrassed to say I was there when it was done, working in this building; that was a long time ago — and part of the reason it was effective, I think, was because of the nature and the regular applications for projects, which were much smaller, and there were many more of them. Having a single regulator and not multiple regulators all the time was good for government regulation and good for the industry regulation.

Similarly here, I think this will be very effective, and I believe it will prove that effectiveness over time.

Donegal Wilson: Yeah, I appreciate the highly technical conversation we’ve been having. As a new person to this file, I can tell you it’s been above my head a few times. So please bear with me if I ask some more layman-terms questions around what’s happening within this bill.

The first thing: you were telling us a lot about what was happening, and you were speaking about it as if it’s a regulation. Is this regulation, or is it law? I thought the act made it law, and regulation lived in a separate document.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the BCER is a regulator; that’s what I was referring to. We’re establishing, as we did in 1998 with the Oil and Gas Commission, further legislation that affects the regulator. In 2008, the regulation that affected the B.C. Energy Regulator changed the name and also did what we’re doing today for hydrogen and for renewable projects.

That’s a regulator; it’s established in law. This is the law that’s the basis for a set of regulations that are often very specific, in oil and gas, to the needs of that industry, for example, and there will be one specific to the requirements of renewable energy.

Essentially, what we’re doing here is doing exactly what we did 25 years ago for oil and gas — on the regulator side of things, the B.C. Energy Regulator — through a single-window regulation, to hydrogen in 2022, under a single regulation, and now for renewable resources, under a single regulation. It’s one regulator for industry, one regulator for First Nations and life-cycle regulation.

So we have, at the beginning of a project, the same regulator for early works as we have through the potential remediation at the end of a project’s life — which is, obviously, a shorter time frame in terms of oil and gas than it would be for these projects. Nonetheless, that’s important.

When I talk about a regulator and its job in regulating an industry, that’s what I mean. In this case, it’s the B.C. Energy Regulator.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Boundary-Similkameen. Just a reminder that we are discussing clause 7 at this time.

Donegal Wilson: It’s just because he’d said it so many times and from my previous hat, regulation was something controlled by government; it didn’t come through the Legislature. Legislation was something that was debated here in this House. So I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that.

Related to clause 7…. I’m wondering how to word this. You’ve chosen to introduce this bill with these transmission lines as having a significant green light. I’m wondering: what is the red tape that you’re trying to get around? What was preventing us from building these? Was it the 15 sections of the act that were preventing us from getting these power lines built?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, section 7 deals with the current provisions of the ERAA and their application to level 2 projects here. That’s what it deals with specifically.

With respect to the North Coast transmission line, the B.C. Hydro project, what the North Coast transmission line is, is a parallel line to the existing line, essentially, from Prince George to Terrace. Ninety percent of the right-of-way is there already. What we want is not to have multiple ministries dealing with the regulation but to have an energy regulator that is dealing with transmission lines and then will deal with the other transmission line to ensure that the law is appropriately enforced on that line. That obviously leads to increased efficiency for B.C. Hydro.

B.C. Hydro, because of the nature of the project…. I’m not going to get into speculation about whether it would be an EA or not, but probably not because it’s essentially a parallel line on a parallel right-of-way. But conceivably B.C. Hydro, you could argue, might have to go into environmental assessment. This law also deals with those issues for B.C. Hydro.

This speeds up the regulatory process for a transmission line that’s in the public interest for electricity that’s needed in the northwest of the province. The member will know that one of the issues in the northwest of the province — where the people of B.C. have a lot of ambition for projects, whether they be the Port of Prince Rupert, whether they be energy projects or hugely critical mining projects, mineral projects and mining projects — is that there’s insufficient electricity that’s produced in another part of the North going to the northwest.

Our transmission lines disproportionately…. I think you’ll hear this from a lot of people who live in the North. You have energy that’s produced in the North, say on the Peace, and it’s heading down to Vancouver, or it’s heading down to Penticton — well, probably not. There’s a different system there. But it’s heading down to southern B.C. The value of that line is that, and we’ve discussed that.

The North Coast transmission line is not the desirability of it. There’s a difference. The government supports the line, and the opposition does not, which is a discussion. But we’ve been straightforward that we supported the line. We’ve debated that. We debated that before the election. We introduced it in the legislation. This is a fairly straightforward process that we put in place.

The opposition has different views on that, and that’s part of the public debate that we’ll have. But we think B.C. Hydro should proceed with this line. It’s great news for the people of the northwest, and people in the northwest deserve this access to clean electricity in our system.

Donegal Wilson: I used to live in Smithers, actually, for 15 years, so I understand the needs of the people in the North.

You really focused in on the transmission line and specifically the one line from Prince George to Prince Rupert. Is there an instance of a different kind of level 2 project that could fit within your definitions?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yeah, principally, I think the other line we’ve spoken about…. I know everyone follows these debates, but for people that are watching this, there are three Houses going on right now.

We have talked about the North Montney line, which affects the member’s colleague’s region more than the northwest one does — the member for Peace River South. Those are proposals around the electrification of the Montney and natural gas in the Montney, which have all kinds of advantages both for the public interest, for economy of B.C., and for the industry. That is another proposal that it would apply to.

The purpose of level 2 is that you have a transmission line, unlike the wind projects, which under level 3, which we’ll get to in a moment, have life-cycle regulation. Generally speaking, a transmission line, once it’s completed, falls under other regulation, including the B.C. Utilities Commission, which regulates B.C. Hydro, for example, and other energy providers, other utilities in the province.

That’s the reason why we have the distinction between level 2 and level 3. Then you would have an overlap of regulation, which is the opposite of our intent, obviously, with the legislation.

[2:50 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: But those level 2 projects are still lines. There’s no other type of project that could fall under level 2? They’re only transmission lines?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I don’t think so, no.

Donegal Wilson: Do we have any project applications for transmission lines? I know you referred to a couple, but do we have other projects that will be sitting there and not be fast-tracked for transmission lines?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, B.C. Hydro is always building out transmission. It’s an important time. When we have more generation, there’ll be more transmission, inevitably, which involves application for projects going forward, but those are the two projects that we envision at the moment.

Donegal Wilson: With no sunset clause on this legislation — I mean, we don’t know what the future will hold — is there a decision matrix for whether those applications will be fast-tracked or remain within the red tape that the other ones exist in?

Hon. Adrian Dix: If there are major transmission lines that, potentially, this government, in the far future, after the ’28 election — or other governments; we’ll see what happens — may wish to pursue, and they meet, certainly, the public-interest need that the North Coast transmission line, the North Montney line and others do, then it could apply to them.

I’d just suggest to the member that when you’re talking about the building out of transmission capacity, there’s much more than the legislation that’s involved. Obviously, all of us want all the standards that are applied now to safety and all the other issues to continue to be applied. That’s not a change. We would want to transport clean electricity around the province, so that would be an opportunity, potentially, for a government in the future to do, absolutely.

That’s a good idea. That’s the intent of the legislation: to allow for different regulation of clean energy projects, whether they be transmission projects or projects such as wind, solar and others that are listed in clause 1, on which we’ve had extensive discussion already. I won’t go back to that discussion, but this is applying the same regulatory system that we’ve applied for a long time in B.C. with an excellent regulator that does its job very well and is acknowledged to do its job very well in general.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate the answer. I’m not sure that I actually got that there’s going to be some form of decision matrix where a project either gets this or it doesn’t.

Will all projects that are for line infrastructure be considered fast-tracked, or will there be projects that are still going through the old way?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The intent is for transmission lines to fall under this umbrella. It distinguishes them from level 3 projects, which the committee will be discussing shortly.

The Chair: A reminder that we are discussing clause 7.

Donegal Wilson: Are there any guardrails around level 2 projects to ensure that only power transmission lines are included?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We did discuss this at some length yesterday, but I’m happy to talk about it again. The purpose of level 2 regulation here is that these are projects that are otherwise regulated, including transmission lines as they function as transmission lines, for example, by the BCUC in B.C. Hydro’s case.

[2:55 p.m.]

There may be some circumstances in which they might fall under a level 3 line — if it’s a private sector proponent, under some circumstances — but basically, the intent of level 2 is to deal with natural resource permitting, and that’s what it does. It puts that under a single regulator, which makes sense for the public interest and for the building of the province.

Donegal Wilson: Does clause 7 only have implications for land owned by the Crown, or does it also have implications for private land? How would that be handled?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yeah. The Land Act applies, really, to public land or Crown land, for example, but as noted, the section really deals exclusively with the ERAA. If you have a linear transmission line, it will go through public land, Crown land and private land. That’s typically the case with a long transmission line such as this, and different acts apply to both. There are some acts, like the Land Act, which only apply on Crown land. There are others that affect private land.

The idea of the legislation is to have a single regulator dealing with natural resource permits, as I’ve noted, and that’s what the bill does. The particular section, obviously, is just…. I’ll just refer to sections of the ERAA, which don’t apply to renewable projects, largely because they were developed to deal with the oil and gas industry. That’s the purpose of the actual section.

Donegal Wilson: I’m assuming that it’s a similar answer for grassland tenures, grazing tenures and, also, guide-outfitting tenures and anything that would be impacted. I think you said that most of them are pairing the same line, but I mean, this is in open legislation. There could be lines anywhere.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, you’re saying, again…. The question has nothing to do with the clause in question, but I think we’re trying to be as broad as possible in responding to questions from the opposition.

I’d say that under a number of legislative instruments, notification requirements are there, and they would be held responsible in an opportunity to make submissions to the regulator there.

The purpose here is to make the regulator the B.C. Energy Regulator and not, say, multiple ministries. For the purposes of the rules and laws in question, that’s what’s required here. It’s the B.C. Energy Regulator that will do that work. That’s the reason why the legislation was put in place — in part for oil and gas 25 years ago, for hydrogen three years ago and for these bills, with different levels of regulation that are appropriate to different types of projects.

For projects that require life-cycle regulation, we’ll be getting to them shortly. We haven’t got there yet in the bill, but we will. Then level 2 projects, which require a different form of regulation, have different provisions in the statute, so that’s what we’re doing here, but this section deals specifically with parts of the ERAA. It doesn’t deal with any of those questions or on parts of the ERAA that don’t apply.

[3:00 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: One of the things that we’re talking about is that the need to have a permit is removed. All of these questions relate to things that were included for a permit holder, so I do think they’re relevant. I will say that if we’re removing the permit required, section 21…. Am I lost here? Why is everybody looking at me like I’m lost?

I might have jumped ahead. My apologies. Section 21.

The Chair: A reminder that we are on clause 7 currently.

Donegal Wilson: Yeah, so clause 7(1) is to remove permit required. A lot of the notifications and things that I brought forward live within the permitting process. So if we’re taking out the permitting, how are we going to ensure that those things still happen?

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear on that, but I do believe that what I’m speaking is relevant to the clause.

The Chair: Do you have a question, Member?

Donegal Wilson: Now you’ve got me flustered. Yes, I do.

The Chair: Take your time.

Donegal Wilson: It also includes how those permits would be cancelled. So what mechanism would be in place if there were a project that, for some reason, needed to be cancelled or the permit needed to be changed, but there’s no permit now? What does that look like?

Hon. Adrian Dix: All the regulatory statutes and the laws would still apply. It doesn’t change any of that.

Donegal Wilson: So removing the need for a permit doesn’t remove everything within that section that they had to do to get a permit?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, as noted to a number of other questions, level 2 is about the natural resource authorizations. The transmission lines are otherwise regulated, and that’s why the bill is constructed under level 2 that way. And our discussion of level 2 is centred on this question. I appreciate the member’s questions, but that’s the continuing answer to that. That’s the specific nature of level 2 regulation.

Level 3 regulation is life-cycle regulation, and we’ll be getting to that shortly. That’s the answer we’ve been providing for some time.

Trevor Halford: I just want to clarify. I think I understand what the minister is saying, but can the minister give an example of where it would be in the project where “Section 21, permit required, of the primary Act” does not apply in relation to a level 2 streamlined project? Where would we see that invoked? How would it be invoked?

I guess if the minister can give an example in the projects where we would see “Section 21, permit required, of the primary Act does not apply in relation to a level 2 streamlined project,” even an example of said permit.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Let’s talk about the North Coast transmission line. Assume it’s built. We require natural resource authorizations, which the BCER would deal with, which are surface requirements essentially. So we’d need those permits to build the line, and we’re centralizing them, bringing them together in the BCER.

The actual operation of the transmission line is under other regulations. That’s why there’s a different form of regulation here. So it would be likely for that line, B.C. Hydro operating line, that the BCUC would provide that. You don’t want a duplication of regulation. That’s all. It’s the distinction between the natural resource permits required to essentially build the line and the ongoing regulation, which is not with the BCER.

With the windmill, the wind farm, that would be different. There’s ongoing and life-cycle regulation by the BCER. And that’s the reason there’s a distinction between level 2 and level 3.

[3:05 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: With the example the minister gave just now, a lot of these projects would require different permitting from across ministries.

I’ll give an example for the northwest transmission line, which the minister just cited. I’m assuming, at some point, there would be permitting required from MOTT, the Ministry of Transportation. Are we talking about exemptions on other permitting, whether it be if transportation was required, a permit from Ministry of Transportation? Are we talking about exemptions there as well? Is that what this clause is referring to?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No.

Trevor Halford: Okay. I’m just trying to clarify. So when we say, “Section 21, permit required, of the primary Act does not apply in relation to a level 2 streamlined project,” can the minister give an example of a permit that would not be required on the specific transmission line that he just referenced?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It is a distinction.

Again, another example. I was just looking for some examples.

A permit to operate a transmission line comes under the B.C. Utilities Commission Act — essentially, the BCUC. The permit to operate the wind farm comes under this legislation, the BCER. That’s the distinction, really. It’s a distinction between types of projects.

You don’t want duplicative regulation. That’s why level 2 and level 3 were created. We’ll be discussing level 3 shortly, about the nature of that regulation, but this is level 2.

Nothing is being taken away here. It’s just that the ERAA doesn’t apply to this project now, in those permits, but they are permitted, nonetheless, and authorized under other legislation.

You don’t want to duplicate that. That’s the reason we have level 2 and level 3, because level 2 doesn’t require the same life-cycle regulation.

Trevor Halford: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

[3:10 p.m.]

Can the minister list, then, the permits that would not be required under a streamlined level 2 project? Can the minister provide, to the committee, a list of all permitting that would be exempt from the clause that we’re discussing, 7(1)?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We operate a lot of transmission lines today, so all the existing authorizations will continue to exist. You don’t need a list. That’s how we operate these projects today.

We’re talking about the construction of these projects. That’s why we have a different kind of regulation for, say, a transmission line than a wind farm, which has life-cycle regulation.

Trevor Halford: I understand that, but it reads here: “Section 21, permit required, of the primary Act does not apply in relation to a level 2 streamlined project.” I understand the minister is talking about duplicity, and I get that. The challenge that I’m having here is we’ve spent a fair amount of time talking about consultation.

The government can defend their consultation record on this piece of legislation and others, and I would defend against that. But that being said, when we have clauses like this one in front of us, that look like we are bypassing permitting, then we are also bypassing another level of consultation.

So I’m asking…. The minister is talking in generalities. I’m talking about very specifics. What permitting is getting exempted on this specific clause? I understand level 2, level 3. Okay, I get that. I’m talking about the specific permitting that is no longer required under this clause, this section right here.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’ll just go to the Energy Resource Activities Act to assist the hon. member — section 21, which is the section referred to here: “Subject to section 23, a person must not carry out an energy resource activity unless either the person holds a permit that gives the person permission to carry out that energy resource activity….”

This is applied elsewhere in other statutes, so it’s not needed. We’re not adding a statute to these projects that already exists.

If you look at the Energy Resource Activities Act, we wouldn’t be applying new permitting requirements on transmission lines that don’t exist now. Since they are authorized in the B.C. Utilities Commission Act in their operations, we don’t need to do that. It’s just simply avoiding duplication. There’s no lack of access or exemption from existing permitting or authorization processes — none.

Trevor Halford: I’m just trying to clarify from the minister. Based on the minister’s answer just now, it’s all about duplication, so there would be no circumventing any permit, whatsoever, on a level 2 streamlined project. The minister is saying today that this is just about getting rid of redundancy, so no permit would be bypassed. Not exempting any permits. This is just strictly about redundancy.

My question is: is there any permitting…? We can talk about the northwest. We can talk about the transmission line. Is there any permitting that is going to be exempt, based on this clause and section, right now on a level 2 streamlined project? Or is the minister saying that it’s all just basically eliminating redundancy?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’d just frame it differently. It’s not creating redundancy. They’re already regulated now. We’re not going to add new and duplicative regulation to this type of project, which is already regulated now, amongst other places, under the B.C. Utilities Act.

Trevor Halford: I guess my struggle with this, again, is that I’m asking specifically what permitting is getting eliminated in this specific clause. I have not heard one example of a specific permit that would be getting eliminated in this specific clause.

I know the minister does his due diligence before committee. I would expect that he would know a permit that this clause would be eliminating.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Nothing. Nothing is being removed. Nothing is being eliminated. We’re not adding a new and duplicative regulation on something that’s already regulated, and that’s the purpose here. It’s fairly straightforward, as I see it. Nothing is being removed. No current requirements are being eliminated.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Surrey–White Rock.

Trevor Halford: Thank you, and welcome to the fun, Mr. Chair.

Then I guess I’d ask it this way. Why would level 1 require clause 21 and level 2 does not?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member’s question is wrong. Level 1 doesn’t require that.

Donegal Wilson: I have one last question on this. We’ve had a lot of talk about the intent of what you were trying to create with this work. Do you see the opportunity, or do you see weaknesses that future governments may leverage the broad powers within this bill to take it places that were not your intent?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I can imagine a whole bunch of things that a Conservative government might do that I would not see as desirable. I think that goes without saying.

The law and the regulatory structure here is a law and a regulatory structure based on 25 years of experience that previously was supported by opposition parties, legislation that was brought forward by previous parties, the previous B.C. Liberal government as well. This legislation makes sense.

When we brought in the legislation to create the Oil and Gas Commission and the B.C. Energy Regulator in 1998, you might have imagined that legislative initiative would be changed, but it wasn’t, because it was good legislation that came forward and suited the needs and the public interests of the province. It would be my expectation that this legislation will do the same.

As I say often to my colleagues as well…. People have this concern. You bring forward legislation, and what if the other people are in charge? What happens with it? Well, if there’s a majority government, regardless of the party, things will happen that the opposition disagrees with.

This legislation is based on decades of experience. It’s applying a regulatory framework, and we’ll talk about the other question of environmental assessment later in the bill, that makes a great deal of sense to apply, the same kind of regulatory environment that works in other energy fields to renewable resources. That’s what we’re doing. I think that’s a good thing. I believe in renewable energy. I think it plays an important role.

I disagree with the member about the…. I appreciate the warning about the threat of Conservative government, but I would say that this is good legislation with clear intent. It would be possible for future governments to change legislation. That’s what happens when they come into office. I might disagree with that, but I think this legislation, given the role of the B.C. Energy Regulator, is good legislation and should get the support of all members of the House.

[3:20 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: I just want to loop back to our last question around level 1 and level 2. It was stated that for level 2 projects, section 21, permit required, does not apply. The statement made was that for level 1 projects, it also doesn’t apply. But it doesn’t state that in the bill, under division 1.

Is there a reason? We don’t even know what those projects are at this point.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We did debate level 1 extensively yesterday, and I do invite the member to review the Hansard of that.

I would say that it doesn’t need to apply to level 1 because of the application of the ERAA, and we discussed that yesterday. I don’t know if I need to get into another extensive response on that, but we did have an extensive discussion on the purpose of level 1, the purpose of level 2, and we’re soon to have a discussion of the purpose of level 3. We had a good discussion. Excellent questions were asked, and hopefully good answers were provided.

But in the case of level 2, I’ve explained that the purpose of that relates to…. The reason we have level 2 is that those are specific projects that are also regulated in their operations once they are built by other regulators.

Donegal Wilson: The question was why subclause 7(1) applied to level 2 projects and not level 1, and the response we got back was that it also applies to level 1.

But I don’t see that in the act, so I’m asking for clarification how that statement was made or if there’s a correction.

Hon. Adrian Dix: In the debate on level 1, level 1 doesn’t deal with operations. It’s a transitional mechanism, as we discussed extensively in the debate on level 1. It doesn’t apply to operation and therefore, isn’t required, as stated earlier in this debate at some length and repeatedly.

Donegal Wilson: So section 21, just to be clear, does not apply to level 1 projects.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, of course we’ve dealt with level 1. It’s not the section, but no is the answer.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 9.

Larry Neufeld: Clause 9. We have done a lot of conversation around Bill 14 being a streamlining bill originating from a much, much lengthier bill, the ERAA. One of the things we talked about, even just recently, was around updating and eliminating definitions that didn’t make sense or didn’t necessarily apply, given the rationale around the need for this bill.

Clause 9(a): “The definition of ‘energy resource activity’ in section 1(2) of the act is….”

Sorry, I’ll go right to my question. My question to the minister is: why was the definition of “spillage” not updated in this legislation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We had a discussion yesterday about spillage with respect to a previous section.

[3:25 p.m.]

Essentially, the definition of spillage is expanded here to include renewable activities. It doesn’t change. It’s not updated, but it’s expanded in the sense that it doesn’t just apply to oil and gas but to renewable activities, and that’s the circumstance here.

Larry Neufeld: My next question is with respect to subsection 9(b)(ii). It references section 49 of the ERAA, and specifically, subsection 49(4)(g). I see no reference to that in the version of the document that I obtained from online in this building. I would ask for some clarity on this reference, please.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’ll refer the member to section 49(4)(g) of the ERAA and his copy of 49(4)(g). I’ll just repeat it: “That a person control or prevent the escape of petroleum, natural gas, water, waste or other substances from a well, pipeline or facility.” That’s the provision. This would add renewable resource projects to that definition and the items that are regulated.

Larry Neufeld: I do stand before you with some chagrin on my face. I apologize for that little bit of confusion. That is there, in fact, so my apologies.

My next question is with respect to subsection (b)(iv), which references 97(b). This, perhaps, is something that I would like to allow the minister, at his choosing, to make a statement, as I know that this is one of the things that has come up as a matter of concern. The way that it’s written is around potential overriding of the Local Government Act and Community Charter. I was wondering if the minister might choose to expand on that section and make a comment around the application.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, in 97(b), it’s a similar answer to the previous one. This is an existing provision, largely for the oil and gas industry, that’s expanded here to renewable energy projects. It just ensures that the safety provisions and setbacks can be maintained. Now, it should be said that this provision of the existing act has not been used.

That reflects, I would argue, the very good relationship between the B.C. Energy Regulator and local government, which I think most people would acknowledge. With that said, it does exactly what the previous section we discussed, this previous question, says. It simply applies a provision that’s already in legislation to renewable projects, which is the purpose of the legislation.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

The next question I would have would be with respect to section (v), which references section 111(1)(h.1) of the ERAA. My question is…. Again, if the minister chooses to comment…. Please clarify why this section was not replaced with respect to renewable projects.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Again, just to take the…. We’re on a tour of section 111 of the existing act. The section allows the board to make regulations respecting the carrying out of an energy resource activity. That’s the existing act, right? Some of these are clearly pipeline-related, for example, so they’re specific to that, and they wouldn’t apply anyway.

In this case, the regulations respect the “construction, operation and abandonment of a facility used for the purpose of producing, gathering, processing or storing petroleum, natural gas, water or a substance referred to in paragraph (d) or (e) of the definition of ‘pipeline’ in section 1.”

What this does is add renewable projects to that regulatory structure. That’s what the legislation does. That’s the intent here. That’s what it does.

It’s part of life-cycle regulation. That’s a regulation that exists for oil and gas, say. Because it could apply to a renewable energy project, we are amending this provision of the act to make sure that’s added to the list of projects in the existing act.

Jeremy Valeriote: Apologies if there’s any duplication. I heard section 21 of ERAA, a question about it under the previous clause, but I do need to ask: why don’t these level 3 projects need a permit under section 21, ERAA?

Hon. Adrian Dix: They do, and we’ll be addressing that in the next section.

Jeremy Valeriote: Without having the cross-referencing that my colleague has, can the minister explain why 9(b)(iii) and (v) are included in clause 9 but were not included in clause 7?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s because we’re talking about the difference between level 2 and level 3 projects. We discussed this in the discussion of level 2, which were largely talking about transmission lines that are otherwise regulated in their operations. Level 3 projects apply differently. We’ve moved on to that section of the act, and that’s why.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for that.

For these level 3 projects that require ERAA permits, the B.C. Energy Regulator process outlines consultation and engagement, and the BCER has a constitutional obligation to consult and accommodate.

What we’re looking for is the legislation to set out proper engagement and consultation measures. Can the minister outline whether these would be done by regulation or what that would look like?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, there are obligations under both the Constitution Act and under DRIPA around consultation, all Crown agencies. BCER does a particularly good job of this, I would say, in terms of its consultation, in all evidence from Treaty 8 First Nations.

Those are constitutional requirements. We don’t need new regulations. We have the constitution; we have the DRIPA requirements. Those are in place. Obviously, we have policies to fulfil that, and the B.C. Energy Regulator does a notably good job of dealing with that.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to clause 10, I’d like to take us to 10(b), which references section 34(2) of the ERAA.

I know I stated this with the level 2 projects, but removing the requirement for permission to work off site…. Or am I misinterpreting that? I believe that that is what is happening there. My concern is: what replacement requirement is in place to protect the public from industrial trespass?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This is not a trespass question. It’s different than subsurface rights, as the member will understand. That’s what the member is referring to. Maybe that’s where his experience is. This is not about trespass; it’s about right of entry. What that requires is that right of entry for a private land owner requires the private land owner’s consent.

Larry Neufeld: Okay. I will accept that answer, as I may have made an error there.

I’d like to thank the minister for that answer.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to clause 11, and I know we did talk about this yesterday, and with respect to earlier sections of the bill, I went through this again last night, and I’m unable to identify a formula or a series of rationales that are available for public review whereby we can understand the process of how the amounts of the fees are determined.

Is that something that we can get light on, please?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Two things. For the member of the opposition, we just passed section 10, but we’ll do a similar chart with respect to section 10 which parallels section 7 for the member, just on all those changes, just to lay those out on the record for him, should that be desirable.

With respect to this question, BCER has long-standing experience setting fees and levies in the oil and gas context, developing that in the hydrogen context. BCER works closely with industry to keep them informed of proposed new fees or levies to allow proponents to ask questions and plan for charges. Information is also shared with stakeholders and First Nations in advance of setting new charges. BCER will do the same when setting fees and levies under this new act. That’s the process, and it’s a process that’s been in place for 25 years.

[3:40 p.m.]

In addition, just on the general section, because I know the member will have other questions, BCER cost recovery regulations are subject to Treasury Board review prior to being made by the BCER board of directors. There’s that constraint as well.

Like other provincial agencies that use cost recovery mechanisms, the BCER is subject to financial accounting through provincial accounting standards and the application of legislation such as the Financial Administration Act and the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

I will say that single-window regulation can obviously save regulated industries significant amounts of both money and time, and that’s the purpose of it, by consolidating application preparations and submissions. That’s part of the purpose of single-window application and the development of fees.

The key question here…. I reflect on this, given the debate that occurred on some of these questions about the creation of fees, regulations, retroactivity and everything else. The intent here was straightforward. We didn’t want the oil and gas industry to be subsidizing the renewable industry.

If you’ve got a self-regulating body that sustains itself through fees, and you create a new activity, you don’t want the existing, regulated industry to think, “Now we have to pay for the regulation of wind farms,” or something. So we’re creating a set of fees and then applying them to the work done before application to ensure that the part of the B.C. Energy Regulator dealing with renewable activities is not cross-subsidized by its oil and gas activities. I think members would generally support that.

As we develop, once the legislation is passed, assuming it is, the regulations and the work and the capacity to deal with renewable activities, we need those that are applying for those activities to pay for that, even if it has occurred before their applications, so that the renewable energy people are paying for the renewable energy stuff and the oil and gas people are paying for the oil and gas stuff. That’s the purpose of these sets of things.

There was a whole discussion in the House that we won’t get back into about retroactivity and the rule of law and all these things that were said about it. That’s its purpose, and that’s what it does.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I guess, more specifically, what my question was around…. I know I caught myself this morning not being as clear as I could be. My question is specifically around: should the public not be made aware of how these fees are calculated and what these fees are?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I agree, and those things will be public. But the people most affected here…. Remember, it’s not taxpayer money paying for this regulation. That’s something that, broadly speaking, members on both sides of the House have supported over time with the functioning of this legislation.

It’s the proponents who are paying for their regulation, so obviously, we consult extensively with the industry about the appropriateness of fees and the appropriateness of the regulation. But when you have a B.C. Energy Regulator that has been created — and has been for 25 years — to regulate the oil and gas industry, and that regulation is paid for by fees to the oil and gas industry, you want to consult those paying those fees.

Others will, of course, know about that. I guess the public debate will be: “Well, is the B.C. Energy Regulator spending money efficiently? Is it overcharging the industry or the renewables industry?” That’ll be part of the discussion. It’s why we need to consult industry, because we want the regulation to be effective and efficient.

The 25-year history of this organization is that the regulation has been effective and efficient. We want, as it takes on these new responsibilities for renewable resources, for that to be true as well for this new industry under regulation.

Trevor Halford: I think I know the answer to this, but I just want to clarify from the minister. On the specific projects, who is setting the actual fee amounts?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The board of directors will be setting the fees, as I discussed, and I’m going to repeat it, subject to Treasury Board approval, so there’s an oversight here. They’d be setting fees for particular activities and regulatory activities.

It’s not project by project when I say, “This wind farm has this set of fees,” and “That wind farm has that set of fees.” The cost recovery will be done, obviously, for regulatory activities of the B.C. Energy Regulator.

Trevor Halford: Is it the board that is setting the fees?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think it would be the board that would be setting the fees, but they’d have to be approved at the Treasury Board level to maintain the application of provincial statutes, as in oversight, surely based on the recommendations of the outstanding CEO in this case, Michelle Carr, who the member will know. The board would be setting it on behalf of the BCER, undoubtedly under recommendation of the staff.

Trevor Halford: What I’m trying to clarify is: who’s got, ultimately, the ultimate authority here? Is it the board? It sounds like it’s going to be done through the approval of Treasury Board.

It’s fine that the board can administer the fees, the recovery of the fees. I understand that, but when it comes to the implementation or setting the fees, is that done through the direction of Treasury Board?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s a BCER board regulation. It does have to be approved by Treasury Board, as you’d expect. We do this with all cost recovery regulators now and have been doing this for the BCER and its predecessor, the same organization, the Oil and Gas Commission, for some 25 years.

That approach will continue to be the case with this new group of activities that are regulated by the BCER.

Trevor Halford: Under this, could exemptions be possibly made? So if, for instance, a wind farm came forward that was primarily First Nations–owned, and they were looking for support in that process, would the ministry, would government, under this legislation, consider reductions of fees, subsidy of fees or anything in that matter?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The answer is no.

Larry Neufeld: I do understand that the revenue from the fees that are collected will no longer be paid by the Ministry of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund. Can we have the name of the new fund?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It would go to the operational account of the B.C. Energy Regulator. This is regulation that’s funded by the regulated, in this case, so the fees go to the BCER and to its funds. They’d be managed and produce annual reports. Of course, they’d be received and are subject to debate in the Legislature.

Of course, we discussed the BCER briefly in our estimates, as we would in future years. So that’s where it is.

Larry Neufeld: I feel like I should know this, but I honestly don’t. Is there an audit or a process in place?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Absolutely, yes.

Scott McInnis: I’m pretty sure I know the answer to this question, but in the administration of fees or the fees that are set in a partnership that is primarily…. Let’s just take the 49-51 percent First Nation–owned. Will there be any directive as to the rubric or the payment of fees by the proponents, or is that up to them to figure out?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The applicant pays the fees.

Scott McInnis: The applicant pays the fees, but there are no specific guidelines within the fees as to shared partnerships and who pays what component of the fees and who doesn’t.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The composition of the ownership of a particular project…. It’s the project that is responsible for paying the fees. The applicant is responsible for paying the fees, so if something is owned 51-49, I would presume, on one side, it’s a cost side of their ledger, and it would go forward that way. That’s how they’d pay the fees.

Trevor Halford: We’ll get to clause 14 in a little bit here.

When we’re talking about the separation or not going through the EA process anymore and the fees that are subjected to the proponents there, has the ministry calculated the shortfall in funds that the EAO could expect as a result of this collection of fees, going forward?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There is not a shortfall. What it allows, I think, in terms of environmental assessment, where there’s significant projects coming forward of various kinds…. We’ve been asked in the House about the Ksi Lisims projects before environmental assessment and others.

What it does is allow the Environmental Assessment Office…. If it had, I don’t know, 20 wind projects to deal with, it would have all the costs associated with that. There’s not a shortfall of fees; it’s also a reduction in the requirement to spend money on those projects.

Environmental assessment is an important agency of government. They’re making significant steps while maintaining high standards to produce, in terms of outcomes and timelines, better results. I would argue that would help them, although that’s not the principal intent of the legislation. The intent of the legislation is to ensure that renewable energy projects are built.

I would say, though, this doesn’t apply to section 11. It’s obviously a different office. I know the member understands that, but I don’t think that issue of shortfall in fees elsewhere is a significant question, although, presumably, that’s a question he could ask of the Minister of the Environment in estimates.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Larry Neufeld: At the at the risk of, perhaps, bordering on redundant, I think there was enough concern around this question that I’m wondering if the minister would consider just restating one final time as to how this section works.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: This is about supporting the functions of the BCER, the life-cycle regulation, the compliance enforcement. There are application fees that deal with application processes, but we also have life-cycle regulation.

I heard that often in the House, the importance of life-cycle regulation and the importance of having, for example, funds established to pay for, as we say, orphan sites, as we do in oil and gas when we do that. The member is familiar with that. That is paid for through fees in the administration of the act by the B.C. Energy Regulator, and this would be a parallel process for renewable energy.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

Keeping everything organized for folks to find in the transcript later on, I would follow up with, again…. It’s no offence here. I believe you have answered this in the past, but in the interest of completeness, perhaps I can ask: why does subsection (a) revert back to fiscal year 2024?

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: This is principally to the North Coast transmission line in fiscal 2024. Obviously, the BCER, as you would expect, is in preparation for the legislation and is preparing itself to deal with that. That has some costs to the BCER as it prepares itself. The question is: who pays for that? Should it be the oil and gas industry? I think we’d all agree that shouldn’t be. In the case of the North Coast transmission line, ultimately, the applicant might be B.C. Hydro, which would be paying for that.

This just allows them to recover those funds. When you have a cost-recovered agency, and there are costs, you have to have a mechanism for recovery of those expenditures. That’s why it’s retroactive, not any other reason; and it’s a very limited amount. There is some expenditure and process, and we can’t charge the existing regulated industries for that, for that very professional job the BCER would do.

A lot of that discussion, all that discussion of retroactivity, comes down to that, really. It’s important to just be clear about that, and that’s why it’s in the legislation the way it is. It’s in the legislation the way it is to make sure that we have life-cycle regulation, where the regulated is paying for their regulation. That’s the principle of the bill.

Larry Neufeld: I’d like to thank the minister for that answer. Again, there was no offence intended by asking to repeat. I think it’s very important that people do understand that. Thank you very much.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to clause 13, this again, I think, is perhaps more completeness in the way of follow-up, as I know that perhaps not in this chamber but in other chambers, we have discussed this particular aspect.

Under clause 13(1)(b), can the minister confirm whether the bill’s power under this section can be delegated to any B.C. government employee?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The answer is no.

The Chair: At this time, we will take a five-minute recess. I have four o’clock precisely on my watch, so if everybody could be back in ten. Let’s make it ten. Sure, absolutely; 4:10 it is. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:13 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, back to order.

Scott McInnis: I’m looking at subclause 13(2): “A regulation may not be made under subsection (1) in relation to provisions of an enactment respecting engagement with Indigenous peoples, as defined in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.”

I’m just hoping the minister could please give some insight into the consultation that they conducted to make sure that there would be no conflicts with the declaration here in subclause (2).

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Obviously, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act is important in central legislation. I was just saying that the regulations in this section, explicitly, can’t affect that act.

That was, of course, a drafting decision that the government made and I obviously support and brought through and introduced in the House. And I think it makes sense in terms of the centrality of that legislation, and it addresses at least one issue, if it were not in place, that First Nations might have, for example.

Scott McInnis: Just to clarify, if I could. Are there specific sections of the Declaration Act, when we’re looking at subsection 13(2), specifically related to the act that could be in conflict with subsection (2), and that’s the reason that this is in this part of the legislation anyhow?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No. It would be stopping us and ensuring that regulations were not made that would impede the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. So it’s not affecting…. This is a provision or bill that’s designed to make regulations to make the application, the ERAA, work for renewable energy projects. But one thing you can’t do is affect those duties respecting engagement with Indigenous people that are in the Declaration Act.

Scott McInnis: I believe the minister has answered this, and I’ll try to be very succinct. When we’re looking at clause 13 — or any other clause, but specifically clause 13, because that’s what we’re looking at — the Declaration Act would supersede anything that would be made as far as regulation goes here for clause 13 in this legislation.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it says that a regulation could not be made, so I don’t think it’s necessarily an issue of superseding here. It just says that a regulation could not be made. That’s the straightforward intent of the act.

Larry Neufeld: With a small amount of indulgence from the minister, I do want to back up just for half a second, as I neglected to ask the question under one of the previous clauses. With respect to a level 2 project, is there any preclusion either through the legislation or through the ministry that would not allow a level 2 project by someone other than B.C. Hydro to be approved?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No. We’re talking about a type of project. For example, just in theory — because this is not the case — we had a Fortis project in their electricity system, a transmission line that Fortis was doing from a new dam that Fortis built. And then level 2…. The Fortis project would be regulated in the same way by the B.C. Utilities Commission as the hydro project. In terms of its tariffs and the regulation of the line, it would be in a similar category — Fortis would be.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer.

One thing that did creep into the back of my mind, and perhaps just an opportunity to confirm this, is that…. With the level 2 designation, would there be any — I’m trying to think of the correct word to use — perhaps perception that there’s less regulation because it is a Crown corporation? Perhaps you’ve already answered that, and I don’t know if you did want to.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think we have more regulation, in effect, or at least more independent regulation. The BCUC system in B.C., which obviously deals with Fortis but also B.C. Hydro, is different than in other jurisdictions with similar government-owned hydro systems.

Now, that regulation has become quite a bit more efficient, on the direction of the current chair of the BCUC, Dr. Mark Jaccard. All of that said, that’s a different form of regulation than is elsewhere.

[4:20 p.m.]

The member will be quite familiar with the Alberta energy market, which is a different energy market and a different form of regulation. Although effective, it has its own complications there. Ours is quite specific. We’ve got the BCUC, which is a specific regulator, regulating B.C. Hydro but also Fortis and others.

In that sense, we have…. We won’t call it more regulation but different regulation and, I think, quite effective regulation, which ensures that the public interest is protected independent of government, independent of B.C. Hydro reviewing important decisions, including the integrated resource plan. For example, with B.C. Hydro, the next one will be tabled later on this year.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer. I think it is important for it to be on the record, that the public is aware of what was just stated.

Jeremy Valeriote: For subsection (1), I would like confirmation that I’m reading it correctly. I will get better at this.

Can the minister confirm, given the sections of the ERAA that are quoted, that this subsection (1) effectively disapplies this whole process to potential pipelines?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Pipelines aren’t a renewable resource.

Jeremy Valeriote: Section 7(2), “Powers of commissioner,” and section 10, “Minister may order independent audit” — what’s the intent behind these two powers given to the minister?

Hon. Adrian Dix: What we’re doing is fitting renewable projects into an Energy Resource Activities Act that largely regulates oil and gas. This provides the legal instrument, because a lot of the activities in the requirements deal with oil and gas. If there are requirements that need to be disapplied to renewal projects, that can happen — or reapplied.

[4:25 p.m.]

We discussed in previous sections, I think 7, a whole bunch of provisions of the act that are disapplied, but it may be the case that they would need to be reapplied. This allows this to occur in the legislation, so that’s the purpose of the section that the member is referring to.

Larry Neufeld: The Leader of the Third Party mentioned something that strikes me as very interesting. The minister answered no to it, but…. Being able to use this legislation for a pipeline that was restricted to only renewable energy…. Are there provisions within this law to license renewable energy only as a streamlined project?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Existing oil and gas pipelines are regulated under ERAA now, and I don’t see any other new pipelines to which this would apply. I think the Leader of the Third Party was asking about oil and gas pipelines. I’m guessing that’s what he was asking about. That’s how I took the question. I don’t think there are other pipelines.

Again, I guess you could envision technology in the future where you do that. But largely, we’re talking in this space about transmission lines to move the energy and renewable projects, so I don’t think that a pipeline as we understand it now, which is really for the oil and gas industry, would apply here.

That’s why I gave the answer I did to the Leader of the Third Party.

Larry Neufeld: I do appreciate the minister’s response. I do understand, and I would agree with him; I would have taken that question in exactly the same way.

My question is slightly different. I’m thinking in terms of Fortis, with the hydrogen that they’re looking at completing, something of that nature. I’m not suggesting or pushing, necessarily, that we apply this to traditional pipelines, but is there the flexibility there where we could encourage that type of activity through a streamlined process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: That’s kind of what we did when we moved hydrogen under the act. We moved it under the B.C. Energy Regulator, in the case of hydrogen, because we saw the opportunities and the value in an industry…. It’s not a nascent industry, but it’s a coming industry. To have the same form of streamlined regulation has huge potential advantages. The member and I have discussed that.

Some of those advantages haven’t become as clear as quickly as possible. But nonetheless, they’re there. So the hydrogen as a source is already dealt with under the ERAA. Obviously, oil and gas is as well. Now all these renewables will be as well.

Scott McInnis: I know the minister knows that there are significant concerns from the First Nations Leadership Council around this bill and relating to section 13 specifically. I’m just hoping the minister can elaborate a little bit, related to clause 13, on the Lieutenant Governor in Council making regulations around the act.

Can the minister delve a little bit into what framework or what rubric they have set in place as far as consultation with First Nations when it comes to making these regulations?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I went through this yesterday, but I’m happy to go through the expectations now. This includes the broad regulations, not just on this section. I know the member is the critic, so we didn’t have an opportunity to have an exchange on this.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council regulations will be developed first, and they are primarily the turning on of the relevant provisions of the ERAA for renewable energy activities. That’s what we call level 1, in a general sense.

Then the board of regulations will closely follow, including technical elements, specific environmental considerations, incorporation of cultural information and design and decommissioning requirements.

Regulations that follow will be in stages. Phase 1 will establish the BCER as the primary permitting agency for the North Coast transmission line. Again, that’s not in this section, but just to give it broadly, BCER will have delegated authorities for provincial natural resource authorizations — and we’ll talk about those in the coming sections — needed to authorize early works.

Phase 2 will be by the fall of 2025. BCER will be established as the primary regulator and permitting authority for wind and solar energy projects, and wind and solar energy projects will require a construction and operation permit from the BCER. Then phase 3 will establish the robust regulatory framework.

As we discussed yesterday, funding is being made available — essentially, Declaration Act funding — for First Nations participation and consultation with all of this, which will be central, so we’ll be able to clearly communicate with affected parties. We also anticipate that the developing of the regulations, which I said is for early 2026, will provide time for deeper consultation with First Nations.

BCER’s planning for First Nations engagement on these regulations is underway, including technical considerations, environmental protection and project requirements for First Nations consultation. BCER will be providing these opportunities starting in the spring of 2025, “spring” meaning before June 21 or whatever the day is that the spring ends.

The province and BCER have initiated development of a consultation and cooperation plan for regulation that includes the input received through consultation on the legislation. A series of workshops and correspondence to initiate this next phase of consultation on regulations is intended to be initiated following royal assent, which — I don’t want to get ahead of myself — might be Thursday.

Scott McInnis: I do appreciate the answer from the minister.

I just want to be clear for the record here, specifically related to clause 13. The bill is the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. I think we can assume, just by the general push-back, specifically from the UBCIC, at this juncture of the proceedings of this bill that there are going to be, potentially, some issues raised around these regulations.

I’m just wondering how the ministry plans to deal with those regulations, because the idea with the bill…. Again, I’m coming back to clause 13 here with the specifics to regulations. How are they going to address concerns that will undoubtedly come up in creating these regulations?

[4:35 p.m.]

Will the ministry be setting strict timelines with nations, as far as having those concerns addressed, to move forward with what is a streamlining act? I’m just hoping the minister could provide a little clarity around that.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think it’s fair to say every conversation is different. Some of the projects are different in that respect. We went through yesterday in some detail.

I’ll just share with the member the consultation that went forward on the call for power that generated these projects and generated the call-for-power framework, which we’ll see repeated shortly in a second call for power. That included, for example, 31 information sessions, 42 individual First Nations meetings, 99 First Nations engaged, 2,500 individual pieces of feedback received that went into that process.

On the North Coast transmission line, which is a different process…. It’s a linear line. We’re working with multiple First Nations along that line on our common efforts on the North Coast transmission line that are significant. As you know, the government has given priority to the possibility — it’s not arrived yet — of First Nations equity participation, which would be unusual since it hasn’t happened before on a B.C. Hydro line.

There’s extensive consultation on the projects that are affected. On the regulations, there will be different conversations with different groups, obviously both different interests in terms of the 204 First Nations across the province — which will have inevitably different interests, I would argue — but also with the FNLC and the UBCIC and others, to go through those processes, to have an exchange of information.

There’ll be funding provided for participation in that regulatory process, which will be useful. Declaration Act funding. That’ll be useful for those groups. I think we’ll arrive at a regulatory structure that works for everybody. Just broadly, we’re talking about our proposals. At least initially, the application of those proposals, those projects, are so far, at minimum, 49 percent First Nation–owned.

Obviously, those First Nations that own projects may have different views than those that don’t in that discussion, so it’s important to have a discussion that hears and engages with everybody. But I think this legislation seeks to have renewable projects built, renewable projects that have a significant, in every case so far, First Nations involvement. Not necessarily in the future; the member might be right to say that, but it would be our expectation in the next call to power that that would be true as well.

That’s a process that British Columbians can be quite proud of, and communities can be, because it means that projects are actually owned in community and not by a company, even if it’s a Canadian company from another province or by an international company.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that he is expressing his due diligence in the consultation process and the development of this legislation, but it’s quite clear that the leadership council isn’t thrilled with the legislation as it sits here today.

The minister has made it clear that under subsection 13(2), there won’t be any regulation made which conflicts with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. But I think it’s fair to assume — and UBCIC, generally speaking, has voiced some opposition to this — that there will be some conflict with the Declaration Act and the regulations that are being drafted under clause 13 and perhaps throughout the whole bill.

[4:40 p.m.]

Some of these projects, potentially, will be on sensitive hunting, fishing and traditional medicine–gathering grounds. I think First Nations have made it very clear to this government, in the process of drafting this bill, that they’re not going to be pushed into making decisions in a hurry. It’s also clear that the Declaration Act, which this government has said that they will not come into conflict with, states that consent is required.

In potential conflicts between drafting regulation and the Declaration Act, how is the government going to deal with streamlining regulation quickly, as it hopes to do, but also honouring the Declaration Act, which it says it’s going to follow strictly, when consent is required?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, there is consultation throughout this process: consultation on the call for power; consultation, as there has been, on NCTL; consultation on the legislation; consultation on the regulations; and then consultation — this is important not just for First Nations communities but for other communities of people — on the permits themselves, to address some of the issues the member has talked about.

Yes, that’s an important process. Yes, we are moving forward with legislation designed to facilitate projects that are in the public interest, projects — we’ve talked about it now — that are majority-owned by First Nations. In section 13, which applies to regulations for a specific reason, that makes sense. It’s saying you can’t affect that requirement for consultation.

I think you’re going to see that throughout the process. It’s not that we get to the regulation and that then consultation ceases. The B.C. Energy Regulator has 25 years of working with First Nations — in particular, because of the geographic location of oil and gas resources in the province, with Treaty 8 First Nations.

When I meet with the Saulteau or West Moberly, they know the B.C. Energy Regulator staff by name, both the field staff and the CEO — the Doig River First Nation, all of them. They know them by name because of the nature of the day-to-day work that the B.C. Energy Regulator does with First Nations. Of course, these acts apply to the issuing of permits as well.

There is consultation throughout the process. It’s not that there’s consultation on the regs, and then that ends, and then we just go make decisions without consultation. That process continues. That’s part of the ongoing work of the B.C. Energy Regulator in oil and gas, which they’ve been doing for some time; in hydrogen, which they’ve been doing for a much smaller period of time; and now will be doing with renewable resources.

Scott McInnis: I know the minister mentioned these projects being in the public interest and he referenced some communication between the regulator and specific nations, but there are a lot of different groups at the table here. Not everybody agrees on processes and regulation all the time.

I want to circle back. If there’s a regulation which is drafted by the government in the theme and the spirit of this bill, to move these projects forward quickly — it is called the streamlining act — how is the government going to deal with nations that…?

I don’t want to get too in the weeds with hypotheticals, but I think it’s fair to assume that there’s going to be pushback along the way, when it comes to the Declaration Act and nations having some concern about that bumping into regulation that’s going to be drafted by this government.

[4:45 p.m.]

Will the government be creating standards to move these projects ahead in the public interest, such as timelines around various nations, potentially, having to give consent to this regulation, or will the government push ahead in the public interest?

I just want to get some clarity on how that process is going to look.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re going to work through the process. Usually when someone says they don’t want to get into a hypothetical, it’s immediately before they ask a hypothetical question. I do that myself; I’m not being critical of that.

We’ve got to do the work. That’s what we’re going to do, just as we did the work on the call for power, as we’re doing the work on the legislation, as we’re doing work on the regulation, and then the day-to-day work that the B.C. Energy Regulator does in consultation and working with First Nations, particularly in Treaty 8 territory and other places as well.

Obviously, this legislation will take the B.C. Energy Regulator other places — in particular, the northwest, with a significant number of new First Nations who will not just be involved along the line but, potentially, as co-owners of the project along the line, which is obviously a significant fact in that discussion. We’ll see how that goes. That work is continuing on as well.

I’m never pessimistic. We have to work closely, hear people, hear and respond to their concerns. I’m confident that we’ll work our way forward and achieve the goals for the public and also for First Nations. I know the Leader of the Opposition expressed views on these projects, on First Nations–held projects and on the projects themselves, but I don’t share that view. I have a different view. I’m positive about the projects.

For the First Nations involved, when those projects are done, they start to receive revenue when the turbines start spinning. There’s going to be a lot of interest in that as well, as there is in other values that First Nations and other British Columbians hold dear. We’re going to have a process and seek support.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that. With all due respect, the view on this of the Leader of the Official Opposition is really irrelevant, because it’s not his bill, and it doesn’t really matter.

It is the government’s framework and process that we’re discussing here today. The minister has made it very clear that there won’t be any regulation that conflicts with the Declaration Act. The minister talks about the process and the work. Well, I’m trying to pull out some detail of what that process is and what that work will be.

I don’t think it’s hypothetical at all to presume that there’ll be conflict between the Declaration Act and the drafting of regulation. What is that process to work through that, and what is the work that needs to be done in order to streamline these processes under clause 13?

The Chair: If I can remind members, the only people I’m hoping to hear speaking are the staff, the members and the minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re going to be consulting on these regulations as soon as the act is passed, assuming it is. Again, I never want to…. What’s the expression? There are a whole bunch of agricultural ones about counting chickens, but I’m not going to do those. I’ll seek consultation on that question as well.

[4:50 p.m.]

I think, when the legislation is passed, we start with the regulation process. Not just we ourselves but First Nations will have a voice and a role in how that process is proceeded with. I’m confident we’ll arrive there, just as we arrived there in the call-for-power process and as we’ve arrived there in other processes.

I’m confident we’ll be able to do that, once the legislation passes. We obviously can’t have consultation on the regulations before the legislation passes. Once it passes, we’ll be proceeding immediately after that to engage with people.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister.

I think that’s the challenge that’s presented now. To the leadership council, it doesn’t feel like the consultation process has been overly extensive. That’s why we’re seeing so much backlash.

I just want to bring up that the Declaration Act requires consent; that’s much different from consultation. When we’re talking about the drafting of regulations in clause 13, undoubtedly those regulations will come into conflict with the Declaration Act.

Will the government, no matter how long it takes, require that consent under the Declaration Act, or will they proceed with their process of consultation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I have a more confident view than the hon. member. I think that what we have is legislation that adopts or applies the rules that have been applied for a quarter-century in often daily consultation with First Nations by the B.C. Energy Regulator in the oil and gas space. This expands it out to other regions, because the majority of the projects here, of course, are not in the Peace.

Only two of the wind projects that we’re talking about are in Treaty 8 territory — one with the West Moberly and one with the Saulteau. There are others in the Nicola Valley, the north Island, Kelowna, Prince George, etc. All those decisions involve other rights holders. None in Squamish yet, but we can always aspire to that.

I’m confident, as we have consistently through this process, that we have to work our way through, as we have in other cases…. I’m confident that with this bill, which applies a principle that has been in place for a long time and a regulatory structure that has been in place for a long time, we’ll achieve success in arriving at regulations that work in this area, as they have in others. I’m confident we’ll find support.

Scott McInnis: I do appreciate the minister’s confidence and optimism around this, but it’s quite obvious that for First Nations, there’s some unhappiness around the process that has led us to where we’re at today.

I’m going to try the question in a different way. Will the ministry require First Nations consent around all regulation under clause 13?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I believe we’re going to achieve support for the legislation, for the regulations and for the regulatory structure by working with First Nations and others who will be interested in the legislation. I expect that to happen, and we’re going to work hard to make it happen. We know what that takes. It takes significant effort.

We’re also talking about legislation that’s very important but that has a limited focus. It applies an existing regulatory framework that’s working well, including with First Nations, to a new activity: renewable energy. It does that.

[4:55 p.m.]

Then it makes, as we’ll see, for specific projects, all of which have significant First Nations ownership, changes and exemptions from the environmental assessment process. We’ll get to that later on.

I feel that we’re going to achieve that success together. I’m looking forward to getting started, but that will depend on how MLAs in the Legislature vote on the legislation at third reading.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister. He’s good at what he does, but we’re not talking about passing the legislation. We’re talking about clause 13, which is the drafting of regulation.

I want to try one more time. Will any and all regulation that’s drafted…? It specifically states this in clause 13 in Bill 14, any and all regulation. Will that require First Nation consent, as it does in the Declaration Act, which it says in clause 2 will not be affected under this bill?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Again, we’re talking about the development of regulations under this bill. I think what we have is a bill that puts forward a regulatory framework that is well understood, that’s been in place for a quarter-century, that First Nations, in one area of the province in particular, are well familiar with, that supports the building and construction of projects, principally at the moment, which have First Nations equity interests.

I think we’re going to be able to come together on the discussion of regulations. I’m confident. I’m not negative and pessimistic about this. I’m confident and positive.

Scott McInnis: Sorry, Madam Chair. I have to try this one more time, because again, the minister’s….

The Chair: I’m beginning to feel like we’re going round and round a bit, so if you’re able to reframe a bit or move on to another question.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that, Madam Chair. I would move on, but I don’t feel like there has been an answer given to the question, so I just want to try one more time.

The Chair: Okay, you’ve said “one more time” twice now.

Scott McInnis: I promise this’ll be it, if we get an answer.

The Chair: All right, duly noted. Thank you.

Scott McInnis: Again, subsection (2) says that a regulation — I’m paraphrasing here — will not be made which is in contradiction to the Declaration Act.

Again, because that is the baseline of clause 13, will regulations drafted for Bill 14 — which is what we’re talking about here in clause 13 — no matter where the project is in British Columbia, require First Nations consent before they’re approved by this government?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I said that work will start the day after the legislation, the work in cooperation as per the Declaration Act and consultation with First Nations to seek support for regulations and to work and develop regulations together.

It’s pretty straightforward. We’ve got to do that work, and I’m confident we’ll achieve success for all of the reasons that I’ve stated. This is an existing regulatory framework. There’s obviously strong First Nations community support for projects that have equity ownership for First Nations. In other words, in the case of those projects, First Nations have made applications to the calls for power to win those projects, and they’ve done so because they have outstanding bids into that process.

I’m very confident that we’re going to be successful.

Jeremy Valeriote: I may be taking us backwards a bit here, but I do want to question the base assumption that my colleague is working under. The minister’s assurances and talk of co-ownership and familiarity with the B.C. Energy Regulator doesn’t replace the consent requirement in the legislation.

[5:00 p.m.]

I want to read into the record from an open letter from the First Nations Leadership Council to the Premier yesterday:

“After closely reviewing Bills 14 and 15 again, following our meeting with you, we are deeply concerned and confounded by these statements, as these assurances are not contained in the bills. Section 20 of Bill 15 and section 13(2) in Bill 14 are the only provisions that refer to the Declaration Act.

“Neither of those provisions state that the legislation cannot be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with protections of the Declaration Act or UN declaration. Rather, they merely adopt the definition of ‘Indigenous Peoples’ from the Declaration Act.

“If the intention behind these provisions was to set out a requirement that the legislation not be interpreted inconsistently with the Declaration Act or the UN declaration, amendments to the wording are required.”

How does the minister respond to that criticism over the wording?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I would say the whole point of our relationship here is to engage. I’ve taken the member….

I think he was here when we talked about this process, the process for the call for power that was profoundly informed by the relationship with First Nations, the work that was done to ensure that we had successful bidders in that call for power that met our joint interests for affordable electricity but also for First Nations involvement in projects. The development of the legislation, the engagement there, then the development of regulations will form the same basis.

That doesn’t mean, I suppose, that there won’t be questions. There will be questions throughout the regulation-making process and concerns and discussion. And there are. In the day-to-day application of the act, there will be the same thing. The BCER, as an agency of the government of British Columbia, which has passed the Declaration Act, deals with its responsibilities in that every day and, generally speaking, is regarded to do that quite well by the First Nations that deal with it. I know that because they tell me that.

I think we’re going to have an ongoing process of engagement. And there will be more criticism and letters. We’ll engage and respond and work with First Nations, some differently than others because there will be different views sometimes amongst First Nations, as there are amongst 204 nations. You would find that there would be some difference in view, as well, as there will be maybe amongst the FNLC or UBCIC.

The key, I think, is to get to work and do the work together, and that’s what I’m always committed to do, and that’s reflected in how the call for power process is going, the hard work we’re doing on NCTL and other work that we’re doing.

Jeremy Valeriote: I feel like we’re talking around the subject here.

I understand the co-ownership model, the call for power, some of the ongoing engagement, but really, what does this section 13(2) actually achieve functionally? How does it relate to the Declaration Act beyond just the definition of Indigenous Peoples?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think including it in the legislation ensures an understanding of intent. But the Declaration Act applies — it was passed by the Legislature of the province — just like the Financial Administration Act applies or the Constitution Act applies or any of the foundational pieces of legislation we have in the province. It applies. So the purpose here within this legislation is straightforward — a reminder of that application.

The member is right that even if it was not in this section, it would still apply. The fact that it’s in this section indicates the central importance of the legislation, meaning the Declaration Act legislation.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

Donegal Wilson: Sorry, I hope I didn’t cut off the leader of the other party, because he looked at me like I had a question. And I’m sorry. I didn’t on the last clause.

I am wondering. What analysis has the province done to ensure that removing environmental assessment requirements does not cause or will not cause environmental damage with these projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: With respect to the North Coast transmission line, I think it would have been our expectation that the Environmental Assessment Act would not apply to that project for the reasons we’ve discussed previously — 90 percent of the same right-of-way, and so on — but we are engaging in an environmental protection plan with the nations, which is being co-developed with the nations, in that case, to ensure that that project is successful environmentally.

Obviously, on an existing right-of-way, you’re essentially just putting in a second transmission line, and that has environmental impacts that are understood. That doesn’t mean we’re not addressing the question, because there’s the other 10 percent that is not on the right-of-way. There’s the co-development of the route that we’ve been working on with nations, and so on.

With respect to wind projects, as we’ve said, and it was part of the legislative debate that the member and I took part in, wind projects have been through environmental assessment in B.C. They’re fairly standard. We understand the impact. We feel that especially the localized conditions are dealt with in the permitting process. It will be, of course, supervised by the expert permitting of the B.C. Energy Regulator, applying the laws of the province with respect to permitting — whether it’s the Wildlife Act, the Water Act, the Agricultural Land Commission Act or other acts.

Donegal Wilson: Just for clarity then, the level 3 projects would still be required to have the permits in, I think it was, section 20 of the other act.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Let’s make a distinction. We’re talking about the environmental assessment provisions. I want to be clear. You’ll see in the application there that that applies to NCTL and, potentially, other transmission lines. It applies to wind projects, identified and prescribed wind projects in the future.

Wind projects. It’s not all level 3 projects that one would envision, right? In this case, the elimination of the requirement for environmental assessment for NCTL and wind projects is what the section does and is intended to do. So not just level 3. There might well be other level 3 projects — for example, solar projects or others — which would also trigger environmental assessment.

What we’re talking about specifically here are wind projects. This was announced in December and discussed in January and then in February and brought in with this legislation. It’s wind projects.

[5:10 p.m.]

We understand the impact on the environment of wind projects. We understand them because we’ve done a number of environmental assessment project reviews. We believe that the important issues that can affect individual projects in local communities will be dealt with through a standardized and streamlined permitting process that would apply to all projects. The laws apply to all projects and will continue to.

Donegal Wilson: Speaking from earlier in our debate, though, one of the things that was happening was that permitting wasn’t required. Under the Energy Resource Activities Act, clause 21, we were removing permits. If we don’t require permits and we’re also bypassing the environmental assessments, where is that permit that you’re referring to that has those catches in it?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think we’re returning to the debate on clause 13, and I’m always happy to do that. It’s one of my favourite clauses, no doubt.

I would say that in that case we’re talking about level 2 projects. We’re talking about level 2 projects that are otherwise regulated — transmission lines that are otherwise regulated by the BCUC. None of their obligations on transmission lines — we do build them all the time in B.C. — are changed by this legislation.

I don’t agree with the member’s analysis, in any event, for level 3 projects. Of course they have to go through permitting, and they will.

Donegal Wilson: You answered it right at the end — that those level 3 projects are going through permitting.They’re not exempted. Thank you.

I was speaking to clause 14, which is specifically around the Environmental Assessment Act, and that’s where this went. It started out that you said that we didn’t need the Environmental Assessment Act, because it was covered through permitting. Then I was looping back: didn’t we say we were exempting things through permitting? That’s how I’ll loop that back.

Is there a long-term plan to harmonize environmental assessments with a single-window permitting process for other types of projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This specifically applies to the projects that are listed, other potentially prescribed wind projects that we’re talking about, wind energy projects and the transmission line projects that are indicated. That’s what we’re talking about. The answer to that question is no.

Donegal Wilson: What is the win by removing environmental assessments? How long does it take currently for a wind energy project to get through environmental assessments in B.C.?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I dealt with this at second reading stage. I went through the projects. I’m happy to provide that information to the opposition. I would say, in a general sense, if you look at the projects that have actually happened, which is a good way to look at it, it’s approximately three years in environmental assessment for projects if we know their environmental footprint.

We understand the projects. We’ve gone through a number of environmental assessments. We feel that the permitting process that is being put in place…. Remember, the focus of the legislation is to establish single-window permitting by the B.C. Energy Regulator, who’s responsible for all of the natural resources acts and all of the acts required to do life-cycle regulation in these projects. That’s the purpose of the legislation: to do that. That’s the intent of the legislation. That’s why we went this way.

In terms of environmental assessment, I think I went through the projects. I’m happy to share with the opposition the length of time of wind projects in environmental assessment. I think it’s generally interesting. It’s one of the things that, frankly…. I’ve said this publicly. You’re talking about projects that take significantly longer in environmental assessment than they take to build and construct.

I think most people would say — we’re reviewing the Environmental Assessment Act — that there are issues around that. This bill assists in that in a couple of ways.

[5:15 p.m.]

Ironically, it assists with that by removing, potentially, depending on what the result of the next call for power is for wind projects, a lot of projects from environmental assessment, meaning that everything else can move more quickly, which is an incidental thing and not really important to the legislation. It also indicates our need for the electricity, our understanding of the issues involved and our desire to move forward with a better regulatory regime for renewables, which is what we’re doing.

Trevor Halford: I know this might be a bit repetitive for the minister, but he’s probably got it off the top of his head. Can the minister list the wind energy projects that will be exempted from the EA process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Because this is a public document, what I’ll do is just share it with the member afterwards. Would the member like me to read them off?

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Okay, sure. I’ll put the nearest town, as opposed to the site of the project, just to give you a sense of where it is.

There’s a project in Merritt: project size, 94 megawatts; resource type, wind; First Nations partner, the Upper Nicola Band; the proponent, the IPP partner, Elemental Energy; the project name, the Boulder-Elkhart wind project. That’s one.

The Brewster wind project. That’s two. The First Nation partner is the Wei Wai Kum First Nation; 197 megawatts; nearest town, Campbell River.

Three, Highland Valley wind project: First Nations partner, the Ashcroft Indian Band; 197 megawatts; nearest town, Logan Lake.

Four, the K2 wind project. The IPP partner there is Innergex. The First Nations partner is the Westbank First Nation. The nearest town is Kelowna. That’s 160 megawatts.

The Mount Mabel wind project. The First Nations partner is the Lower Nicola Indian Band; 143 megawatts; near Logan Lake.

The Nilhts’I Ecoener project. The First Nation partner is the Lheidli T’enneh; 140 megawatts; nearest town, Prince George.

The Nithi Mountain wind project: the Stellat’en First Nation; 200 megawatts; near Fraser Lake.

ShTSaQU solar project. The Oregon Jack Creek is the First Nation partner. It’s near Logan Lake. That’s a solar project, so that doesn’t apply here, just to be clear, with this exemption. I just wanted to list it off so the member would have the full list. The exemption from EA doesn’t apply here. That’s what I meant to the member. I think he understands it.

Stewart Creek wind project, West Moberly First Nations, 200-megawatt project size, nearest town is Fort St. John.

Taylor wind project, EDF Renewables, Saulteau First Nation, nearest town is Taylor.

Happy to share that with the hon. member, if I could. Does that work for him?

Trevor Halford: Did the minister meet with any of the proponents prior to the public announcement that they would be forgoing the EA process, proponents or registered lobbyists for the proponents, prior to it being publicly announced that they would be exempt from the EA process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’ll just take you through the days. The announcement was made, I’m guessing, on a Monday. It was early in a week in December. We’ll get the member the exact date. We made the announcement of the projects. At that announcement, I indicated that wind projects would be exempt from environmental assessment. I did meet with proponents of the projects a couple of days later.

Trevor Halford: Did the minister, anybody from the minister’s office, anybody from the Premier’s office that the minister is aware of meet with any of the proponents that the minister just listed, or registered lobbyists for those proponents, prior to the minister making the announcement that they would be exempt from the EA process?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, and there’s a very good reason for that. I didn’t know who the winning bids were until, essentially, the day of the announcement.

What we had was a call for power, I’d say to the member, which has an independent fairness oversight to the project, as you’d expect for calls for power that ultimately involve $6 billion worth of projects. You would expect that. There was no discussion with any proponent in the call for power by me.

Now, of course, I’d just become minister before that. I’ve met with some of the First Nations on tons of other issues, as the member can imagine, but not about this. We made the decision to announce the EA portion initially, which is now found in this legislation, the day we announced the projects. Essentially, we announced the project list at that time.

Trevor Halford: I understand that the announcement was made in December. Cabinet was announced sometime in mid-November. I don’t have the exact date.

My question would be whether the current minister, the former minister or the Premier at the time, the Premier currently, has ever met with any of the proponents or any of the registered lobbyists of proponents, prior to the announcement, specifically on exempting for environmental assessment? Has the minister, the former minister or the Premier met with any of the successful bidders here prior to the announcement that the minister made in December?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The answer is no.

Trevor Halford: It’d be understanding, then, that the former minister, current minister, the Premier have never been lobbied by any of the groups. There’s no calendar meeting. There’s nothing. The minister has never, or the former minister has not, met with any of the groups that are listed in the document that the minister just produced, that lists the successful bidders of the power call.

None of them have ever met with the minister or the Premier. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think the member was asking on the issue of the EA exemption, which is the subject of this. I think what he’s asking is: were we lobbied on the question of the EA exemption? Not whether we’ve ever met with the Saulteau First Nations, because of course, I’ve met with the Saulteau First Nations many times, as Minister of Health, amongst other things, right? The answer to that question is no.

We made the decision to proceed in this way. Obviously, we don’t lay out what cabinet discussions are or anything like that in this House, but it was certainly my strong view that we needed to proceed in this way.

I became the minister, I think, on or around November 18, and the government made that decision when we announced the projects. We couldn’t have known who was winning the projects, because we didn’t know who would win the projects. That’s an announcement and a process set up for B.C. Hydro. A decision was made by B.C. Hydro that, essentially, we found out on the day.

We knew we were announcing things, but the successful proponents came out of an independent process that was run by B.C. Hydro, which was supervised by independent groups.

Trevor Halford: These groups come into the building often, and I think that’s a good thing, right? When we’re able to meet with stakeholders and find out what they’re doing and find different ways on how they’re supporting inside the community, that’s positive.

I guess my question to the minister is this: what would the minister say to the groups that are going to be coming in that weren’t successful?

Again, I keep talking about winners and losers. In this case, we’ve got nine successful projects basically holding a lottery ticket that they now are bypassing the line or the entire process for environmental assessments. Other groups? No. So haves and have-nots.

[5:25 p.m.]

There are different standards that are going to be around that. There are safety standards. There are different levels of consultation that they’re going to have to meet. There are different enforcement levels, right? It’s a completely different playing field.

What message would the minister give to a wind farm proponent that would come into his office and say: “Why am I playing by a different set of rules?” Maybe that proponent has First Nations support. Maybe they have really strong community support. What message would the minister say to that proponent, who would say: “I’m going to be going through this process; my competitor is not”? What’s the rationale for that?

Hon. Adrian Dix: What we were doing, what we announced in December was that we wouldn’t be proceeding with the environmental assessment on wind projects. First these and then others.

The act at that time, the regulations at that time, exempted wind projects that were under 50 megawatts. That was the threshold previously. We were making a decision about a class of projects that are wind projects, so it’s not the case that some wind projects are benefiting and others aren’t. If the member is talking about the call for power, there were 22 participants, in that call for power, and ten winners. It’s not a golden ticket. I just think that’s totally wrong. I won’t characterize the member’s intent.

He would understand and I would understand that the proponents worked hard on those projects. First Nations worked hard on those projects. They made a competitive bid in those projects. They met the criteria of the call for power, which I’ve shared with the opposition and which we’ll be sharing with the opposition for the next round in a couple of weeks. They came forward with projects that are 45 percent lower, in terms of cost, than a similar call for power in 2009. That’s a tremendous achievement. It’s not a winning ticket.

We need the electricity. We did a call for power for IPPs, in this case, with significant Indigenous ownership, and they met the criteria. Yes, they won the bids because they were good bids, and there was an independent oversight on the bid to ensure that the process was handled properly, and it was conducted properly by B.C. Hydro.

That’s how people got not a winning ticket but the ability to deliver electricity for British Columbians and deliver resources and results to First Nations communities and others. I, for one, think that’s a good process.

It’s not the first call for power in the history of British Columbia, as the member knows. We’ve discussed that in previous estimates. We won’t relive those debates, but we’ll have that. It’s not the first call for power, but it was, I think, put in place scrupulously.

You asked about those who didn’t succeed. B.C. Hydro, as you would expect, would meet with all of those. There were key determinants, but obviously, the cost to the ratepayer is a key element here. We’re talking about projects on average. The average level cost $6 cheaper than a similar call for power in Quebec, so they were competitive, and they achieve the other goals of the call for power.

That’s the process, and that’s the decision made by B.C. Hydro. We can help determine what the calls are where we go forward. But once you establish your call, you need to set clear rules, and it needs to be handled ethically. And it was, and nobody that I have heard of has suggested otherwise.

Trevor Halford: Here’s the problem that I see with the minister’s answer, and it’s quite obvious. Yeah, we’ve had prior calls to power before. That’s well documented. None of those calls to power were exempted in a complete regulatory process. They all went through a rigorous regulatory process. Was it perfect? No. Has it been enhanced in the meantime to some degree? Yes. That’s issue No. 1, that none of those calls exempted an EA process.

Issue No. 2. They can put together their bids, and I’m sure they were very strong. None of these have been built — not one.

[5:30 p.m.]

We are talking about bypassing an entire regulatory system, right? The minister can say…. He can tout all he wants, but at the end of the day, you’re bypassing an entire act that others are having to adhere to. There are ramifications with that. Consultation is part of it. There’s community engagement. There’s enforcement. There’s collaboration. None of that is spelled out in this bill whatsoever. It doesn’t exist. It’s: “Trust us. We’ll figure it out as we go.”

Nobody, except maybe some of the proponents here that are successful, is trusting this government on this piece of legislation. When we’re talking about exempting wind farms…. The minister said it’s not a golden ticket. They are going to the front. There is no line for them. They don’t have to line up in a queue because there’s nothing to line up to. It’s gone. The process is now…. It’s exempt.

I’ve been a part of projects that have gone through environmental assessments. Yes, there are ways to improve that. But there are guardrails in place for a reason. You can go to California and see wind farms for miles. I guarantee you that everybody that lives in those towns, whether you’re just outside of Palm Desert and you’re on your way to Coachella…. Not everybody is happy about that, but there’s room for input.

When you go up to Tumbler Ridge and you see these wind farms, they’re massive. But engagement has been done. Could it have been improved upon? Absolutely. That’s what we’re here to do. The minister refutes the angle of having a winning ticket here. The challenge is that a lot of these wind farms aren’t going to be built in the next six months.

This government has been here for eight years — could have got a lot of wind farms, could have got a lot of other projects built in that eight years. There’s a bit of panic set in. It’s like when my kid decides he’s going to do a project on the last day, and he’s had about four months to do it. I can tell that sense of panic, and I can tell that sense of panic across the aisle: “Oh no, what do we do? We’re lacking power, we’re lacking infrastructure projects, and we’re lacking credibility.”

This isn’t the way to do it. It’s clearly not.

We have a list of questions here, but I think the most damning one is this. We’re talking about section 14, but where in this bill are the guardrails in place in terms of bypassing an entire Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m interested to hear the member from the opposition talk about the Environmental Assessment Act. We started the session, and the opposition proposed a bill. It says — the Conservative Party of B.C. — the bill should suspend all but the essential requirements in the Environmental Assessment Act. They want to gut the Environmental Assessment Act.

I don’t mind asking questions and answering questions about what we’re doing. They want to gut the Environmental Assessment Act, energy projects, immediately provide a ten-year extension to already-permitted pipeline projects. They would immediately provide that exemption, contrary to all rules in the environmental assessment process. That’s their position. They want to gut the Environmental Assessment Act. They do. It’s not me saying it; I’m reading from them.

[5:35 p.m.]

Then they’re here talking about the essential nature of the Environmental Assessment Act. What this is…. I made it clear, on wind projects, that we had gone through environmental assessment on significant wind projects. I’ll share the numbers with the members. The wind projects under 50 megawatts — already exempted.

We did give the direction that we understood environmental impacts of wind projects and that the significant local issues that might happen with a particular project would be dealt with through the application of the law and the permitting process and that we would move to a single-window regulation.

You can’t say, if you want to gut the Environmental Assessment Act, which the opposition does…. And that is a fair position. This is a public debate. They can take that position, that we should also suspend all but the essential requirements for development permits. Well, that’s their position — gut the entire Environmental Assessment Act.

Now we’re hearing interesting questions about the sanctity of the Environmental Assessment Act from the same MLAs. Well, we can have that debate, and I have laid out the reasons why the government is proceeding the way it is. The opposition can disagree with those reasons.

The opposition can oppose, which it does, the North Coast transmission line. The opposition can oppose, which it does…. In the words of the Leader of the Opposition, which I won’t use because they’re profane, what he thinks of wind farms….

We can talk about all those things. All I would say is that this is a crucial moment for the province. As Minister of Energy, I’m proud to represent a government that is building renewable energy in this time, that’s joining other jurisdictions like Quebec in doing this, that’s using renewable energy projects, that’s building them all over the province, that’s building them with First Nations ownership of 51 percent, in cases. I’m very proud of that.

We’ve said the reasons why we want to exempt as a class — not just these projects, but as a class — wind projects now over 50 megawatts in the same way we previously did under 50 megawatts. But we also believe in the Environmental Assessment Act, and I don’t agree with the opposition that we should gut it, which is what they proposed at the beginning of the session.

There’s a disagreement, and I think that’s fair, but I have laid out my strong position that B.C. needs to build out further energy capacity, that we need to build up further renewable capacity. We’re proceeding with multiple measures to do this, and this bill supports that effort.

The Chair: I’ll just remind all members that we are on clause 14 debate, as opposed to second reading debate. If we could keep our questions towards clause 14 and carry on in that vein, I’d be appreciative. Thank you so much.

Trevor Halford: If we’re exempting for these projects the Environmental Assessment Act…. I’m talking about section 14. If, in section 14, we’re going to exempt the Environmental Assessment Act, where in this piece of legislation is consultation listed off for the projects that are 1 through 9 that the minister just listed a short time ago?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I went through the extensive 16-month process of consultation around the call for power in which the projects were selected. I will say that, and consultation will occur now in the permitting process.

Trevor Halford: That level of consultation for the call for power is completely separate from what a level of consultation from an environmental assessment office would be. They’re completely two different things. I would assume the minister would know that.

If these projects are being exempted, where is that level of consultation? I’m not just talking about First Nations consultation; I’m talking about local government consultation. I’m talking about community consultation. Where is that level of consultation going to be made up?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The BCER has a 25-year record of consultation, including with First Nations, but others.

[5:40 p.m.]

They’re an agent of the Crown, and as an agent of the Crown, they have a duty to consult. That’s well established. They have a record of consultation, which I have not heard in all the second reading speeches and all the statements in here — a record of consultation that is recognized everywhere over the past 25 years.

The member may characterize that as he wishes, but that duty to consult is there with the B.C. Energy Regulator. And the purpose of the legislation, in addition to this section on environmental assessment, is to, as we’ve done with oil and gas, as we did with hydrogen, move regulation to a one-window regulation with the B.C. Energy Regulator.

Trevor Halford: What does it look like? What does that consultation look like? When does it start? When does it end?

We know in the EA process there are guidelines. There are certain days that are allotted; there can be extensions; there can be all that. It’s legislated. Again, this is: “Trust me. We’ll figure it out as we go. Together, we’ll figure it out as we go.” No way. This is the problem with this bill. It’s getting made up as they go.

It’s a simple question. The minister is foregoing consultation. I’m not just talking about First Nations consultation. I’m talking about local government consultation. I’m talking about consultation with hunters and guide-outfitters and trappers and fishers. That level of consultation is gone. And the minister cannot stand up here and point to where it is going to be or how it is going to be done.

It’s a clear question. Where is it? Does it exist? If it doesn’t exist, then just say it doesn’t exist, because it’s not here.

He can talk: “Well, we did consultation when we did the call for power.” That’s not proper consultation. Did they consult the hunters? Did they consult the trappers? Consult guide-outfitters? Consult community leaders? I don’t know. Doubt it.

Again to the minister, where is the consultation going to exist? How is it going to exist, since these projects will no longer be required to fulfil that level of consultation that is set out by the environmental assessment office?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, as noted, this legislation, the elements of the legislation were announced on the EA at the December announcement of the successful proponents in the call for power. Then the Premier subsequently announced around the North Coast transmission line that it would move to the B.C. Energy Regulator. I subsequently announced we’d be moving renewable projects to the B.C. Energy Regulator. We’ve delivered legislation in this House, which the opposition was calling for. They said: “Well, where’s the legislation?” Well, here it is. And we’re having a significant debate on that.

I’ve gone through in detail the consultation that we will be doing on the regulations. This is not a matter of theory. It’s a matter of 25 years of experience on how the B.C. Energy Regulator consults, on a daily basis, on permits. Now, in the oil and gas sector, it has a 25-year record of experience, one that isn’t challenged by the opposition, in fact. It is recognized.

In fairness, there are members of the opposition that have been challenging on this question, so I don’t want to lump in my friends in the B.C. Green Party with that argument. But a record of consultation on permits and others that is excellent…. So it’s not a theoretical consultation. It’s 25 years of lived experience with that consultation under multiple governments and multiple partisan stripes.

In short, this is what the legislation envisions doing, which is doing what we said it would do, which is exempting the North Coast transmission line, which has a different environmental process, and these wind projects and future prescribed wind projects from environmental assessment with the understanding — which I said clearly on the day I said it; it’s clearly in the legislation multiple times; I’m saying it now — of a significant process of oversight by the B.C. Energy Regulator in the permitting process.

[5:45 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: That non-answer was a pretty good answer, because he doesn’t know, or he knows that it doesn’t exist. It’s one or the other, right?

I asked a very specific question: where is the consultation? He’s talking about the regulation consultation. We get that they really messed that up, and they’ve got to go and do that tenfold. It’s accurate. They’ve said it on every single bill, that they did inadequate consultation — on 14, 15, 7. I can go down the list, but we’ll stick with 14.

I’m asking about the specific projects. Where is that level of consultation on the specific projects? There are guidelines within the EAO, set out. You put your application in. Section 13 lists off the different nations you need to have consultations with. There are different stakeholders you have to have consultations with. There are specific windows for when those consultations can happen. There’s input. There are open houses. There are different things that allow that feedback and that dialogue to happen.

Nowhere in this legislation addresses how that will be made up. I know it’s uncomfortable, but I’m going to ask again. Where is that? Again, I’ll say to the minister that I’m not just talking about First Nations consultation. I am talking about consultation when it comes to guide-outfitters. Okay? It can be somebody that has a trapline. All that consultation did exist, if they wanted it or not, inside of the Environmental Assessment Act.

This no longer is the case for these projects that the minister has listed. Fair. Then defend it. Where is that level of consultation? When does it start? How does it end? What’s the process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’d just say that when the members opposite were going to gut the Environmental Assessment Act — that was just three months ago — I’m not sure what consultation they were talking about then to automatically extend permits without any process, as they were proposing then. I’d just say that’s interesting.

We’ve had five wind energy projects that are under the threshold and that didn’t require EA approval. But they go through, and many of these issues that the member talks about exist.

There is, in terms of application in the primary act, the Energy Resource Activities Act…. Since he wants to know where consultation exists, section 22. It exists there. That will apply, obviously. What we’re doing is applying that act in those provisions, turned on to deal with consultation by the B.C. Energy Regulator, as it is with oil and gas. That consultation routinely exists, often on individual projects in the absence of environmental assessment.

[5:50 p.m.]

The B.C. Energy Regulator is well suited and has demonstrated a capacity to deal with issues of consultation with First Nations and with others and will continue to do so.

We heard a lot in the Legislature about different acts — the Heritage Conservation Act and other acts — where the opposition was making arguments that were simply not true, about the nature of the regulation. Hopefully, we’ll get a chance to discuss those in detail shortly. The consultation notification provisions are in the primary act. They’ll obviously apply to renewable energy projects, the B.C. Energy Regulator and now wind projects.

Previously there was a 50-megawatt threshold. Now there will be no threshold. We’ll be exempting from environmental assessment because these are fairly standard projects which have gone through environmental assessment multiple times, and we know the issues. We’re dealing with those through the consultation and involvement of a permitting process that has requirements on the prescribed applicant, and we’ll continue to do that.

Yes, we believe in the need to promote renewable energy, and this bill is in favour of that. It’s not me that says it. It’s the opposition that says they’re against renewable energy projects consistently when we raise it. I don’t need to remind them of the words used by the Leader of the Opposition — because they were profane, and I don’t like to use them in the Legislature — about wind energy projects.

That’s his view, and that’s fair enough, but we have a different view. We think this is important for the future of B.C., and we’re proceeding.

Jeremy Valeriote: I think my concern here is that bypassing these environmental assessments and the public consultation that comes with them risks undermining a democratic process. Citizens expect to have a voice in decisions that affect their communities and the environment. The minister knows that reducing these processes can lead to disenfranchisement, can lead to increased tensions between the government and communities, particularly those with reasonable concerns, can stifle public discourse and discourage citizens from voicing their concerns.

I have probably a different concern from my colleagues around this. I think wind farms are beautiful. On the other hand, I don’t have a ranch that is about to have one placed on it. But I think they’re a sign of progress. However, without this kind of consultation and social licence, we risk a backlash that means that these are the last nine wind projects built, and we go back to burning fossil fuels.

If citizens perceive that their input and concerns are being ignored, they might become disillusioned with the political process and less likely to participate in future consultation or even democratic activities like voting.

This lack of public input can exacerbate divisions within society, leading to polarization, which we’re already seeing. The minister has quoted the Leader of the Opposition on this. Issues related to energy development, environmental protection and Indigenous rights can hinder collaborative approaches to governance.

All that said, and leaving the consultation part of the environmental assessment aside, I’m going to quickly transition into a different piece of the environmental assessment.

In my backyard, the environmental assessment certificate conditions…. Both the certificate and the conditions associated are what the B.C. Energy Regulator uses to build out their permitting. Is the minister saying that we’ve learned everything we need to learn from the first few wind projects that have been through the environmental assessment and there’s no need to adapt the permitting? We’ve now set that in stone. How will this permitting work without the environmental assessment to establish what permits are needed?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Under permitting, the regulator does apply conditions — right? — and puts in place regulations and standards and ensures that those standards are followed.

[5:55 p.m.]

The member will know — at least, I’ll note from my most recent meetings with his constituents on some important other energy issues — that the existence of the environmental assessment process does not insulate one from criticism of those processes. I won’t get into the project I’m thinking of, but I think the member knows which one it is, in his constituency.

I think there’s another part and another frustration that I hear from members from all sides of the House exists — that we’ve got to proceed. Climate change is not a temporary emergency. It’s an emergency for our planet, for our province. We’ve seen elements of that. How do we respond to that? Well, one of the ways we respond to that, and it’s economically valuable to do it, is displacing fossil fuels by building clean energy.

This bill, for example, which puts renewable energy in a single-window regulation…. Set aside whether you like the regulator or you don’t like the regulator; it’s a good idea. We’re giving it the same standards we do, by the way, to a fossil fuel industry that the member is occasionally critical of. I think that makes sense.

I think proceeding with these projects, not going through three years of environmental assessment during a time when we need to electrify, to build out energy resources and to address climate change…. I think it’s a pretty good thing to do.

One of the issues in other jurisdictions, one of the criticisms of government, is not delivering on public projects in the public interest. Sometimes that can be hospitals or schools. Sometimes that can be energy projects, as it is in this case. I think there’s an expectation that we should deliver, that we should address climate change, that we should address the economic needs of the province. And Bill 14 is about that.

It’s also about bringing a measure of justice as the projects reflect. These projects, the level of Indigenous participation, First Nations ownership of $3 billion in equity — that’s astonishing. And there’s more coming, because there’s going to be a second round.

The member says that this will be the only round. No, no. We’ve announced it. We’ll see it soon, and I’ll be sharing the call for power with him soon. We need to continue to proceed.

This is determined action by government which, I believe, is supported by people — action on the climate and action on building a stronger, more self-sufficient economy in B.C.

Scott McInnis: Just a couple of questions, I think, on my end.

For the record, to be clear, are there any of these projects that are related to clause 14 that will be bypassing the Environmental Assessment Act? Are any of those projects currently on Treaty 8 territory or territory that is recognized as having Aboriginal title?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I shared the list with the opposition. I don’t know if it’s one of those questions where you’re supposed to answer one way when we all know the answer.

There are two projects. This question was asked before, yesterday and today. One, the principal First Nations proponent is the Saulteau First Nations, and the other proponent in Treaty 8 territory is the West Moberly First Nations.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Just making sure.

Can the minister just confirm that there was consent given by the nations where there are projects going on either treaty or title land to bypass the environmental assessment process, as is in clause 14?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re talking about the projects, and, of course, as the members opposite can tell, I’m happy to talk about the projects. We went through, in the process of the development of the call for power, an extensive consultation process.

[6:00 p.m.]

An advisory committee was set up under the auspices of a provincial First Nations organization to guide the process, to make sure people had access to information. We had competitive bids. They had a requirement for 25 percent First Nations ownership. They all came through at basically double that, one at 49 percent and the others at 51 percent.

Then with respect to issues that others may have outside of that, obviously there’s a permitting process which will be defined by the regulations that we’ll be starting, hopefully, on Friday. That process will be ongoing.

Trevor Halford: I just want to clarify how enforcement will be done. Enforcement can happen during the construction phase. It can happen after the construction phase, once it’s in service. So compliance.

Typically, when somebody receives a successful EA certificate, they are given a list of criteria that they’ve got to meet. How will that be done? Again, we can pull up previous wind projects that would have maybe five, 50 different requirements that they’d have to meet. How is that going to be executed in this process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I shared this information with the House yesterday, but I’m happy to do it again.

The BCER maintains a comprehensive compliance management system to identify, coordinate, track and continuously improve compliance management activities. CMS is an integrated framework of people, policies, processes, information and tools used to ensure conformity with requirements: legal, regulatory and permit conditions.

BCER’s comprehensive approach to safety and compliance begins with the application, technical regulations and standards at the design phase. Application review of a project can continue through the construction, operation and eventual decommissioning of that project, supported by compliance inspections and a range of enforcement tools.

Safety and compliance management is carried out by various teams throughout the organization, including engineering, environmental stewardship, geology, archaeology and compliance and enforcement.

Jeremy Valeriote: Madam Chair, I’m going to invoke my rookie status and make a radical suggestion that we take a dinner break that is lengthy enough to actually sit down and eat, increasing confidence that we’re going to get through this by 6:50 p.m. tomorrow. I’ll leave that with you.

And then I’ll preview my next radical suggestion, which is going to be opening those curtains for the evening.

Interjections.

The Chair: Okay, getting back in order in this committee. We shall recess until 6:30.

The committee recessed from 6:05 p.m. to 6:31 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. We are on clause 14.

Jordan Kealy: I have a couple of questions for the minister. When it comes to engagement, we’ve heard some previous things. You know, it’s great that we hear so much consultation when it comes to First Nations, but in my region, when it comes to these wind turbine projects, we already have them in our region.

We’ve experienced side effects of having certain industries. When it comes to concerns that citizens have that are relevant to these projects going forward and sidestepping the regulations that are currently proposed to be dismissed, when it comes to proper consultation with public and with local governments, right now a lot of people have major concerns that these projects will go unchecked.

Can I please have an answer as to, if this does go through, how you are going to communicate properly with the communities and their local governments, as well as my constituents?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Good to be back. You know, it felt like a long break, but it didn’t end up being as long as I thought it would be.

To the member, obviously in the permitting process, which is significant, some of the projects…. For example, wind projects that are in this region have been under 50 megawatts, and there was no EA in those projects because the EA didn’t apply to those projects. There are still permitting processes. The intention of the legislation, as the member knows, but I’ll just repeat it here, is to move renewable projects to a one-window regulation.

The good news in his constituency, of course, is that the B.C. Energy Regulator kind of sees Fort St. John as its hometown. So it’s very involved, very connected to the community, has regular consultations on the very significant issues in the oil and gas sector and works with communities in those areas very successfully. And I’m sure it will do so in this case.

You’ll see this in the foundational act. You see there are consultation and notice periods, and there are opportunities to ensure, as you get permits consistent with the laws of the province, that people will be able to express their views on those permits.

[6:35 p.m.]

Jordan Kealy: My question to the minister is…. It’s great that you bring up the energy regulator and that they’re situated in Fort St. John, my hometown.

I currently have a lease road on my property. The reclamation process has failed two times in a row, and it is very difficult to try and navigate the system even under the current regulations.

Right now, when it comes to expediting a project like this, especially with large-scale processes, how do you plan on engaging and protecting constituents that will be affected by these projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member notes…. I’m not aware of his relationship with the B.C. Energy Regulator, but I think it’s highly regarded in his region, in his community — 300 professionals in all disciplines who work significantly from archaeology to all other areas, engineering, all other areas involved in the permitting and regulation of process.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

There’s a detailed process and a comprehensive compliance management system that identifies and tracks and continuously improves compliance management activities. I’ve spoken about it at length in the Hansard record. I’m sure the member can find that.

We have an energy regulator that has been in place in his region for 25 years managing the permitting process in the public interest, the interest of communities. But especially, because of the nature of the community in Peace country and Treaty 8 country, it does an excellent job of connecting with communities, and that will continue to be the case.

The permitting process will allow the public to express its views on permits, and the notification process, which is enshrined in law, will ensure that they’re informed.

Jordan Kealy: My next question is on when we look at the consultation with First Nations.

I think it’s great that there is ownership that’s local, that it stays within our own economy and contributes to infrastructure, but in regard to how coalition contracts regulate and control businesses within our area, it creates an unfair divide.

If you can’t get a coalition contract with First Nations to be able to work on these projects, to help build and construct them, you are not a viable business partner and can no longer qualify for being able to actually help with these projects in the construction and being able to contribute to the local infrastructure.

Is there something that’s in place to address that scenario, where you actually have equal representation among businesses?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, thank you, and we don’t proceed too far on this. This is obviously beyond the scope not just of the section but of the legislation.

The member will know that on the list of successful proponents in the first call for power, the 2024 call for power, we have proponents that are world-class. In the case of Innergex wind power companies that are partnered with First Nations in the community, that’s good news, in a general sense. Often an IPP would not have any local ownership at all. When there are profits, when there are returns, those will stay in community, and that will be a positive thing.

I think the questions he’s asking and the concerns he’s asking about his community…. I don’t dismiss them, but I would say that those are issues that are broader and certainly not taken up in this legislation. I appreciate him raising the point and using this forum to raise the point, but they’re really not relevant to the legislative response I have.

[6:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Peace River North. A reminder to the member, and to all, that we are discussing right now clause 14.

Jordan Kealy: Thank you very much. I’ll save my other questions for when it comes to the next clause.

Scott McInnis: At this time I’d like to propose an amendment to clause 14.

[Clause 14, by adding the underlined text as show:

Application of Environmental Assessment Act

14 (1) The Environmental Assessment Act does not apply in relation to the following streamlined projects:

(a) the selected wind energy projects;

(b) the North Coast Transmission Line project;

(c) a wind energy project that is prescribed for the purposes of this section;

(d) any of the following electric transmission line projects that is prescribed for the purposes of this section:

(i) a project to upgrade, construct or operate electric transmission lines, or related facilities, from around Terrace to around Bob Quinn Lake, Prince Rupert, Ridley Island or Kitimat;

(ii) another electric transmission line project that is related to the North Coast Transmission Line project.

(2) Despite subsection (1), a streamlined project is subject to an environmental review process that includes public notification and a public comment period of not less than 30 days, as prescribed by regulation, if any of the following conditions are met:

(a) the project is located within 5 kilometres of a First Nations reserve or privately owned property;

(b) the project is situated on, or directly adjacent to, land that is within the Agricultural Land Reserve or designated under the Heritage Conservation Act;

(c) the project is situated on, or directly adjacent to, Crown land that is subject to an existing lease, licence, or other Crown land tenure granted for recreation, grazing, guide outfitting, or similar purposes;

(d) the project exceeds a generation capacity of 50 megawatts]

The Chair: Would you like to speak to it now, Member?

On the amendment.

Scott McInnis: I would. I think we’ve canvassed a lot of good questions here this afternoon, and we’ve had some discussion. Obviously, we need power in this province. It’s also very important to have public input and to respect various aspects of the public — whether it’s guide-outfitting or private property, ranching, these kinds of things, people who own angling businesses, etc.; so that their concerns are heard within this process, before the environmental assessment process is bypassed in certain situations.

I hope all members will consider this amendment to be very reasonable in allowing that space for all members of the public to have that 30-day period to provide their input on these specific projects before they move ahead.

You know, 30 days is a reasonable time, I think, to address some concerns and hear feedback from the ministry around this. As my colleague from Peace River North pointed out, there are several areas around this province where there are these wind projects located very close to where people live. I think it’s very, very important that we take into consideration their perspective on this before we move forward.

Once again, I just hope all members would consider this to be a very reasonable amendment to clause 14, and I encourage everybody to vote in favour of this amendment.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I don’t support the amendment, but I make one important point for the Chair to consider. The member has suggested, essentially, that an environmental review take place on projects greater than 50 megawatts. Let’s set aside all the other things they talked about, which is a nice, interesting show about the issue.

Currently projects up to 50 megawatts are exempted from environmental assessment. So an amendment that can be satisfied simply by voting against the section is not, in my view, in order. In other words, it’s contrary to the intention of the section.

I realize the members are opposed to the section, so I don’t say that to be argumentative. I just simply say that the whole purpose of the section is taken away by the amendment, which is not the purpose of an amendment.

The Chair: Members, we’ll take a brief recess now to review the amendment for admissibility and make copies, and then there’ll be an opportunity for further debate after the brief recess.

The committee recessed from 6:44 p.m. to 7:02 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, back to order.

We’ve reviewed the proposed amendment to clause 14, and in reviewing the amendment, it’s not clear to the Chair that the proposed amendment to clause 14 is a direct negative. Therefore, it is the Chair’s view that the amendment is in order.

Are there any additional debate or comments?

Ian Paton: I’ve seen many amendments come and go in this room and other meeting rooms, and many on our side have been turned down. This one is, to me….

Everyone in this room, everybody in this building, should look at the consultation process, the transparency process, the openness to deal with First Nations, to deal with farmers, to deal with ranchers. We’re simply asking for an environmental review process that includes public notification and a public comment period of not less than 30 days, as prescribed by the regulations, if we meet certain criteria.

One is simply if the project is within five kilometres of a First Nations reserve. Pretty simple. I mean, that’s not too much to ask — 30 days of consultation so that we could submit our feelings on this wind power or renewable energy project.

Two, if the project is situated directly adjacent to or on agricultural reserve land — again, giving the opportunity to farmers and ranchers to view their comments.

Three, if it’s directly adjacent to Crown land that is subject to an existing lease, licence or other Crown land tenure granted for recreation, grazing, guide-outfitting or similar purposes.

I’ve been dealing for several months with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. They have asked for a letter…. I’ve got the letter in my hand, dated February 21, asking for a meeting with the minister about these issues. I don’t know if he has ever sat down and had a meeting with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association.

I’ll quote from their ask. They said:

“I’m writing to you on behalf of the members of B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, who have raised concerns regarding proposed projects for wind and solar power that are either approved or being considered in their areas throughout the province.

[7:05 p.m.]

“Our main concerns are more in the process and transparency and lack thereof that has taken place in moving these projects forward. These projects will take place on Crown land, which our members have tenures on. We feel there are two main areas of focus that our members and the voters B.C. deserve an explanation for and for the opportunity for consultation and transparency.

“One, the lack of consultation and engagement with local residents and tenure holders, informing them of the projects, their locations and the possible impacts to them and their community. It is unreasonable not to engage in consultation and information-sharing with all the residents and stakeholders in the province.”

I think it’s a simple ask that we give people in this province — farmers, ranchers and First Nations — the opportunity, with this amendment, to at least have 30 days for their input before this gets charged forward.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I met with the cattlemen at length on this legislation on May 6, just to be clear about that point. It doesn’t mean that they were satisfied with the meeting, but we had a frank exchange of views, which I think is important and which the member knows I’m always prepared to do with people around the province.

With respect to this proposal, the intention of the amendment is straightforward. This would apply, effectively, an environmental assessment process on all projects over 50 megawatts. Well, there are no environmental assessment projects under 50 megawatts now, so the intent of the amendment is clear.

I note to the hon. member, who spoke very passionately, the position of his party to gut the Environmental Assessment Act that they presented in February — to gut it. So I do think that this discussion…. And that wasn’t made with consultation. That was intended to be immediate and to exempt from environmental assessment rules a number of oil and gas projects in the province.

That was their position; our position is pretty clear. We’ve gone through environmental assessments on winds projects. We’re setting up a robust regulatory regime around renewable energy projects, led by the B.C. Energy Regulator, that’s consistent with what’s happened in the oil and gas industry for 25 years, including recognizing an important role for the agricultural land reserve in that regulation by the B.C. Energy Regulator, over 25 years.

We don’t agree. We have a legislation that says these projects will be exempt from the environmental assessment process. We just don’t agree. I don’t agree with the amendment, and I’ll be voting no on the amendment.

Larry Neufeld: I did want to address the comments that we have heard this evening around proposals to gut the environmental assessment.

I myself and, I know, many of my colleagues are very interested in having projects built. This province has suffered extensively from economic investment leaving the province because it’s too challenging to get projects built here. I find that to be a challenge as a businessman myself, particularly one that lives in a resource-wealthy area. That’s a real shame to watch that happen.

With respect to the desire to see renewable energy and renewable energy projects, absolutely, I’m in. I’m in both feet. I absolutely am. But I believe in choice.

So I’m not opposed to this bill. Well, I’m sorry. Yeah, I see. Someone was listening.

Interjections.

Larry Neufeld: Okay, so I will cut it a little more short, then.

I will say that I find this amendment to be more on the reasonable side than others might see it. It is a 30-day consultation period, and based on what’s happening in the world and particularly with what we’re hearing in the public around this bill and another one that’s before us now, I think it’s a reasonable compromise at this point. I will be supporting it.

Trevor Halford: We’ve been at this for a number of hours now. We’re going to continue to be at it for a number of hours. I think one of the big challenges here is that in the minister’s answers, he has not laid out at all how consultation will occur on these projects. Either he doesn’t know, or it’s not going to happen. We are offering a very clear amendment here on how that could happen.

[7:10 p.m.]

The minister acknowledged…. Yeah, that’s great that he met with cattlemen, but it appears that they left that meeting probably feeling more frustrated than when they went in. I don’t know. But there has to be criteria. There has to be a framework. There has to be a window for input to occur. None of the minister’s answers here have illustrated that whatsoever.

I know that we’re not just hearing from these groups. I know the minister is hearing from these groups. Other ministers are hearing from these groups. Nothing that this government has said on Bill 14 has been satisfactory in terms of what we’ve talked about today. I don’t understand why this is such a hard concept. Consultation — the ability to provide input on projects.

The criteria that existed before was clear. Could it be amended? Could it be changed? Could it be a better situation? Of course. But right now what we’re seeing is a closed window, and the minister is basically just saying: “Well, we’re going to figure it out as we go along. We did consultation during the call for power.” He cannot get up and clearly illustrate how consultation will be executed on these projects.

I think British Columbians have a very hard time with that. Well, I know they do. The minister knows that too. They are struggling with the fact that if something is happening in your municipality, whether it’s going to impact your small business, your big business, your livelihood, your cattle, your other livestock…. Even if you’re not going to get the answer that you want, there should be an ability to have that dialogue.

We’re trying to help here, but the minister can clearly not articulate how that dialogue is going to occur. We’ve had legislation before that illustrates how that dialogue has to happen. It’s legislative. That is now being stripped, and not one single answer the minister has given here has shown how that consultation will occur. There’s nothing.

This amendment goes a long way in addressing some of that, and the minister said that he’s against it. Time and time again he has used the word “consultation,” but he has not once in this entire process illustrated or showed how Bill 14 will execute proper consultation for the successful projects and the British Columbians that it will affect. Not once has the minister been able to stand up and illustrate how that consultation will occur.

If you’re a trapper and you’re going to lose your trapline…. I have not seen once how the minister will say: “You can have input on how this project will be built, how we may mitigate some of your circumstances.”

If you have a hunting licence, if you’re a guide-outfitter…. Nothing in here would give any of these groups any satisfaction in having input or being able to illustrate to the regulator, to the province, to cabinet, to the minister responsible how some of these projects maybe even enhance their businesses or their life or their surroundings but, in many cases, how they might provide more challenges. We’ve had that before. That’s gone now with this.

[7:15 p.m.]

This is why I’m supporting this amendment. It makes sense. But it would be very good for the minister…. If the minister doesn’t like this amendment, then table another one. Put one forward that actually illustrates how consultation can be done. Right now, it’s nonexistent. It’s: “Trust us.” Where do you send that email in to? When’s the open house? Who are the staff that I’m supposed to talk to? That was all laid out before. For these projects, it will be gone. That’s why I’m supporting this amendment.

The minister says he meets with everybody, and I take him on his word at that. I’m sure that he does. But is he going to meet with every specific person that has a concern with these nine projects, personally?

Is he going to take that input? Is he going to shape some of the conditions that come with this? We’ll talk about that after the amendment. Is he going to shape some of the conditions on those projects based on that input that he’s getting from cattlemen, that he’s getting from First Nations, that he’s getting from trappers, that he’s getting from local governments? Maybe he’s getting it from a rotary club. I don’t know. But at least they have that ability to have that dialogue within a prescribed time frame.

That’s the key part. It’s not open forever. It’s a prescribed time frame. Are those 30 days going to blow these projects up? The government has had eight years to get some of this stuff done, and they haven’t. They’re panicked, and I get that, but we’re talking about a 30-day window.

Again, the minister has not gotten up once and properly showcased how proper consultation will occur on these projects.

This is a start, and if he’s not going to support this amendment, I challenge him to put forward an amendment that will address the concerns from the thousands of British Columbians that are saying: “What are you doing? You’re doing this in my backyard, and I don’t even have a voice. You’re affecting my livelihood. You’re affecting licences that have been in my family for generations.”

“We’ll figure it out as we go.” That’s not good enough. Nobody is saying, except for this minister and cabinet, that this is good enough.

Like I said, it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing. But come on. If you’re not going to support this, then put something forward that people can actually understand and that’s got some credibility to it. Put forward something that says: “This is what we’re going to level in terms of consultation.”

There’s nothing in here that I could sit with in my riding or a colleague’s riding and say: “This is what I think they mean by consultation. This is going to be your ability to actually have input. This is how you can show the challenges that this project is going to have on you.” That existed. That’s gone now, once this legislation passes.

It’s a constant thing from government. “We’ll figure it out as we go. We’ll do consultation.” The minister talks about consultation on the call for power. Did that include all these groups? Is that the government’s standard of consultation now? Before these projects were even announced to be successful, we’ve already done the consultation?

We have a clear amendment in front. The minister has already said, albeit before he even actually physically saw the amendment, that he wasn’t going to support it. But that’s fine. I wasn’t expecting him to, and that’s his prerogative. Then at least step up and put something forward that actually gives British Columbians the ability to say: “You know what? There’s a window here where we can have input.”

This does it. I’m going to proudly support my colleague’s amendment here, because it’s the right thing to do.

[7:20 p.m.]

This is where the level of frustration is coming from. You can take example after example. The decisions have been made, but then we’ll talk to you. We’ll start building, but then you come and talk to us about how this is going to affect your business. You’re a trapper? Well, once it’s under construction, maybe we’ll squeeze you in, and you can illustrate to us why this isn’t feasible for you. You’re a guide-outfitter? We’ll have that conversation, but the decision has been made.

The whole thing on the part of the EAO process was that you had that input before a decision was made. That’s why you had the open houses. That’s why you had the window of consultation. That’s why you had section 13. That’s why you had all those elements there. You could take all that, and you could make a decision. You could also make recommendations, or you could have criteria listed for said successful project that they had to meet prior to a certificate. That’s gone with this.

We’re talking about a specific window of consultation. That’s basic. But if he’s not going to support this, at least put forward something that he would support that allows people to actually have a voice. Right now nobody does except for the Premier and a few ministers. That is where the frustration is coming in.

Jeremy Valeriote: I won’t repeat some of the points that have been made. From my point of view, this amendment is highly supportable. From my point of view, it is the bare minimum. At least with an EAO process, the proponent would be expected to respond to the comments. There would be some back and forth.

This is strictly a one-way public comment period. It’s not asking much. We’re being told that the B.C. Energy Regulator might undertake a process like this. We’re not really sure. It might be regulated. It might not.

I think a little bit of assurance that people can be heard…. I did go on an extensive monologue earlier about the risks of people not feeling consulted and what that could do to the process. So I will support this. I think it’s the bare minimum. I think within five kilometres of a reserve or private property is the least that people can ask to be expected to be engaged.

Jordan Kealy: I’ll support this amendment as well. Being an independent, I won’t be able to vote on it. But I think when it comes to the community engagement, it’s definitely very straightforward and clear that the communities feel like they do not have input on this in a proper fashion, especially when you look at the Taylor project and what the Peace River regional district has brought forward for their concerns.

When you look at certain considerations when it comes to reclamation and recycling of certain aspects of these projects…. A wind turbine blade. Where are you going to put it when it hours out? We already have blades up there. They’re not going in our landfill. It’s just like the Site C dam when it comes to their work camp. That wanted to get put into the landfill as well. There’s only so much room in that landfill.

Bypass the regulations to be able to pretty much affect the farmers…. I hear that there are very large lobbyists that you’ve talked to, like the cattlemen. But there are a lot of other farmers that are around that area, a lot of people that are around that area that are affected by setback distance when it comes to these projects as well, especially when it comes to how they might affect their animals or when it comes to noise. These are all things that people need to be able to have this input on, and this would give them a time frame to be able to voice those concerns.

The concern was brought forward about the lack of maps and how they were going to implicate with transmission lines, power lines, how they’d cut through farmers’ fields. I think that’s also another major thing that has to be addressed. It’s been very clear that the local governments in my region feel the need to be able to have this representation and consultation and that it hasn’t happened.

The other scenario, when you look at certain of these projects…. I don’t know if it’s just the analysis of the wind turbines that you’re looking at with your call for energy.

[7:25 p.m.]

Also, when it comes to future calls for energy, those specific projects and how they can have implications in other manners…. When it comes to agriculture, hunting, camping, wildlife migration, when it comes to animals, as well, and also when it comes to traplines that have been brought up previously, these are key activities that people have to be able to have this consultation on, going forward. I support this amendment.

Ian Paton: If you’ll allow me to speak one more time, I’d like to give you an example. I heard that one of them was going to go on Loon Lake Road, in that general area. A rancher friend of mine just purchased a ranch with about 250 acres of Crown grazing land along Loon Lake Road.

Ranchers know the land a lot better than the engineering company that’s going to come and plunk these wind tower turbines down on their land. “If they come in on Loon Lake Road,” I said to my friend that just bought this ranch…. He said: “Well, where are they going to put it?” I said: “Well, I don’t know, but they’re going to waltz in, and they’re going to say: ‘This is where we want to put this wind turbine on your grazing land, with your cattle grazing on the lease tenure that you have.’”

“Well, is it going to be near a dugout where the cattle go to drink? Is it going to be near a creek where the cattle go to drink? Is it going to be near a dam where we have a reservoir for water? Is it going to be around a lot of trees that provide shade for the cattle?”

So this would at least give the rancher a 30-day window of an opportunity to sit down and talk to the engineering firm that’s going to put up this turbine and say: “Look, could you please move it 400 metres to the west or to the east? It would be better for my cattle so that it’s not right near my drinking dugout or trees that are going to provide shade for my cattle.”

That’s just one simple example of a 30-day opportunity for the farmer or rancher to at least sit down and talk to the engineering firm that’s going to install this wind turbine.

The Chair: Shall the amendment to clause 14 pass?

Division has been called.

[7:30 p.m. - 7:35 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section C or the duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is shall the amendment to clause 14 pass.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6
L. Neufeld	Paton	Maahs
Wilson	McCall	Valeriote
NAYS — 6
Sandhu	Choi	Routledge
Popham	Dix	Phillip

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. The Chair votes against this amendment, to keep the bill intact and in its original form and as adopted in second reading.

The question is: shall clause 14 pass?

Interjections.

The Chair: So ordered. We’ll let people shift and take a moment.

Thank you, Members. Now that there’s staff back in the room, could we get unanimous consent that we’re still discussing clause 14?

Some Voices: Aye.

The Chair: Okay.

Recognizing the member for Surrey–White Rock.

Trevor Halford: I’ll just start off with a quick question. Given clause 14 here, the application of the Environmental Assessment Act, does the minister still believe that these projects will have adequate consultation, with the removal of the Environmental Assessment Act for these projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

[7:40 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: Can the minister clearly illustrate how that consultation will be done?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member knows that under the current act, which guides the B.C. Energy Regulator, there are substantial and established regulations for consultation and notification. I expect the regulations will mirror that, because it’s the same act, and it’s the same regulatory framework. We’ve gone over that in detail multiple times on multiple sections.

The member doesn’t agree with the bill, and I appreciate that, but we’ve gone over the consultation with respect to the regulations; the consultation that appeared on the bill; and the consultation that will happen in each of the permitting processes that occur, of course, now in a well-established regulatory process over time. We’ve gone into that in detail a number of times. The member disagrees with that.

This section of the bill deals with the application of the Environmental Assessment Act, and I’ve laid out clearly why the government is taking the action that it’s taking.

The member, notwithstanding his political position to gut the Environmental Assessment Act, doesn’t think that it’s appropriate for us to take the action to exclude certain projects from the act under the conditions of this bill. That’s a difference of opinion on this clause in the legislation. I appreciate that difference of opinion.

Trevor Halford: I can’t disagree with what I don’t know. The question is: what is it? Can the minister lay out…? He’s talking in generalities. We’re talking in specifics of projects — nine specific projects that the minister read into the record. I will say into the record: not once has this minister outlined how proper consultation will occur.

He just voted against consultation. Okay. He just voted against a 30-day window for farmers, ranchers, guide-outfitters, trappers, First Nations, everybody to have input for 30 days. He voted against it. That’s his prerogative. He did that.

I’m asking a very clear question here, which he can’t answer. What is it? He said he has answered it. What is the level of consultation? When will it happen? Who will be consulted? Who will be doing the consultation? I’m not asking for an answer in generalities. It’s a very specific question. Clause 14, removing the Environmental Assessment Act, which outlines clear guidelines for consultation….

Again, can the minister give a very clear answer on how that consultation will occur on each specific…? I’m not asking him to go project by project. He can pick one if he wants, or two or three. I don’t care. All I care about is getting an answer on how proper consultation will now occur.

[7:45 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, appreciating the section that’s in place and the detailed responses that we’ve given on the regulation-making process, including timing of that process, the order we’re doing it in, the detailed answer I gave on that yesterday…. I appreciate the member may not reflect in Hansard. So if he’s referring to the development of regulations, that’s what we’re doing.

The BCER has a significant process that’s in place now, so we don’t have to look to some mystical or new regulatory process. We have that. People are aware of it and know about it. The member will be aware that that regulatory structure has been in place for a significant period of time. It’s the role of applicants, of course, to engage with interested parties, to have their application informed by the views of those parties.

When permits are received — that’s when the review and the consultation occur. Who? Those impacted. How long? Of course, it depends on the complexity and the interests involved. That’s the basics of regulation. Our regulatory process is well known, and we’ve answered detailed questions on that throughout the sections of this bill.

Trevor Halford: Okay. I’m struggling here. I guess I’m misreading it. I apologize. I may have missed an answer over the last two days. We just had the Agriculture Minister vote against letting people in the agricultural sector actually have a window to be able to be consulted.

He’s talking about a process that exists within the B.C. ERAA for consultation. What is that consultation process? So now that we’re taking out, on clause 14, the Environmental Assessment Act — this is not a hard question: can the minister detail what the consultation project is?

Where’s the paper with the projects? There we go. We’ll pick one. We’ll do the Brewster wind project. What is the consultation process for the Brewster wind project? When does it start? When does it end? Who’s able to be consulted?

That’s a pretty specific question for this specific project, given that clause 14 will eliminate the Environmental Assessment Act. There we go.

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, as I’ve noted to the member, under the ERAA, there are detailed requirements for consultation and notification and regulation, which this will mirror.

The member asks: are the regulations written yet? No, but we know what the requirements for consultation and notification are, because they’ll mirror that. I can provide that to him, and it shows it in detail. I’ve given that answer a number of times before. I’m happy and referred to the act and referred to the other legislation.

This is an area of regulation that’s occurred in permitting for some 25 years. The regulatory requirements will apply to all projects in the class, so we don’t need to talk about an individual project, nor would that really be appropriate for me to do. It would apply to all projects in the class, and that’s what it’s doing. We have a detailed application of how this works over 25 years.

Some of the changes that put that in place were put in place under a B.C. Liberal government that he supported. I appreciate his support in this committee of the Environmental Assessment Act. I also appreciate his position outside the committee that the act should be gutted for all projects. That’s his position. That’s the position of the Conservative Party of B.C. He’s a member of the Conservative Party of B.C. in this Legislature, and we hear him speak on behalf of the Conservative Party of B.C. all the time.

If he disagrees with his leader about the proposal to gut the Environmental Assessment Act, it would be interesting for him to express it here. I don’t think he’s expressed that view, so we’ll assume that’s the case.

The detailed requirements replaced under the ERAA will be mirrored in many respects under this, but there will be, of course, significant consultation that I detailed in an earlier answer to an earlier section of the bill about the regulations.

Trevor Halford: If it’s very detailed, I don’t understand why it’s so hard to talk about. Again, the minister is talking in generalities.

Let me pick another project here. I’ll do the Taylor wind project. What is the consultation process for the Taylor wind project? When does it start? When does it end? I’m asking for specifics. How long will it be?

There have been regulators in place for 25 years. We’ve heard that answer from the minister multiple times. I am asking a very specific question. The minister can say: “Well, it’s not appropriate to talk about specific projects.” It absolutely is appropriate. This is part of the problem. Now we’re being told that we can’t talk about specific projects that they’ve publicly announced, in terms of consultation. Are you kidding me?

It’s because the minister does not know the answer. If it works better, we can take a recess while the minister goes and finds out what the consultation process is for one of these specific projects. I don’t care which one it is. Pick one. But can the minister please outline how consultation will work? When does it start? When does it end? It’s not a hard question.

You are eliminating the Environmental Assessment Act from these projects, which outlines consultation. What’s coming in its place? All the minister has talked about is process and regulations that have existed for 25 years and this and that. Great.

What are you talking about, is my question to the minister. Where is the actual consultation framework? I don’t understand why this is so difficult. If he cannot answer it, then I just assume that it doesn’t exist.

So if we need to take a recess while the minister figures out what consultation is for the Taylor wind project, that’s fine. We can do that. But this is a specific question. What is the consultation process for the Taylor wind project? Has it already started? Where can people send emails in to? Who is quarterbacking it? When do the open houses start?

This isn’t hard. Those details were all answered under the Environmental Assessment Act for specific projects. They’re choosing to take that out. That’s their prerogative. But what’s in its place? That’s a very specific question. What is the consultation process for these projects? That’s it.

[7:55 p.m.]

The Chair: I have been listening very carefully to the debate, and we’re allowing a fair amount of latitude as well. I have noted a repetition in the question. I have heard a response.

I’ll let the minister respond, but just a reminder that if you perhaps don’t agree with the response, that’s not grounds for repeating the question.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, hon. Chair, I give a lot of latitude for snide at this time of night, so I’ll just let all that stuff go. I’ll just say that on this section of the bill, we have….

As the member knows, this is an enabling bill. The regulations are developed pursuant to this bill. There’ll be regulations and requirements for consultation notifications. Those have been detailed and are laid out and already produced. They will mirror the existing regulatory process, which I’m happy to share with the member — the existing regulation. I just asked for it so we can…. I’ve given this share of the answer before, in the act and in the regulations. That’s how it will work.

We know how it will work because it’s worked over decades. The member has never raised it in the Legislature, never expressed concern about the regulations around oil and gas, around the ALR or any other issue, in the Legislature. He hasn’t.

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It would be in Energy estimates, as the member knows. It would be nice to have a discussion. I’m happy to have a discussion.

Those requirements are clear. Consultation will be laid out in the regulatory process for the application to this sector. They’ll be conducted by the B.C. Energy Regulator, which has been engaging in such consultation and notification regulation for decades now, and we will act on that basis.

This is a set of questions that we’ve answered a number of times. The member doesn’t like the answer, but that is the answer. He can continue to ask whatever question he likes, of course.

Jordan Kealy: I don’t think it’s an unreasonable question at all to the minister that…. In my region, when it comes to this Taylor wind project, very specifically, the regional district itself is struggling trying to deal with this scenario and the consultation that isn’t being done with the constituents in the areas to address the cumulative effects and impacts, the effects on surrounding neighbours to the project, even when it comes to the property valuations, when it comes to the degradation of when these projects go through. These are all items that have to be properly communicated.

I personally don’t think it’s a snide remark in any way, and I’m not repeating anything previously. I was just using the one comment that was made.

I think my community would love to hear an actual answer to how they’re going to be properly communicated with when it comes to their concerns.

The Chair: Members, I have now noted that the debate is repetitive, and I ask that you pursue a new line of questioning.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Perhaps I’ll give it one more try, for the member. I’d be happy to share a document which describes in detail…. It would be great. I don’t want to do all of the member’s filibustering for him.

As the member knows and as members know, under the Energy Resource Activities Act, there are requirements for consultation and notification regulation. Those are publicly available, and the member’s office could easily find them. The library will get them for him in five minutes if they so require. I’ll be happy to provide them to the opposition.

What they show is a detailed process, now under the Energy Resource Activities Act, the requirements for consultation and notification, which is a detailed regulation of some 23 pages. It defines, for example…. There’s an interpretation section, and it applies the application of the act — who must be consulted or notified, who must be consulted. This is the answer I’ve been giving for the last couple of days, and so on.

In the terms of the development of the regulations under this act, this has yet to happen, as the member knows, and I appreciate that. This is a pretty good test of that.

[8:00 p.m.]

It will require the consultation we’ve described in the development of the regulation. It may not be exactly the same, but this tells you how the B.C. Energy Regulator deals with notification and consultation. That’s the answer I’ve been giving for some time.

Trevor Halford: I’m happy to review that document. I know it’s a public document, so I thank the minister for bringing that in. It’ll probably lead to further questions, and I’ll table that now.

We’ve seen wind farms approved before under the Environmental Assessment Act in, I think, some ridings that have members that are currently sitting here right now, listening to this discussion. When they receive that certificate, they come with a number of conditions that have to be met prior to construction, during construction and after construction.

Are those conditions no longer going to be happening? How will those conditions be written? Who will be making those conditions? How will they be enforced?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The regulator can apply conditions before construction, during construction and after construction. We went through in detail, and I’ve answered this question a number of times, as well, about the comprehensive compliance management system that the B.C. Energy Regulator has.

That’s some of the process, members will know, in the application — for example, in the ALR, which we’ll be getting to in a future section, and others. The B.C. Energy Regulator has been doing that for some time and has an established record for dealing with it. That’s what happens.

We’ll have the opportunity to discuss those provisions later on in the legislation, but I’ll just say that there’s a process for notification and consultation that exists. Then in terms of conditions, the regulator is in a position to apply such conditions at each stage of the process.

Trevor Halford: When we look at projects that are going to be exempted from the EA process and we’re talking about specific conditions…. Those conditions were issued publicly. They were posted. There was compliance. There was enforcement with those.

With this change in terms of regulation, will those be…? When would those…? For a specific project, they’ve already been approved, right? So we would know when we would get those from an environmental assessment. They’d be posted on the environmental assessment website. You click on the project, and you see the list of conditions that come with that project.

Are there any lists of conditions that have been put forward on these nine projects that have already been greenlit by this minister?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, no, because they haven’t gone through the permitting process.

Trevor Halford: Yeah, I understand that part of it, but when would these be posted? If we’re not having the Environmental Assessment Act, where the lists of conditions come up, who is actually doing the enforcement? Previously, it would be done under the environmental assessment office. Some of the permitting, I am aware, comes from the OGC, and they do their own enforcement, things like that.

I’m specifically talking about with the exemption of an EA certificate. Where are those conditions going to be seen, and who will be doing the enforcement on those specific conditions?

[8:05 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The BCER posts major project permits. If you want to go see the LNG Canada permits, you can see them now, and the conditions that are applied to those permits, which can be considerable. That’s under the B.C. Energy Regulator.

The member will know, of course, that there are, I think, a number of wind projects where environmental assessment doesn’t apply because they’re under 50 megawatts, and that permitting process is happening differently because it hasn’t been, up to now, a single-window regulator.

Trevor Halford: The minister is entirely right, but I can also go onto the B.C. environmental assessment office and I can see the conditions for LNG Canada on that website as well. Do those conditions for the environmental assessment for LNG Canada match exactly what’s on the energy regulator’s? Are they the exact same conditions?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re putting in place a comprehensive permitting system for wind where you will see those conditions laid out in permits that are offered. If the member is saying, “Well, you’re not putting projects through environmental assessment,” well, that’s correct, just as we don’t put wind projects under a certain threshold now through environmental assessment. Their permitting in the present is in a multiministry permitting process, as you expect. Those permits are provided through that process. Here, on a major project such as these, the B.C. Energy Regulator would be posting the permits based on its permitting system and the conditions that apply to them, and those would be, of course, publicly available.

Trevor Halford: The minister, I know it’s…. I’m not asking him to do it tonight, but is he able to give an indication? Let’s just ask one. My colleague is here. We’ll ask about the Taylor wind project. Where is the Taylor wind project in the permitting process right now with the energy regulator?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, those projects, all of them, are at the preapplication stage. The B.C. Energy Regulator is starting to do that work, but remember, the law isn’t in place yet. But they’re starting to do the work and preparing to do that work as they are preparing on the North Coast transmission line, where there was more work. That was an answer to a previous question by the member for Peace River South with respect to that project.

The projects are at preapplication stage, and the B.C. Energy Regulator is preparing to receive them, assuming that the Legislature approves, of course, Bill 14.

Trevor Halford: Is there any cost associated with that work? If they’re in the pre-permitting stage, have the proponents put forward any monetary funds as they are in the pre-permitting stage? Have they paid any fees?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This isn’t relevant to the section, but we had a detailed discussion of this about two hours ago. I’d say to the member that I’m happy to answer his question though. I don’t think the questions are repetitive in any way.

We created under previous clauses the ability for the B.C. Energy Regulator…. The principle here is that the B.C. Energy Regulator…. Its oil and gas regulation, of course, is paid for by the oil and gas industry. We wouldn’t want the oil and gas industry subsidizing the renewable energy industry. As a result of that, we’ve created a capacity for the B.C. Energy Regulator, and that’s the retroactivity that we have talked of in the second reading stage, that they can go back and ensure that renewable energy proponents and renewable energy projects pay for their regulation.

We had quite a detailed discussion of that, and I recommend to the member that he review Hansard.

[8:10 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: The minister just provided a bit of an answer there on how the oil and gas sector should not be subsidizing or using that money for wind farms, yet there’s preliminary work going on in the permitting stage by the energy regulator for these said projects that the minister has tabled and that I’ve referenced. Somebody is paying for it, right? If they haven’t put money into the pot yet, then it’s probably the oil and gas sector that’s paying for it, I would think. The ministry can correct me on that.

If the preliminary work has started…. I’ll go back to the question; it’s very simple: has consultation started on any of the projects that this pre-permitting work has started on?

Hon. Adrian Dix: If that’s not the case, they’re going to recover that money, and that’s the principle. It’s why we put in sections of the bill to allow them to do that, dating into even the previous fiscal year for the North Coast transmission line, to ensure that the energy regulator recovers that money from the proponents.

Trevor Halford: I asked specifically: has consultation begun on any of the projects where preliminary permitting work has started?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As I answered, all of the applications are at the preapplication stage, and of course Bill 14 hasn’t passed yet.

Trevor Halford: I’m very much aware that Bill 14 has not passed. I am now aware that pre-permitting work has now started to occur on the projects that we are talking about. If pre-permitting work is starting to occur, then I could assume that consultation may be starting to occur. It’s just a yes-or-no question to the minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I said repeatedly “preapplication,” and the member asserts that I said “pre-permitting.” I’m sorry, but that’s not the same thing. If you draw a conclusion based on saying something I didn’t say, that’s a problem. I’ll just say what I said: it’s at preapplication stage.

Obviously, the B.C. Energy Regulator is preparing for its new responsibilities, as you would expect any professional organization to do. That’s what they’re doing, but we’re not at the consultation stage. We’re at the preapplication stage of the process.

Trevor Halford: Has the minister heard directly from stakeholders on their concerns about the environmental assessment office being shut out of these projects? These projects are being exempted, so I can guarantee — because we’ve met with them; we’ve heard from them — that a number of organizations have significant concerns about this specific clause 14.

In the minister’s meetings with them, whether they be environmental groups, First Nations groups, or landowner associations…. We’ve already talked about the cattlemen; it could be guide-outfitters. With the exemption of the environmental assessment office or the act from this piece of legislation, for these specific projects, has the minister felt that he has sufficiently met with enough groups to have formulated an opinion on the justification for the exemption of the environmental assessment office when it comes to these projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I’m satisfied, and the member knows I’m satisfied that this is the right direction. I said in December that we were going to proceed this way. We followed that up with further analysis to proceed this way in January, and then in February to deal with other elements of the legislation, because the North Coast transmission line wasn’t dealt with in my remarks in December.

[8:15 p.m.]

We’ve met and discussed this, of course, with the Climate Solutions Council, which gives me advice on climate change issues. I’ve heard from and met with other groups like the cattlemen, who had disagreements with the legislation. I’ve heard, and the members have read into the record, comments from the First Nations Leadership Council, that expressed their concerns. We’ve met with clean energy groups and other energy groups who have been supportive of the legislation.

I’m confident that the legislation is the right path and that as we continue the consultation with groups and hear groups in the development of regulations, we’ll hear more and have people be able to get access to more information, accurate information but also to engage in their views on what the regulation should look like.

There’s obviously a different view from the government, from me, than the member has. That’s fair enough. That’s the democratic debate. His view on this legislation is that we don’t think we should proceed in this way. But he’s also, in his caucus, proposing legislation to gut the Environmental Assessment Act. Those are two views that they’re putting forward, and it’s legitimate, I suppose, to be contradictory sometimes.

Let’s acknowledge the deep contradiction in what the opposition is saying here. They made it very clear, their position on the Environmental Assessment Act. They want to gut it. They made their views very clear on the Declaration Act. They want to repeal it. There’s no equivocation there. It’s a foundational view of the opposition. They want to repeal the Declaration Act, and they want to gut the Environmental Assessment Act. I have a different view on those questions.

We made our intentions clear in December, and we followed through with legislation that reflects those views but also sets up a strong and profound regulatory regime that has proven over time its value and worth for the environment, for agricultural land, for heritage conservation and for economic development in the province. That’s what the legislation does.

Trevor Halford: A little bit of revisionist history here with the minister, and that’s fine.

You talk about the environmental assessment office, and you remind the minister…. The minister may not have checked the Hansard from when we did the debates and the estimates with the Minister of Environment. We can already see a gutting of the environmental assessment office right now. It’s happening. There’s a reduction in staff, and now you have a minister that has actually completely sidelined the environmental assessment office and the Environmental Assessment Act for specific projects. They can sigh all they want, but that’s accurate, right?

At the end of the day, what we were seeing now is a government that continues to pick winners and losers. When you look at the Environmental Assessment Act in itself… Here’s the problem with what the minister is saying. It’s that we have companies, some of which are public and some of which, since the announcement has been made…. Some of these companies are up over 50 percent stock price. One company up 26, another company up 44, another company up 23.

The challenge is that when a government is sitting in a cabinet room picking winners and losers, who is going to be successful? Who is not going to be required to do proper consultation? Who is not going to be required to go through a rigorous permitting process? That’s what this legislation is. That’s what this is. That’s what Clause 14 is all about: exemptions.

He has referenced getting the environmental assessment process. He has blown it up. There’s no need for it for these nine projects, and there’s room in this bill to increase that dramatically as long as they deem it to be renewable energy.

[8:20 p.m.]

Again, to the minister, it’s very clear to me that he struggles with the fact that exempting these projects from an environmental assessment review comes with extreme risks — not only that, the risks of court challenges.

We’ve seen this government get spanked in court because they don’t do proper consultation. The Premier’s record in court…. I think if he was batting that on any Major League Baseball team, he would’ve been sent down for assignment a long time ago. This government does not have a good track record when they get put in a courtroom. What do you think this legislation is going to do? It’s going to do exactly that.

The minister could not articulate a clear path for consultation. He cannot articulate a clear path for conditions. The only thing he’s been able to articulate is who wins and who loses. There are no circumstances where we can…. We don’t support this bill, but based on the minister’s lack of answers, this section is…. The fact is….

We challenged the minister. If he didn’t like the amendment that my colleague put forward, then put one better up. Clearly, he cannot illustrate a way that proper consultation can happen. We don’t feel it, and, more importantly, the people that have the most at risk don’t feel it.

On this particular section, none of the minister’s answers have given any comfort to the fact that they are eliminating an entire Environmental Assessment Act in office and saying: “Trust us. We got it from here.”

I don’t have a question, but if you want to put this section to a vote, then we can do that.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I obviously don’t agree. We’ve been answering detailed questions for some hours, and there is a detailed consultation and notification regime at the BCER that the member is well aware of. Just saying that he doesn’t like the answers doesn’t mean the answers haven’t been given and that there isn’t detailed experience in this regard. He knows it.

As for his position, it’s the position of the Conservative Party of B.C. that the Legislature should immediately implement a bill to suspend all but the essential requirements in the Environmental Assessment Act. That’s their position. We can talk about…. This is not a road to Damascus here. This is just not consistent with that position, one that they’ve taken on other issues as well.

We, of course, have made a decision that we made clear, with respect to environmental assessment. We’re putting in a robust permitting regime based on a permitting model that works for projects, that works for the environment, that works for agricultural land, and we put forward amendments in the form of a bill in this Legislature that will be good for B.C., good for the public interest and good for communities. I ask members to support the section.

The Chair: The question is: shall clause 14 pass?

Division has been called.

[8:25 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.]

Members, since everybody is here, do I have consent to waive the remaining time?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section C or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is shall clause 14 pass.

Clause 14 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 6
Sandhu	Choi	Routledge
Popham	Dix	Phillip
NAYS — 6
L. Neufeld	Paton	Maahs
Wilson	McCall	Valeriote

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. The Chair votes in favour of clause 14, to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted on second reading.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned. Thank you.

The committee rose at 8:33 p.m.