Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section C

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, November

7, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 40 — SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

C) on Bill 40; K. Greene in the chair.

The committee met at 1:41 p.m.

On clause 4 (continued) .

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 40, School Amendment

Act, to order. We are on clause 4.

Hon. R. Singh: Just before the recess, the member had asked a question. I want to reiterate that

self-determination is at the heart of reconciliation, and it is not my job nor anyone's

in the ministries to tell a nation what they can comment on and that there should

be a list of certain topics only.

This legislation moves away from the existing colonial framework. The current system

continues to fail Indigenous learners, and we must do better. And that's what the

whole purpose of this legislation is.

It seems to me that the member is looking for assurances on what, when and how IECs

will examine certain topics. I want to make clear that that very approach of being

prescriptive is just more of the same. And what we have heard clearly from First Nations

is that they want more authority in decision-making to improve outcomes for Indigenous

learners.

These Indigenous education councils shift the power to the First Nations and Indigenous

partners at the table, and the focus of the work as directed by First Nations has

been on student learning and improved academic outcomes. Anything that is impacting

Indigenous student learning could be raised at the local Indigenous councils, including

capital.

Each First Nation comes with their own set of needs, priorities and interests. The

changes being proposed are designed to be broad and flexible to respond to each First

Nation's priorities. The priorities will be specific to that school community, the

local contacts, the relationships. The direction of the rights holders and Indigenous

partners will guide the path forward. What we are doing with this legislation is taking

a hard look at inequities and committing to Indigenous people across the province

that we will do this work together.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister's response.

I certainly recognize that the path we've been on since 2019 with the passage of DRIPA

has been very much about creating, not just the alignment of laws with UNDRIP, as

required under

section 3 of DRIPA itself, but the legislative space. We saw that with

the Indigenous self-governance and care-of-children bill that came forward a year

ago. We saw that with the emergency management disaster recovery bill that we just

dealt with, with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. We're seeing it with this Bill

40 as well.

[1:45 p.m.]

The concern I'm raising, though, is not about suggesting in any sense that we are

guiding or limiting what a First Nation member of the Indigenous education council

can consider. The minister is saying that is not limited in any way.

Under sub 87.001(1)(b), when it says, "advising on grants provided under this Act

in relation to Indigenous students," that includes capital grants.

I've said to the minister my concern. In 87.002, there's specific reference to a

section

of the School Act, 106.4, which deals with targeted grants. My reading of 106.4 deals

with operational grants.

I invited the minister to take us to the specific provisions under the School Act

that would deal with capital grants. I would still invite her to take me to those

sections. I'm asking for clarification and confirmation from the minister that the

language, as she suggested in her previous response, under sub 87.001(1)(b), applies

to capital grants.

I'm looking for the term "capital grants" in the School Act in effect. It is drawn

into sub (

b) of this provision because the minister is suggesting that this sub (

b) provision includes capital grants. For example…. I invite the minister to correct

me. I'm not the critic and shadow minister for Education.

I'm asking the minister…. We're dealing with Indigenous education councils. When I

look, with a quick read, at the School Act, division 6 deals with capital plans and

money bylaws. It could be that I'm in the wrong division of the act. When I quickly

look for the word "capital," that's the

section it appears in.

I will say again. In my comments yesterday, at the end of the day…. I certainly have

an interest, as the member for Vancouver-Langara, in other sections of the School

Act. I see in division 6, "School property," "Acquisition and disposal of land and

improvements." I won't go there. I will just go back to again capital expenditures

for the purpose of Indigenous education councils.

Where are capital grants? What

section is capital grants dealt with in the School

Act?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: This would cover any grant under the School Act, primarily found under division 3.

M. Lee: I look at division 3, payment of grants, and I see, for example, "Special purpose

grants." Under sub 115(2): "If the minister considers that a capital project should

include accommodation for a provincial resource program or any other special program

or activity designated by the minister, the minister may pay all or part of the capital

costs of that capital project."

When I look at division 3, "Grants," I believe that's the only section, on a quick

read, that deals with capital. Oh, I would say 115.1: "The minister may pay to a board

an annual facility grant to be used for annual facility projects." That may also be….

And then of course 116, "…the minister must pay all expenditures incurred," but that's

not a grant. I think we're back to two types of grants, special purpose grants and

annual facility grants that might involve some capital component.

So the minister is saying that, by virtue of sub (

b) in this clause 4, that special

purpose grants and annual facility grants are included as part of what an Indigenous

education council could advise on. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Singh: Yes.

M. Lee: I think we've gotten the response and the clarification that I was looking for now

that we're in the right sections of the School Act. Thanks for that.

Again, the reason why I'm asking these questions next is because unlike operating

grants under 106.4 and what is referred to as a targeted grant, by general reference,

the minister is acknowledging covering special purpose grants and annual facility

grants under sub (b). When I look at the wording of those provisions,

section 115

and 115.1, it just invites the following questions.

If the minister considers that a capital project should include accommodation for

a provincial resource program…. In the context of an Indigenous education council

or another special program or activity designated by the minister, how will that apply

to what an Indigenous education council can turn their minds to provide advice on?

When we're talking about special programs or activities, can the minister give an

example as to the types of advice the minister would be looking for? What types of

advice does the minister contemplate would be provided to an education board to deal

with these types of projects? Presumably, this may be the case where they're only

advising on grants that the board actually receives.

[1:55 p.m.]

Is it the case that Indigenous education councils can actually make requests for these

funds, so all we are talking about is that the boards themselves need to be advised

by these Indigenous education councils on the grants that are provided? How does an

Indigenous education council actually trigger any access to these grants, if at all?

Hon. R. Singh: As I've said before, the focus of this legislation and the Indigenous education councils

is the learning outcomes of the Indigenous students. The advice that the Indigenous

education councils will be doing…. Even on the grants, it would be on the grants that

are meant for the Indigenous students and that will improve the learning outcomes.

I'm sure the member opposite agrees with me, and we have talked about this — the systemic

barriers, the systemic gaps that the Indigenous students have faced for generations.

That's what this legislation, and especially the role of the IECs, would be, looking

at those student outcomes and how those can be improved.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister's response, which is consistent with her earlier responses,

of course.

Perhaps just in the context of this provision and on the topic of grants, could the

minister, though, give us some examples as to how special purpose grants or annual

facility grants might be advised upon by Indigenous education councils, given the

nature of these types of grants?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: In the special purpose grants, we can…. An example could be the feeding futures grant,

like $214 million has been allocated for three years. The boards of education can

consult with the Indigenous education council, especially on the culturally appropriate

foods.

Another example which I can think of is the mental health in schools, the grants related

to that.

M. Lee: Recognizing the time that we have left here, I'm just going to move on to a few more

questions on this clause.

The

section under sub 87.002(

b) uses the words: "after the grant is spent, approve

the board's report, if any, on the grant's spending."

There are a couple of questions that arise from that. In terms of expenditures by

the board of target grants, when it says the words "if any," who decides whether there's

a requirement to provide a report? That is, the board of education needs to provide

a report on the expenditure of a grant. Who makes the decision as to whether a report

is necessary to be provided?

Hon. R. Singh: Currently the only targeted funding is the Indigenous target funds, where I do require

annual reporting.

M. Lee: I'm just trying to square the minister's response against the wording in the act,

though. The minister is suggesting that she will require a report. Is that correct?

In that case, why are the words "if any" here?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: It is optional to ask for any extra reports. At this time, as I said before, the only

annual reporting that is required is for the Indigenous target funds.

M. Lee: I'm still not understanding the response.

This provision, though, is coming into the School Act, and it relates to Indigenous

students. So when the minister says it's the only type of report that is required….

Well, the language of the act is saying it's targeted grants related to Indigenous

students.

I don't see, given the minister's response twice now, where the option is here for

the board to actually file a report. All the reports that we're talking about here….

It does say "after the grant is spent." I presume, of course, that means after the

grant that's referred to in 87.002, the targeted grant that's relating to Indigenous

students.

I'm not seeing where the optionality is here for the school board not to file a report,

based on the minister's response. If that's the case, shouldn't the words "if any"

be struck?

Hon. R. Singh: Presently there's only one target funding, which is for the Indigenous student learning,

for which the reporting is required.

The reason we have that language is for future purposes. In future, if any other targeted

funding is created, then there's the flexibility and option for the minister, at that

time, to require reporting or not. It is for the future. It is flexibility for the

future, any future targeted grants.

M. Lee: I think I'm starting to understand what the minister is presenting here.

Just to clarify, then, what the minister is conveying is…. Currently there is a specific

type of targeted grant for Indigenous students. Perhaps the minister could just, again….

I think she probably said it, but I didn't quite catch it. What is that type of targeted

grant for Indigenous students currently that is being provided?

The minister, then, is suggesting that, in the future, there may be other types of

targeted grants for Indigenous students which are different from the current type

of targeted grant for Indigenous students. Therefore, the minister and the ministry

want to maintain the flexibility for other types of targeted grants for Indigenous

students.

I just want the minister to confirm that my understanding is correct. If that's the

case, could she just please again identify what the name of the current targeted grant

for Indigenous students is?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: Currently there is only one targeted grant for Indigenous students, which is the targeted

Indigenous education funding.

M. Lee: In terms of the approval by the Indigenous council, the expectation, of course, is

that the Indigenous educational council will approve the report that the board files

in respect of the Indigenous engagement grant, the targeted grant currently. If the

Indigenous education council does not approve the report, what happens then?

Hon. R. Singh: The purpose of the Indigenous education councils…. There should be an alignment between

the IECs and the board of education on how the board of education spends the targeted

funds. The report is based on how the funds were used.

[2:15 p.m.]

If the report is not approved by the IEC, the ministry will be following up with the

board to find out the reasons that that report was not approved by the IEC.

Clauses 4 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Singh: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:16 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 39 — ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

C) on Bill 39; K. Greene in the chair.

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 39, Zero-Emission Vehicles

Amendment Act, 2023, to order.

R. Merrifield: I'm just going to defer the introduction and opening statements to my colleague for

Kootenay East.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister and her colleagues for giving us some time here today on

Bill 39, Zero-Emission Vehicles Amendment Act.

Now, this bill is going to be…. It's not too overly complicated. It's not overly long.

But there are some fundamental principles in here that we'll be canvassing to get

some clarity on, here in committee stage.

I think, generally speaking, what this bill reflects is targets and achievable goals.

Those achievable goals have to be responsible, and they have to reflect the actual

outcomes that we can all be proud of.

Nobody on this side — on the opposition side, anyways — opposes setting targets to

do what we can to lower our emissions, but they have to be achievable, and they have

to be recognized that way.

[2:30 p.m.]

Going from there, I'd like to turn it over to the member from Kelowna West. Sorry,

Kelowna…. Oh man, I'm going get this one wrong here. I can't remember now. From Kelowna,

to start off with her general questions.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Kelowna-Mission.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much, Chair. Kelowna-Mission. Kelowna-Mission. Chair, if you could just say it a few more times,

then maybe my colleague will get it.

I will just echo the sentiments of my colleague from Kootenay East. Obviously, we

are all about responsibility and stewardship and the environment, but we also want

to hold that intention with our economy, with the cost of living that our citizens

are facing today and what the acceleration of these time frames mean to us. I'm very

excited that we can get into the meat of this bill.

I'll start off with a question just on the consultation that was performed. The minister

had indicated that these amendments were informed by extensive consultation. Can the

minister please provide details on who was consulted in the preparation of the amendments

and the acceleration of these time frames?

Hon. J. Osborne: Welcome to everybody. Thank you for your interest in Bill 39.

Just before I get going, I would like to introduce the staff that I have with me here

today. We've got Nat Gosman. He's the acting assistant deputy minister for the energy

decarbonization division. Christina Ianniciello is the acting executive director for

the clean transportation branch. And with me, as well, is Tamara Garriock. She is

the senior policy adviser in the clean transportation branch as well. They'll be supporting

me throughout this committee stage.

Thanks to the member for the question around consultation. I'll give her a general

answer, and then she might have some more specifics that she'd like to follow up with.

But I can tell her that the consultation has included a ZEV Act and regulation formal

review intentions paper that went out to stakeholders for comment during the summer

of 2022.

There was a webinar for vehicle suppliers. There were individual meetings with technical

stakeholders that were held upon their request, and we engaged with First Nations

through a CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 Indigenous engagement process.

The input that was received from all of these processes, through all of the consultation

processes, has really helped to inform the final proposed amendments in the act.

I'll leave it at that and see if the member has any follow-up.

R. Merrifield: From what the minister heard in the consultations, which amendments in the bill generated

the most concern?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

I think it's fair to say, amongst all of the amendments that are being proposed in

Bill 39, that the one that generated the most conversation and concern was the target

for 2030. This was feedback that was provided both ways. Both concern that we weren't

moving fast enough and needed to bring the target to 100 percent by 2030 but also

the reverse — that people were concerned about reaching the 2030 target.

That was the single amendment that generated the most feedback.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for the answer to the question.

I can understand the concern for 2030. I mean, it's a very quick amount of time for

a turnaround. I know that six years feels like a lifetime, but it is quite quick to

turn around production and supply chains, etc. What was the response to those concerns?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Since the 2019 ZEV Act was first brought into place, we've had a continued commitment

to a program and infrastructure development. This includes regular reviews of the

ZEV act. In fact, this is the first formal review that has taken place, and it has

led us to today to propose these amendments.

We all also set up the zero-emission vehicles advisory council. This is a group of

people that will be helping government staff to continue to assess the market and

provide input into ZEV policies. We'll be receiving regular information, as well,

from suppliers as we move forward.

R. Merrifield: The minister's answer was a little bit concerning, I guess. I've got some of the responses

that came out of the request on the paper and a quote from BCBC that talks about that

the expected negative economic impact is currently substantial and widespread.

I've got another letter here from Honda Canada. The added cost could result in higher

prices for vehicles, for consumers, reduce dealer profitability and have a spillover

effect on employees and other local businesses. It could also include a reduction

in vehicle offerings and have leakage of sales to neighbouring jurisdictions.

Perhaps the minister could respond. This committee that is looking at this: how will

they respond if these negative consequences actually occur?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: I appreciate the perspective that the member opposite is coming from. And I note that

those were two particular responses that she read into the record there.

I think it's important for us also to kind of go back to first principles and why

the ZEV Act exists in the first place. I know that back in 2019, when the act first

came in, there was skepticism about whether we would be able to achieve these targets.

It absolutely is about finding the right balance so we can achieve the market transformation

that we're looking for, drive down the greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation

sector here in British Columbia, and help people make healthier and ultimately more

affordable choices in the way they choose to drive.

This is a growth market. I think it's important to note that we greatly exceeded our

expectations for meeting that first target. We beat it by four years, in fact. So

the economy-wide transformation that's taking place…. We've invested, as a government,

into skills development around EV technicians, for example, invested across the supply

chain.

To date, the B.C. ZEV sector is delivering a significant number of jobs and economic

opportunities in the province. That includes an estimated 274 companies and organizations

that are involved in all aspects of the EV sector, over 11,000 people in total employment

in the sector, $1.15 billion in total contribution to the provincial GDP and over

$2 billion in total economic output.

The role of the ZEV advisory council will, of course, be to provide timely information

and be a place for government to be able to hear that in a timely way. The member,

I think, is concerned about making sure that government is responsive to the outcomes

that we see. That's absolutely the intention of the regular reviews — and of the council

to be there to provide advice to government.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister.

Although the minister didn't seem to really answer my question, which was: what happens

if it is more expensive? What happens if we're not able to meet the targets? What

will the response of this committee be at that point with respect to any negative

aspects of this bill?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: I think it's important to note that the amendments being proposed come from extensive

evidence-based policy development and that there are monthly, quarterly and annual

reviews of the market that take place. There is the ZEV Advisory Council, which can

also provide feedback to government. The targets being proposed in this legislation

take new intelligence from the market and build off some of the trends and the forecasted

trends that we're seeing.

We're certainly not alone in this in British Columbia. We're seeing this in Quebec,

California and the federal government with their ZEV targets as well. While we are

certainly not expecting the outcomes that the member describes –– for example, that

cars would become more expensive over time –– we do have the processes in place to

be able to respond to that, should that come. That could include, for example, adjusting

the targets if it were necessary.

Just to reiterate, to date, that's the opposite of what we have seen in this evidence-based

policy work. It's the substance behind the amendments that are coming forward today.

R. Merrifield: The minister referenced 11,000 jobs in this sector. I remember reading that on the

original press release as well. Could the minister describe where those 11,000 jobs

are, perhaps even giving me a detailed breakdown of where they're located, and also

if they are new and related specifically to ZEV vehicles or simply related to zero

emissions in general.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The 11,000 jobs are spread across the ZEV supply chain. This includes research and

development, parts, infrastructure, some vehicle development, battery recycling, EV

technicians and at post-secondary institutions that are teaching EV technicians, for

example. The majority of these jobs are in the Lower Mainland, but they do exist in

other places in British Columbia, and 4,500 of these jobs are new since 2015.

We will follow up with the member after. We can provide as much detailed data as we

have on the composition of those 11,000 jobs, as she asked.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister. I would be interested.

Here are some other questions that I have. If these could be answered in that same

brief that's supplied, that would be great.

I'd love to know the breakdown of private sector versus public sector jobs. I'd love

to know if these are new jobs. I'd love to know which sectors these jobs exist in,

whether it's manufacturing, service or supply, etc.

[F. Donnelly in the chair.]

We have a mechanic who has been fixing ICE vehicles for his or her entire life. They

get the training to work on ZEVs, as is desperately needed. I know the Tesla mechanic

comes into town once a month, and it's a rush for all the Teslas in Kelowna. My concern

is that that's considered part of those new jobs, even though he or she was simply

trained and received new training. I do want to see a breakdown of all the different

jobs and where they're created, etc.

My next question is back to the whole affordability aspect of this. It is the amount

of subsidy that's currently on ZEVs today. Has the use of the subsidy since implementing

means-testing decreased at all?

[3:00 p.m. - 3:05 p.m.]

[F. Donnelly in the chair.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Welcome to the chair, Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Hon. J. Osborne: The member has asked for some information around the provision of incentives or rebates,

as they're also called.

I just want to cite a few figures that come from the Zero-Emission Vehicle Update 2022 , which is available online through the CleanBC website, on passenger vehicle rebates.

I won't go into all of this detail. It does provide a bar chart breakdown of the difference

between battery EVs and plug-in hybrid EVs, etc.

In 2018, it was as low as 6,257 incentives, climbing, in 2019, to 14,489, down, in

2020 — COVID had a big impact — to 8,615, back up, in 2021, to 18,534 and then down,

in 2022, to 9,693. There was a blip in there because of Tesla and the decisions they

made around the pricing of their vehicles that made them ineligible for incentives.

Then they changed the pricing, and it was eligible again. It's a little tricky to

read into the data sometimes.

It was in August 2022 that we made a significant change. The incentives do not come

from taxpayer money anymore. They are actually provided through B.C. Hydro's sale

of low-carbon fuel standard credits. This is a big shift in terms of being able to

provide incentives based on the sale of those credits.

Overall, I think the success that we're seeing, in terms of the program design, is

because we are…. We're seeing the success. We're seeing that incentives are going

to those people who need them most, yet we're still seeing really strong growth in

the ZEV market.

R. Merrifield: I wasn't totally clear on the minister's answer there.

I recognize the change in funding. Great. That's superb. I'm actually asking about

the number…. After the means-testing was done, did the number of rebates go down?

Hon. J. Osborne: We'll have to get the specific numbers to the member after today, if she's all right

with that. I can say that it is trending higher, but I can't give her specific numbers

right now.

R. Merrifield: Okay, thanks. That would be great. We'll get those two different pieces of information

after the fact.

Obviously, there's going to be an S-curve adaptation. Those that have the most means

are going to be able to adapt the most quickly and take advantage of rebates, obviously.

I like means-testing. I appreciate that that was done. My concern is that EVs still

remain fairly out of the price range of most individuals.

The minister has already indicated that this acceleration of the time frame is going

to make us healthier and make living less expensive. Obviously, I don't believe that.

I don't believe that this is going to, actually, make it less expensive.

I believe that the social pressures, as well as the social conscience that most individuals

have, see people moving to electric vehicles or ZEVs. This acceleration is going to

artificially put pressure where…. I would query. Do we even need the pressure?

On the healthier side, I'm going to go on to a different line of questioning. As government

pushes the adoption of more electric vehicles on to British Columbians…. How does

the province account for the carbon footprint of each electric vehicle and where it's

produced?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thanks for the question. I think it's a good question, because I think there's a lot

of different information floating out there.

It's important to look to properly conducted environmental life-cycle assessments

of these vehicles and understand what the lifetime emissions are.

I want to speak to three particular studies. First of all, a recent environmental

life-cycle assessment that was commissioned by the Fraser Basin Council here in British

Columbia factors in the emissions that are associated with the vehicle manufacturing

and not just the operation of the vehicle. It concluded that an EV charged in British

Columbia breaks even — or pays off its environmental burden, if you will — within

30,000 kilometres of driving and that any distance driven, then, beyond 30,000 kilometres

would be a carbon negative.

There's a study from the International Council on Clean Transportation that found

that the life-cycle emissions of a new battery-electric vehicle are lower than a comparable

gas car by around 60 to 69 percent in the U.S. and Europe and 37 to 45 percent in

China. Now, that depends largely on the emissions intensity of the electricity that's

being used to charge the vehicle. If you have dirtier electricity, if you will, then

you're not going to have the same savings in terms of emissions. But still, the point

is that they're lower than a comparable gas car.

Then a study from Ford Motors and the University of Michigan, finding that most passenger

electric vehicles have approximately 64 percent lower life-cycle emissions than gas

vehicles, on average, across the U.S.

I think it's also important to note that there is a significant push to continue to

reduce emissions associated with the manufacturing of EVs. We're seeing that in a

number of different automakers, like Tesla and Ford and General Motors, who are investing

in battery materials recycling. They're already preferentially buying materials from

mines and manufacturers that have low-carbon footprints. So I think we can expect

to see that life-cycle intensity come down.

R. Merrifield: Is the life cycle then…? Because we don't produce any electric vehicles here in B.C.,

is the life cycle somewhat shifted? Are we downloading some of our emissions to other

jurisdictions and just keeping the electric vehicle–positive aspect — i.e., we burn

very clean electricity for British Columbia — and artificially lowering our emissions?

Hon. J. Osborne: No, that's not my understanding, how the member described that. The life-cycle assessment

takes into account the emissions created through manufacturing, no matter where the

car parts or the car itself was manufactured. It is truly the life cycle, regardless

of where it was built in the world.

R. Merrifield: I think the minister might have misunderstood me.

In the Roadmap to 2030 , emissions are only counted in the area of production, not the area of consumption,

by global standards.

I understand the life cycle of a vehicle. If we were to do all of the mining and all

of the manufacturing and run the car for 30,000 kilometres, then we would have the

full picture. Because by what the minister just said, we actually, for the first 30,000

kilometres of any vehicle, would see an actual increase on our emissions. But we don't

have to count the emissions created in the creation of the vehicle.

[3:15 p.m.]

So we are artificially downloading the emissions of the creation onto the jurisdictions

in which they are produced, while we are trying to lower our emissions by the Roadmap

2030 with a purchase of the electric vehicle and then running it on clean electricity,

which lowers our overall emissions, while letting another jurisdiction deal with the

emissions created by the actual vehicle. Is that clearer?

Hon. J. Osborne: Let me give this another shot.

I think we're clear. The life-cycle assessment shows that of a ZEV car or an ICE car,

the ZEV car is the better choice regardless of where the car is manufactured. The

life-cycle emissions from the car anywhere in the world –– it's a better choice.

CleanBC, of course, is about emissions here in British Columbia. A ZEV car or an ICE

car manufactured elsewhere, those jurisdictions will have to account for the emissions

and the manufacturing of that car. We don't build cars here in B.C. The cars come

to B.C., and we drive them. What's happening in a ZEV, of course, is we're avoiding

the use of gasoline. We're avoiding the emissions that would be associated with that.

That's counted here in British Columbia because we've avoided that.

That really means that we're better off on a global basis, because we're avoiding

those emissions. That really is our contribution, not only to reducing emissions here

in British Columbia but also around the world.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

However, if we had to actually count the production of the ZEV in our overall emissions,

the 8.6 megatonnes of CO2e would arguably not reduce to the same extent as what we

get to do based on how global emissions are calculated, in that we don't have to account

for the production of the vehicle. We only have to account for the gas or the electricity

that gets burned, which is why China's emissions are only 30 percent less. They, obviously,

have coal-burned electricity.

To speak a little bit more to this, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague from

Kootenay East.

[3:20 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the member for Kelowna-Mission for letting me slip in here for a second.

We're talking about carbon intensities and, I guess, the crossover on where ZEVs are

in relation to ICE vehicles.

Volvo did a report on just that, and they found that there was a crossover. There

are a lot of variables, but anywhere from 60K to 100K on the travelling distance of

a ZEV would be where the net gain would be as far as carbon emissions would go, meaning

that to make this ZEV vehicle, it includes a lot of mining. There's actually a shortage

of lithium right now in the world. And lithium is a main component for ZEV vehicles,

electric vehicles, and also with hydrogen cell vehicles as well.

Lithium production is a fairly intensive process. I'm not sure if the minister knows

how lithium is produced, but essentially, it's a brine that comes from underground

that's pumped up and put into pools. These are evaporation-type pools, and they're

mixed with a sodium and lime mixture. Through a process of evaporation over a couple

of years, 18 months to 24 months, to be exact, the lithium starts to form into a….

They can make it into a powder. They dry the brine as it evaporates. It turns into

a gray powder. Then they put it into these one-tonne sacks, and then from there they

put it into another mixture of lime and sodium. That involves another mining process,

because limestone is the derivative of the lime product that's put into the lithium

powder. And then it's produced there into the metal that we know as lithium.

You can find lithium in hard forms, generally speaking, in Chile, where they produce,

I think, the most lithium, and parts of Africa, but it also incorporates bad labour

practices, not good human rights standards in some of those countries when they do

some of this mining.

I think this is what the member for Kelowna-Mission was getting at. Right now, in

fear of a lithium shortage in the world…. Some experts say that we're going to have

a real problem by 2025. That's not too far from now, and we're amping up some of these

targets. Has the minister considered some of those emissions that will be brought

on by ramping up programs such as the one proposed right now?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and the lithium lesson.

I appreciate that mining is needed for materials in batteries and in all kinds of

car components, whether they are ZEVs or ICE cars. I think the member is asking some

good questions about the consideration of the different practices and technologies

that are used to get these minerals and metals that are needed to construct these

cars.

I think it's important to talk about the importance of battery recycling and the research

and development that's going into technologies to improve and change batteries, for

example. I would point out that the International Council on Clean Transportation

is estimating that battery recycling can actually reduce the need for new mining by

20 percent by 2040 and 40 percent by 2050 globally.

Again, the fact that battery technologies are changing…. They're changing towards

ones that are less mineral-intensive. They rely on cheaper or more readily available

raw materials, things like solid state batteries and iron phosphate batteries.

A company in China, for example, BYD, is the second-largest EV manufacturer and also

supplies other carmakers with their battery technologies. They've recently announced

changes to produce batteries without items like cobalt or nickel or manganese.

Here in British Columbia, of course, we're very fortunate. We have a company, Retriev

Technologies, that's based in Trail. They're really a leader in this space for lithium

battery recycling specifically. They really are a pioneer in end-of-life battery management.

Again, important concerns. I think these always have to be taken into account in the

choices that we make overall. Looking at these things, looking at life-cycle emissions

and looking at the reduction in the use of fossil fuels all contributes towards meeting

our climate action targets. That's what we want to be able to do.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I did mention the Volvo report. I'm not sure if the minister has read that. It shows

EVs having a crossover point probably somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 Ks of operation.

Any time you run a ZEV after 60K, it becomes better overall for the environment, as

far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned.

I understand technologies are ramping up. The minister mentioned a couple of strategies

on recycling battery technologies that are coming out. Some of these targets are to

reduce mining by 20 percent. I think she said by 2040 and 2050. We're talking about

targets now of 2030.

This is, essentially, the whole essence of the bill. Are we putting the cart in front

of the horse? We want to do the responsible thing. I don't think anybody in this room

disagrees with that. But sometimes when you force the issue too hard, it becomes….

Unintended consequences can come from that. We've heard from many….

The minister mentioned that there was a fairly active engagement and consultation

process that went on. I would like to know specifically what First Nations. I'd specifically

like to know what industries.

We've heard already from the member for Kelowna-Mission, who highlighted Honda Canada,

with their concerns, and BCBC, with their concerns.

The minister said that some groups — let me see where the quote was — weren't being

aggressive fast enough. I'd like to know the name of that group and what research

they did on it.

I guess the main question here is: what does the B.C. government know that the Canadian

ZEV targets. They are reasonable. They did very extensive consultation.

[3:30 p.m.]

They had targets set for 20 percent by 2026, 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by

2035, which is a little bit more in line with exactly what industry is telling us,

exactly what BCBC is telling us.

What does the government of B.C. know that the Canadian government doesn't?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: With respect to the member's question about First Nations engagement, I can tell him

that we distributed the information around engagement to approximately 1,200 contacts,

through the CleanBC process. There were over 100 First Nation attendees at the webinar.

I cannot tell the member today exactly which nations they all came from.

The member also had questions about federal targets. It's important to understand

that, of course, the Canadian targets apply across the country. They average out the

entire country, if you will, but they depend on the different targets within provinces

which have them. The federal targets embed the B.C. and Quebec's targets, and they

assume that we will be meeting ours. Our officials have worked very closely together

on this. It's not done in isolation of each other.

Again, I think it's important to point out that we're ahead of the curve here in B.C.

We're four years ahead of where we should be with the current targets that we have.

We have such strong market growth here. We want to continue to satisfy that market

growth and to be able to supply ZEVs to those people who want to purchase them.

Having targets that send those signals to suppliers, and having the framework that

the legislation establishes, are how we're doing it. We know that British Columbia

— and Quebec, obviously, too, with their strong targets — will be getting the supply

that is out there, to satisfy the incredible growth that we're seeing here in British

Columbia.

T. Shypitka: I'll ask one more question. Then I'll turn it over to the member for Kelowna-Mission.

I was interested in hearing the minister's response. I couldn't really understand

what she was talking about: that our targets are embedded into the federal plan. I'm

not too sure if I heard that right. I'm not even sure what that means.

From what I understand, with this legislation we are upping the ante. The minister

says that we're ahead of the curve. That's great, and I'm happy for it, but we didn't

need legislation to do that if we're ahead of the curve. The market does take care

of itself. People do find their way to the common ground. We don't need legislation

that may upset that balance.

We're trying to come with a reasonable solution here. Our party has heard, from many

that are affected by this legislation, that this could do that. It could upset the

balance of what the market can provide to what legislation dictates. We're trying

to find that middle ground.

I think the Canadian government, as I said before is, has done extensive work. I would

argue it was more laborious and involved than what the B.C. government did, but maybe

the minister can challenge me on that. I know the emission reduction plan that the

Canadian government put out had consultation with industry, such as B.C. is doing.

It just seems that there are two different levels of the bar here. We're trying to

figure out why, and why B.C. has to jump to the front, getting ahead of the curve

too much, perhaps.

The minister said that there was First Nations consultation, that 1,200 contacts were

sent out and that 100 attendees made the consultation. I'm not too sure what 100 attendees

means, as far as how many governments were represented. Maybe the minister could explain

the break of those 100 attendees that were part of this consultation paper. How many

First Nations governments would those 100 attendees include?

Hon. J. Osborne: There were a number of areas there in the member's statement, and then the question.

To the question, I did explain in my last answer that there were over 100 attendees

at the webinar, but I do not have the names of the First Nations at my fingertips.

I cannot answer his question on that.

I want to return to the embedding in Canada's targets. Canada, comprising ten provinces

and three territories, is going to look at Canadians living in all those jurisdictions

and at the adoption of zero-emission vehicles.

[3:40 p.m.]

Their targets are going to be based on all those people, but they're necessarily going

to be, effectively, built up of how much ZEV purchasing is going on in each of those

ten provinces and three territories, so embedding in the targets means as just a part

of the national average, if you will. Again, because Quebec and British Columbia have

the most aggressive sales targets, we necessarily kind of take up the lion's share,

if you will, of those targets across Canada.

We are responding to the market demand. I mean, the member is right. There's a strong

market demand for ZEVs. I would perhaps disagree with him and say that it is in part

because we have the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act that was brought in in 2019 and established

the framework, set the targets, sent the signals to the suppliers about bringing those

cars into British Columbia. We knew that people wanted to do that.

Again, as I've said a couple of times before, this is part of the CleanBC plan. It

is part of our plan to reduce emissions overall in British Columbia and an important

part of the mode shift and the changes that are going on in the transportation sector

overall.

R. Merrifield: It's interesting. The minister talks about how these targets will actually give us

more share of the ZEVs. In the different car companies that reached out and contacted

us, not one disagrees with the Canadian guidelines. They make reference to the fact

that being out of step with the rest of Canada actually disadvantages B.C. and will

do things like result in higher prices for British Columbians. If you can't meet the

targets, you have to buy those credits from other companies.

I can imagine that Tesla was probably one of the big cheerleaders on this particular

bill, simply because it will probably net result them billions of dollars in the sale

of their particular credits.

The minister talked about the different evolution of technologies, and I would agree

wholeheartedly. I think we're starting to see a real acceleration of technologies

in the renewables and in ZEVs.

That, actually, is the argument to wait. In business, early adapters will take the

greatest risks and greatest costs to get there,

whereas those that actually keep pace

with the evolution of technology had the greatest efficiency and the greatest cost

savings, because the technology had already been created. The minister is actually

proving our case for us, as it were, in that acceleration of these time frames is

detrimental in how this will affect British Columbians.

My next question is actually on the impact of lithium production — not just on the

environment, which I believe that my colleague has canvassed already, but also on

human rights. We in B.C. don't just want to be environmentally sustainable but also

socially sustainable. My question to the minister is: how does the government account

for the impact on human rights of lithium production around the world?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. Of course, it's a serious one.

I think it's fair to say that British Columbians are deeply concerned about the source

of many materials in our lives and where they come from and understanding that responsible

practices, both socially responsible as well as environmentally responsible, are used

in the production of those materials.

With respect to lithium or respect to battery technologies and the materials used

in batteries overall, this is very much a conversation that's happening at the international

level, of course. The International Zero-Emission Vehicle Alliance, for example, is

one place that is doing that.

I read before around some of the automakers that are making decisions to change the

way they build cars and build batteries. For example, Tesla has announced that they'll

be moving away from batteries that contain cobalt, in part because of concerns around

the practices of mining cobalt.

This is the kind of socially responsible behaviour we want to see and we want to see

more of here in British Columbia, as well, which again is why battery recycling is

so important. Knowing that we have a lithium-recycling, battery-recycling operation

in Trail is important, so we can provide British Columbians with the confidence in

where these materials are coming to.

I hope that, in part, answers the member's questions, and I thank her for it.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for the answer there.

Let me go back to the role of the advisory council, because I don't have a scope of

what they actually look over. Will the advisory council be meeting regularly? Will

they be reporting? And will they be reporting out not just on the economic effect,

the environmental effect, but also on the social issues that we've just canvassed?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The key role of the zero-emission advisory council is really to take stock of the

market and to look at barriers and opportunities to provide advice to government and

other folks in industry that are at the table. They're providing intelligence. They're

providing input on where the market is at, for example.

The ZEV advisory council has not, to date, taken a deep dive into social issues, for

example. That doesn't mean to say that they could not.

With respect to emissions and reporting out on that…. Of course, emissions in the

transportation sector are tracked, and they're reported through the climate change

accountability report, which is produced by government.

Another statutory obligation of government is to produce a ZEV market update annually.

That provides information on jobs, car sales, market trends, program participation

rates and things like that.

P. Milobar: Just a quick question for the minister.

When I was reading through the bill…. Perhaps you can point me to it. These are some

of the overarching questions we're at right now.

[3:55 p.m.]

When the first bill came forward…. I seem to recall that B.C., with this legislation,

would actually still enable and allow used-car sales and lease return sales of ICE

vehicles. So we're not actually preventing someone from going out and buying a truck

or a car that burns fossil fuel. It just has to be used or a lease return. It could

be brought in from Alberta or Saskatchewan or across from Washington state and get

certified for Canadian use.

It seems to me that hasn't been addressed with this bill. In fact, ICE vehicles will

still be readily available in B.C. So the theory around trying to have people not

drive an ICE vehicle won't actually be addressed with this. We just don't want them….

The government is saying they don't want people to be able to drive a brand-new ICE

vehicle. They have to buy a lease return or a used vehicle.

Can the minister point to where that has been addressed in this bill? Or is it still

the case that, in fact, ICE vehicles of all ages will still be available for sale

on car lots? They just won't have been able to have originated as a brand-new sale

in B.C. It will all have to be used vehicles that are for sale in B.C.

[4:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Member for Kootenay East, I do see your hand is up. We'll recognize you once the minister

has had a chance to respond.

Hon. J. Osborne: With respect to the member's question, really the only changes in these amendments

are the targets themselves. It's not changing lease returns or used vehicles.

It's focused on new ZEV supply and setting the targets for that — attracting new ZEV

supply to British Columbia. That's the way that ZEV mandates are constructed around

North America, for example.

Over time, new ICE cars are displaced, and over time, used ZEVs also make their way

into the marketplace, which will help to lower the cost for some people to get into

a ZEV. It's this way, this time, where that market transformation is achieved.

T. Shypitka: I don't have the luxury of seeing my colleagues. I don't know if my colleague from

Kamloops North wants to follow up with that or not.

The Chair: He is okay. He is ceding the floor to you.

T. Shypitka: Okay, great. Well, thanks a lot.

The minister just said something interesting on what she responded to the member from

Kamloops North in that, with the introduction of used ZEVs coming online soon, it

may make it more affordable for some people — I think the quote was "some people to

get into." Can she tell me what people she would refer to?

Hon. J. Osborne: British Columbians who wish to buy a zero-emission vehicle.

The Chair: Member for Kootenay East, do you have a follow-up? Go ahead.

T. Shypitka: Okay. Was there any reference, perhaps, to those that can't afford one? I'd imagine

that's what she's probably getting at. I'll ask her again then.

Was the comment more in reference to those that can't afford a new vehicle?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. I think it's fair to say, and I think we all understand, there are some British

Columbians who cannot, today, afford the price of a brand-new zero-emission vehicle

even with the incentive.

Part of the market transformation that we're trying to achieve is attracting new ZEVs.

We know that in time, the cost of a ZEV is going to come down. Our government is providing

incentives for people to bring down that upfront cost.

I've gone into some detail today about the life-cycle assessment of zero-emission

vehicles and how they produce less emissions over the lifetime. The same is true for

their cost — that over the lifetime of the vehicle, taking into account the cost of

operating and maintenance, including the capital outlay of a new car, it is cheaper.

But over time, as we see more used ZEVs come into the market, that will open up opportunities

for people who today — in 2023, for example — cannot currently afford the cost of

a new vehicle.

I think we've seen a…. There's a range of different makes and models of zero-emission

cars out there, just as there is with internal combustion engine cars. We see that

response from British Columbians, that some people are looking for different features

in a car.

Increasingly, we're seeing, with those record rates of adoption in ZEVs in British

Columbia, that people are looking to make that switch. We're going to continue to

do everything that we can to help make it easier for people to do that. These amendments

to the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act are a part of that.

The Chair: Member for Kootenay East, your hand is still up. I'm assuming you have a follow-up.

T. Shypitka: You bet, Chair. Thanks a lot.

I'm going to go off to something I asked earlier, on consultation with First Nations.

The minister said there were 1,200 contacts but only 100 online. I'm just wondering

what kind of consultation that included. Was it just a basic online forum for people

to address their concerns with this proposed bill? Can the minister tell me: was there

any…? Was the draft of this bill sent to all First Nations in the province of British

Columbia first?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: I'm going to just describe again the First Nations engagement to make sure that I'm

being perfectly clear. The engagement that was undertaken was part of the CleanBC

engagement.

I did refer to a webinar, and I did refer to 100 people, but I want to be clear that

the webinar itself probably had about 70 people attending. There was a physical engagement,

as well, that had about 40 people, in fact, attending. So that's the 100 there.

The draft of the bill was not distributed to every First Nation in British Columbia.

The intentions paper was shared with the First Nations Energy and Mining Council.

We did not receive any specific feedback from them on it.

As part of this engagement, though, with Indigenous nations and Indigenous people,

one of the things we heard was their strong support and encouragement to keep the

plug-in hybrid electric vehicle as an option in the regulation — as it currently is,

and it will remain — because of the concerns for nations, particularly living in more

rural and remote communities. I think that's a concern that's shared across parts

of rural British Columbia, certainly.

So the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle remains eligible as a zero-emission vehicle

under the regulation.

T. Shypitka: I'm a little…. Obviously, my fellow colleague from Vancouver-Langara would be interested

in hearing this. I'm just kind of acting on his behalf, to some degree, and all British

Columbians, I would think.

[4:10 p.m.]

Under DRIPA, there is a duty to consult, for sure. When I see 70 on a webinar, 30

physical…. The draft of the bill wasn't circulated to any First Nation, although the

intentions paper was.

Can the minister give me a list of the First Nations consulted and the dates that

those consultations happened?

Hon. J. Osborne: No. I'm not able to provide that information to the member today, but I will go back

with my staff and provide all of the information that we can on the First Nations

engagement. Thanks for the question.

T. Shypitka: Okay. The minister also noted on PEVs some First Nations were concerned on that end

of it to keep that going.

Can she give me the list of those First Nations and when those consultations happened?

Hon. J. Osborne: That was feedback that was provided as part of the webinar and the in-person engagement.

So no, I don't have a detailed record of which individuals or which First Nations

said that. But I am describing generally the feedback that we did receive.

R. Merrifield: The minister, in her second reading comments, said: "These amendments will increase

the supply of zero-emission cars and light trucks to British Columbia, reducing waiting

times for British Columbians to get into ZEVs and encouraging automakers to make ZEVs

more affordable and accessible for British Columbians."

Could the minister just tell us specifically how ZEVs will become cheaper for British

Columbians?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The ZEV mandates send signals to automakers that British Columbia is moving this way,

moving towards zero-emission vehicles. In response to global mandates –– obviously,

not just British Columbia but Quebec, California, Europe, other places –– they respond

through production and manufacturing to be able to provide price points that respond

to that consumer demand. Really, this is a global trend we are seeing towards price

parity with internal combustion engines.

The ZEV standards here in British Columbia –– what they do is ensure that those vehicles

are available to British Columbians. Today there are 40 different EV models that are

available in B.C. that are below the average price of a passenger vehicle.

I think Tesla is a good example of an auto manufacturer that has produced more of

their lower-end vehicles because they're responding to consumer demand. In fact, they've

even dropped prices over the last year. Chevy has announced that they are coming out

with a new version of the Bolt, for example –– again, responding to that consumer

demand and bringing price points down.

Taken all together, this is what is driving the lower costs that will be available

as production increases, supply increases. And we want to make sure that those are

available here in British Columbia for us to be able to take advantage of.

T. Shypitka: I feel like there's a game of ping-pong going on here. Apologies to the minister because

we go from one brain to another.

I just wanted to follow up one last time on the First Nation piece. I'm not getting

a good sense of true consultation here. But maybe the minister can help me out a little

bit and tell me what articles of UNDRIP they were focused on when drafting this bill

to ensure there was alignment with UNDRIP.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. In terms of obligations arising from DRIPA

or UNDRIP, the proposed regulatory amendments did not explicitly trigger obligations

under

section 3 of the act. But as a matter of best practice, we engaged on this as

a matter of policy. I have described already the avenues we used to undertake that

engagement, so I'll just leave that at that.

R. Merrifield: I'm going to go back to the question that I just asked, and then the minister answered.

The minister said that by putting this legislation and accelerating the timelines,

it's going to send signals to the car manufacturers and then proceeded to give two

examples of car manufacturers who were introducing new models.

I'm sure that the minister has read the news over the course of the last two or three

months in which Honda, GM, Ford and Toyota all announced that they were slowing down

in their production and that they were pulling back globally, however, but still slowing

back. Even Tesla, their shares plummeted 9 percent over the last Q3 earnings in which

they missed both their top line and their bottom line. And Musk is actually quoted

as saying that they're trying desperately to make their product more affordable, which

seems to indicate that this is actually an expensive time to buy an EV.

At a time when people and British Columbians are having a difficult time making ends

meet, whether they pay for food or rent or to get their kids to soccer, this seems

like an unusually strange time to accelerate a timeline. While I won't go into the

economics of this, I do think that….

The minister referred earlier to a question saying that we're taking a greater percentage

from other provinces. Well, we all breathe the same air, so just taking from other

provinces so that we meet our targets doesn't really…. I mean, while we can pat ourselves

on the back, it doesn't really do anything to change global emissions. We have to

give the car manufacturers time.

With that, I would just ask the minister…. While she did acknowledge how we were going

to get more ZEVs, which I disagree with…. I think that car manufacturers are slowing

down. I think that even Honda has stated that they're going to have to be buying credits

from Tesla, which will increase the cost of Honda vehicles.

Could the minister tell us specifically how ZEVs will become cheaper for British Columbians

with this legislation? Not with technology, because obviously technology is great.

This legislation accelerates the demand for ZEVs. How will this actually accelerate

and make it more affordable?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question again.

I did go through an explanation about how the mandates work in terms of showing those

strong market signals that automakers need to see that they can respond to and ensuring

that B.C. has a secure supply of ZEVs coming here so that we can satisfy the demand

that we're seeing. And the member is asking: how does that specifically drive prices

down?

I think it's important to point out…. I know she used a couple of examples of automakers

who have stated that they're going to be slowing down production. We know that automaker

production plans fluctuate. We also know that overall the trend remains that automakers

are moving towards ZEVs. That's why the legislation is crafted in a way that creates

a lot of flexibility and compliance pathways for automakers to be able to realize

this here in British Columbia.

The amendments ramping up to the 2035 requirement, that takes place over a ten-year

period. The high ZEV sales that we have already seen here in B.C. — we are four years

ahead of where we would be otherwise — have resulted in banked credits, for example,

which are going to be able to help smooth things out for some of those automakers.

But also our program staff have spoken directly to Tesla, and they have assured us

that vehicle production continues to ramp up and it's on pace, that the plans they

have for additional vehicle models remain and that they will have strong deliveries

in B.C. this year and, going forward, they're very committed to serving British Columbia

with as many ZEVs as possible because of the incredible demand for electric vehicles

here in B.C.

[4:30 p.m.]

I think the point is that there is that ebb and flow. It's important not to focus

just on one quarter or half-year of what's taking place out in the market but that

we have the flexibility, designed through the legislation and expressly through the

regulation, to enable that.

By sending those signals, by increasing the supply and by meeting this global trend

that we're seeing towards ZEVs, British Columbians have increased access to different

models and makes of zero-emission vehicles. Over time, the displacement occurs, and

people are able to access them at the price points that they can afford.

Of course, in the meantime, as this transformation is taking place, we're going to

continue to support people and, particularly, as the member has already commented

on, the lower- and moderate-income families, to have those income-tested rebates available

for people to help make the switch.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for the answer to the question.

B.C. has 10 percent of all car sales in Canada, never mind North America. We are such

a small amount that I think it's rather presumptuous that car manufacturers, on a

global scale — especially since we have no manufacturing facilities here in B.C. —

are actually going to be swayed by these types of legislation.

I think we're all in agreement on the federal legislation, the federal targets. I

don't think there has been push-back against those. It's this unnecessary acceleration

that really puts B.C. way in front of where the manufacturers are, of where the global

targets are, of where Canada is as a whole. This is where I have grave concern.

I'll give the minister yet another example. Right now, if you were living in Prince

George or Kelowna, you would have to drive to Vancouver to buy a Tesla. You would

have to drive to the Lower Mainland to get one of the vehicles that we're talking

about here. How fast do you get a Tesla dealership in all these different places?

It doesn't make sense, from an economics perspective, to say that this infrastructure

is going to make cars less expensive by being an outlier and a leader in this area.

I'll go on to a different topic: the power requirements. How will the power requirements

be facilitated to supply electricity for these EVs?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thanks for the question around how we're planning for the power that'll be required.

I can tell the member that B.C. Hydro has been planning for this increased rate of

adoption of electric vehicles for years and will be able to meet the demand.

Large utilities like B.C. Hydro are required, of course, to engage in planning processes

at regular intervals. That's to ensure that they have sufficient electrical energy

to provide for all of the needs that British Columbians have and that they're able

to meet the forecast demand.

In their IRP update, B.C. Hydro forecasted the potential growth in electricity demand

to support our CleanBC targets and. specifically, the targets that we have for zero-emission

vehicles as well. That will include the growth that is to come.

In addition, the IRP update proposes a mix of some near-term actions and potential

resources to allow better load distribution and better accommodation of the demand.

This includes actions like shifting EV charging outside of system peak periods.

There's a voluntary time-of-use rate application before the B.C. Utilities Commission

right now, for example. If an EV owner used this, they would save money by charging

their vehicle at night. This is just one of the ways that B.C. Hydro is planning to

accommodate this EV growth.

The point is that they've been planning for it for years, and they've got that taken

into account and well in hand.

R. Merrifield: In the new IPP call for power that's out right now, is that part of the plan that

is not just specific to ZEVs but to the whole net-zero plan and electrification plans

of the province?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, in essence, that's true. In the IRP update, B.C. Hydro has provided a reference

case that looks at, again, the CleanBC targets and the accelerated actions that British

Columbians are taking in switching their home heating or switching their cars, for

example, as well as the interest that industry has in lowering their emissions by

electrifying facilities like mines.

All put together, we're looking towards 2028, towards the end of the decade, when

an additional 3,000 megawatts of power will be required. Working towards this spring

2024 call for power will help to meet that demand. I'm excited to see how that moves

forward.

R. Merrifield: For these power projects, what is the completion date?

Hon. J. Osborne: Sorry, Chair. Could the member just say exactly what she is referring to?

R. Merrifield: On the IPP call for power that has gone out and will be coming in this spring, what

is the completion date required for those projects?

Hon. J. Osborne: Right now, B.C. Hydro is focused on the engagement with industry and with First Nations

in designing the call for power. They'll be looking at a range of actions that they'll

need to take, everything from Indigenous ownership and participation in these projects

to setting a minimum size, for example.

I can't give the member specifics on exactly when each power project would need to

be finished. We don't know the details of which projects are going to come forward,

but generally speaking, I can say what B.C. Hydro is doing is looking to acquire about

3,000 megawatts of clean electricity by the end of the decade, 2028 to 2030.

R. Merrifield: This bill actually accelerates the time frame of 100 percent ZEV sales. Why wouldn't

we get those two time frames to come together to make sure that we have enough power

and that we haven't put legislation in place that requires ZEVs without having the

necessary infrastructure and electricity supplied?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Again, the way that the legislation is designed to ramp up the adoption of electric

vehicles, understanding that that's going to call on more power that's required, is

part of the planning process and taken into account in B.C. Hydro's planning processes.

B.C. Hydro is looking at a mix of near-term actions, other potential resources to

be able to supply that.

But I take the member's point clearly. Power needs to be supplied in time for massive

electrification across British Columbia, and certainly not just in electric vehicles,

as I know the member understands.

I don't think it's about specifically matching up timelines for EV targets and for

B.C. Hydro's call for power. Overall, it is to say that moving forward in the decades

to come, knowing that there will be power and that the proper planning is taking place

so that we'll be able to meet those needs of British Columbians with our clean electricity.

R. Merrifield: What is the cost of these additional power projects, and how will this be compensated?

Hon. J. Osborne: I can't give the member a specific answer to that because, of course, the call for

power hasn't happened yet, and we haven't seen any bids come in. Again, we're in the

design phase right now of that call. It is an open, competitive call, so that price

exploration will take place through the call.

It is important to note, I think, that the price of renewables like wind and solar

is coming down. I know we'll see that reflected in the responses that come to B.C.

Hydro through the call for power.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister.

Again, the minister is proving somewhat of the point. We don't have the actual costs

yet on these power projects that are required to meet the electrification goals. So

an acceleration of these goals seems somewhat premature, in that we don't know or

understand what happens if these power projects are astronomically expensive.

We've already gone down this train of needing to have the electricity. What happens

if we would have been better served by electrifying all of our homes instead of all

of our cars? Especially the light duty, which isn't the largest emitter, and heavy

duty, but we'll get into that later.

There are so many unknowns. As the minister aptly pointed out, the costs are coming

down, but they're not down yet. We don't have the innovation and technology to actually

deliver the most affordable electricity possible. We have seen escalations on costs

of projects, i.e., Site C, where it ballooned over 2½ times what it was originally

intended.

In these cases, why would we rush on one particular aspect that people literally demand

and need in order to get around in their daily lives and really hamstrung them in

terms of making their ends meet with more expensive vehicles, more expensive electricity,

or ones we don't even have an answer for yet because the technology isn't there and

the costs are not known? Why do we need to escalate further?

I'll turn my questions over to the member for Kootenay East after that.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you, Member. I think we might be straying a little bit away from the intent

of the bill here.

[4:45 p.m.]

Really, once again this is about B.C. Hydro and the planning processes, the projections

and the load demand forecast that B.C. Hydro uses through their integrated resource

planning process. It's a complex and comprehensive process that's designed to give

us the information we need to best be able to match the acquisition of new clean electricity

through things like the call for power coming in spring 2024 with what British Columbians

need to use.

Once again, the member makes the point that people are making that switch to electric

vehicles, and that will increase the demand on electricity. But we're also seeing

the demand coming from industry, which is why, for example, B.C. Hydro put out an

expression-of-interest process recently to look at the northwest corner of British

Columbia and what industry is saying that they need to electrify.

Businesses, people, industry are telling us over and over and over that they want

to be part of the climate solutions. They want to electrify their operations. We're

seeing, for example, that Artemis Blackwater Mine will be the lowest-emissions gold

mine in Canada, certainly, maybe in the world, because of the electrification of their

processes at the mine site.

So understanding what that demand is, is really important to be able to properly plan

moving forward in the future. It doesn't, perhaps, give the member the specifics that

she's looking for, and perhaps it's a topic we can canvass later in another venue

about the specifics of how B.C. Hydro undertakes that work.

The Chair: We are straying a little from the bill. However, that is the practice, to allow some

leeway at the beginning of a bill. So I'll just remind members if they can relate

it to the bill, that would be most appreciated.

T. Shypitka: Thanks, Chair, for the guidance on where we're heading with some of these questions.

I think they are exactly legitimate questions because this bill, Bill 39 that's in

front of us, has a lot of ramifications, not only just to the consumer but also to

the ratepayer. So that's what the member for Kelowna-Mission was talking about, and

that's on the ratepayer portion of it, and the infrastructure that's needed to support

the ambitious goals that this bill is setting forward.

When the IRP came out in 2020, I believe it was, it showed a surplus of power. Amazingly

enough, about four or five months ago that's been reversed, and now there's a call

for power. But it's also the placement of power and how we get power to where it needs

to go.

It's one thing to say we've got power. Through the standing offer program that was

cancelled and then maybe this new call for power through IPPs, we'll see some more

power come to the grid that will support these ambitious goals. But those are unknowns.

And as the member for Kelowna-Mission stated, that's exactly the intent of this bill.

There are a lot of unknowns with this bill.

So the placement of power. When we're talking about remote communities, plug-in power….

Some of those First Nations that were giving their concerns in the northern part of

Vancouver Island…. They need that infrastructure in place.

And let's be honest. Let's be frank here. Some of these projects that get put forward

now take years if not decades to get put through. This doesn't happen overnight.

We've got this intention coming forward in 2024 on the call for power. Then it goes

out to tender. Then it gets placed. Then you have to set up energy purchasing agreements

with IPPs. And this is coming from a government that chastised those IPPs, saying

that the energy purchasing agreements were too lucrative. So to meet our goals, if

we're putting the cart in front of the horse with what Bill 39 puts out, we may be

selling our soul with some of these EPAs just to reach our goals that's legislated

now.

It's very much part of what this bill is all about. It's the unintended consequences.

I said that at the very beginning of this committee stage, the unintended consequences,

and there is a ripple effect that goes through many things.

I'm thinking about the energy purchasing agreements, and that's going to cause some

hassles there too. I'm kind of wondering where I should go, because I don't want to

take it too much away from the context of the bill. I might leave it there.

[4:50 p.m.]

Does the minister understand that the call for power doesn't just automatically light

a switch and bring us the necessary power to the grid overnight? That's why we're

saying we need to be more realistic on our targets that we set with this bill. Going

even said 60 percent would be more realistic. Industry said 60 percent. Consumer groups,

such as BCBC, have said 60 percent. It's almost unanimous.

But the minister seems to always bring out two jurisdictions in North America, Quebec

and California, and forgets the other 95 percent of jurisdictions around North America.

Are we putting in the cart in front of the horse with infrastructure? How do we place

the power for remote communities that need to be on the grid to support these targets?

I guess that would be the question. How is the infrastructure going to roll out to

respond to remote communities?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The question was around support for remote communities in terms of infrastructure.

I'm just going to keep it high level. The member can ask for more details if he likes.

Around both support in terms of electricity generation and also enabling and helping

remote communities — Indigenous communities particularly, for example, through the

remote community energy strategy, which really supports Indigenous communities with

energy planning, with energy efficiency, with renewable energy projects, capacity-building,

all of that — there is $140 million that went to the New Relationship Trust, to the

B.C. Indigenous clean energy initiative.

I've spoken about the B.C. Hydro call for power in 2024. But the purpose of these

funds is to support Indigenous communities and smaller-scale electricity generation

projects. It's not, of course, just about generating electricity and having that infrastructure

and those electrons available to remote communities. It's about working with those

communities and all British Columbians.

If we're going to decarbonize, then we need to be able to look at energy efficiency,

look at load management, look at those short-term actions and resources that I was

speaking to with respect to B.C. Hydro's planning.

In addition, if, on the infrastructure side…. We haven't gone here yet, so maybe I'll

open it up around the infrastructure that's required to support people to charge their

vehicles. Of course, that's an important part of owning and operating your electric

vehicle.

B.C.'s electric highway is about 72 percent complete now. There is a commitment for

this to be complete in 2024. The idea here is to enable people living in all parts

of British Columbia to be able to drive their EVs on every highway and major road.

We're working with utilities, with other levels of government. We're working with

industry to meet this roadmap goal of having 10,000 public charging stations across

B.C. by 2030 but first completing the electric highway. To do that, we're prioritizing

the deployment of chargers into Indigenous communities and on those stretches of more

remote and rural highways where charging stations are not currently available.

Hopefully, that describes a number of the supports towards the infrastructure that

we know is required in remote communities.

T. Shypitka: Just as a side note, the electric highway…. I believe it was the Highway 3 mayors

that got the first part of that electric highway going in B.C. I could be wrong, but

I believe it was the Highway 3 mayors — that runs through my riding — that got the

initiative started a few years back. So just a little hats-off to them.

To put it in perspective, I think the minister mentioned something about capacity

that B.C. Hydro is looking at now, 3,000 megawatts. That's pretty substantial. When

you think about a project like Site C, the capacity for Site C is just over 1,000

megawatts. The entire grid, I believe, that Hydro produces every year…. Their capacity

is about 18,000 megawatts, so 3,000 megawatts represents about a 17 to 20 percent,

somewhere around there, increase that B.C. Hydro now needs to produce. Like I said

before, that doesn't happen overnight. Site C — how long did that take to produce

1,100 megawatts?

When we talk about independent power producers, we're not talking about ma-and-pa

run-of-river shops that are going to be plugging into the grid. We're talking some

fairly substantial power that's going to be required to fill these. And we haven't

even talked about hydrogen fuel cells yet, as far as ZEVs are concerned. To produce

hydrogen and hydrogen cells is vastly energy intensive.

These are exactly the points I made to not only this minister but ministers before

— that the capacity that we're going to need to conform to these aspirational goals….

We've got to take…. I mean, we're doing good. The minister said that. We're leading

the way. We're ahead of the curve. I just don't understand why we're pushing it past

the point of being sustainable for us here in B.C.

[5:00 p.m.]

And not to mention those new-car sales dealers that are going to have to deal with

market leakage going to Alberta. I live right on the boundary of Alberta and B.C.,

and I can almost guarantee, dollars to doughnuts, that when some of these targets

and some of the choice that the minister keeps talking about become more selective….

It's not the brand of cars anymore; it's the types of cars that you have to sell now.

It's probably going to leak to Alberta. I'm going to take a guess. I hope not.

With the goals…. With what the IRP is saying about 3,000 megawatts of capacity…. Can

the minister give me a timeline on when we could get those 3,000 megawatts online?

Hon. J. Osborne: First of all, I think it's fantastic that the member is so proud of the work that

his constituents, his local governments and people in the Kootenays have done in building

the electric highway. I agree fully with him. Hats off to them for the work they've

done. They've been really visionary, and I think they've pushed other parts of British

Columbia to be able to do the same.

[H. Yao in the chair.]

I think the member probably can understand. That sense of pride he feels in what his

constituents have been able to achieve is something that British Columbians feel about

our climate action plan and the accomplishments that we've had in seeing some of the

highest record rates in the adoption of zero-emission vehicles here in B.C. We really

want to be able to build off of that.

The member has asked a question about the timing, again, of the 3,000 megawatts. I'll

just provide the same answer that I did before, which is that B.C. Hydro, through

its updated IRP, has forecast that the 3,000 megawatts of energy should come online

by the end of this decade. The call for power, which will be issued in spring 2024….

It is looking towards that 2028, 2029, 2030 timeline for that power to come on.

R. Merrifield: What we are canvassing right now, between my colleague and myself, is just, actually,

the cost of vehicles and how they'll go up with the acceleration of the timeline in

this bill and the cost of the infrastructure that's required. As the minister aptly

pointed out, there's a lot of electrification needs. It's not just in the ZEVs. It's

also within industry. It's also within our housing and other aspects of our living

and our emissions.

I think it's an interesting case study, which was done by Fortis, on the electrification

needs of the city of Kelowna, just the actual square footprint of the city. It goes

through and talks through the electrification needs all the way to 2050, 2040 and

The results of the Kelowna electrification case study showed that at 100 percent of

electrification, at peak demand…. In 2040, it would more than triple, from 472 megawatts

to 1,429 megawatts, resulting in a high-level estimate of between $2.6 billion and

$3.4 billion in capital expenditures on the electric distribution and transmission

system.

That's just on 1,429 megawatts. If we're looking at 3,000 megawatts and what would

be required in terms of the capital costs…. We're looking at an exorbitant amount

of dollars spent. Obviously, dollars over time is a little bit easier for the taxpayer

than dollars all at once, as it were.

If we use that as an example of what would be required in terms of infrastructure

upgrades, etc.… Could the minister give a broad range of what the expectation is in

terms of the infrastructure costs to accelerate the electrification of vehicles?

[5:05 p.m. - 5:10 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

To the member's question around costs…. First, actually, before I get into that, I

want to correct myself. I think in our discussion about megawatts and about energy

and capacity, we're getting some things mixed up. Certainly, I did get mixed up in

saying that the call for power was 3,000 megawatts. What I should have said is gigawatt-hours.

It's a measure of energy. I want to be clear on that.

Back to costs. I'm going to just start higher level, again, with B.C. Hydro's IRP,

their integrated resource plan, a planning process, really, to plan for the lowest

cost resources to meet the forecasted demand. That contains a cost curve for different

resource options. Of course, first focusing on demand-side measures like energy efficiency

measures, energy efficiency — the cheapest energy we use is the energy we never use

— and moving into supply-side options.

I'd just make the note, again, about the cost of that supply — like renewables, like

solar and wind — and how those costs are coming down.

For the sixth year in a row, B.C. Hydro has capped their rates below the cumulative

price of inflation. I think that's important to point out. We need low-cost options

to meet the increased demand that we're going to be seeing. We know that British Columbians

are looking for cost savings. We talk a lot about affordability in the House, of course,

for very good reason.

In this move towards more zero-emission vehicles…. Of course, the avoided costs of

maintenance and the avoided costs of gasoline are all things that contribute to a

net benefit for British Columbians.

Just out of interest, the member might be interested to know that in Quebec, where

there are…. There is a similar energy mix and cost of energy as British Columbia.

They've looked at their zero-emission vehicle targets and estimated a net benefit,

between 2025 and 2035, to the Québécois people of $7 billion.

The point being, taken all together…. This is a reduced cost for British Columbians

and something we know is incredibly important.

R. Merrifield: That was a little bit of strange math there.

I would agree that the least expensive electricity is the electricity we don't use,

but we're talking about accelerating the time frame and adding more electric vehicles.

We're not talking about the electricity that we don't use. We're talking about the

electricity that we do use.

We are going to need more power. That has been established. It seems to be a surprise

to B.C. Hydro, but it has been established that we are going to need more power, a

considerable amount more power. Most of the experts agree on that.

The minister has just used a calculation based on the overall usage. Car and Driver actually put out a study back in 2022 that asserted that if you include…. If you

added the cost of depreciation to both ICE and ZEVs, ZEVs are actually far more expensive

than the price of an ICE vehicle. So I would disagree a little bit that you could

just add back all of the saved oil and gas that you'd be paying for.

The other thing that I think we need to be very cautious of is…. As there is more

demand for something that is in short supply like electricity, the cost goes up. Having

lived in southern California, having lived in California for many, many years, I can

tell you. The price of electricity is very expensive in California. When they have

gone to accelerated time frames, they've experienced things like brownouts because

they don't have enough electricity yet for all of the electrification goals to lower

those emissions.

I think it's a little bit…. I mean, maybe just…. I won't even say "naive." But to

say that we're actually going to be saving money and that we're going to have billions

of dollars in savings, I think, is simply not correct information.

I'm going to move now into just talking about some of the rebates. I do see, in the

interest of time…. I could spend so much time on all of this information, in terms

of the electrification goals.

What data does the minister have that shows the percentage of ZEV owners across various

income levels? Specifically, does the minister have data that shows the percentage

of ZEV owners with a household income of $80,000 or less? Are there certain thresholds

that have been monitored?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: We don't have the specific data that the member is seeking today at our fingertips,

but we will get it to her.

Of course, we have the data since we began income testing for the incentives. But

we're going to have to follow up with her on the specifics.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister.

Is it possible for the minister to provide the different aspects of the income testing

and the rebates that were achieved at each of the different levels?

The minister indicated that she had the information based on the means testing that

was done and the different rebates that were offered at different levels of income.

Is that possible to actually get?

Hon. J. Osborne: If I understand correctly, I'll just read this. The rebates that are based on income

right now, of course, are based on a sliding scale. Individuals with incomes less

than $80,000 can receive the full rebate amount up to $4,000. Individuals with incomes

between $80,000 and $100,000 are eligible for rebates ranging from $500 to $2,000

depending on the income level and the vehicle type. I don't have those income levels

or vehicle types here with me.

Individuals, of course, who have an income of more than $100,000 are not eligible

to receive the rebates.

We'll get the data that we have, and we'll be able to provide that to the member.

R. Merrifield: Thank you. That was exactly what I was asking for. Just the data that is available

–– if you could provide that for me, that would be great.

Does the minister have information on the inventory and what inventory will be available

to British Columbians in the specific categories?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: With respect to inventories, inventories are actually business confidential, so we

don't get or have that information. But because an annual report is produced with

makes and models that are sold, that is available for anybody. It's available publicly.

I'll also note that we do have third-party forecasts for sales, and that's for ICE

and for ZEV sales, which a person can purchase. But the province has a data licence

with that, so it's not something that's publicly available from the province.

R. Merrifield: Will the government continue to add a rebate or offer a rebate?

Hon. J. Osborne: The rebates or incentives are absolutely fundamental to achieving the market transformation

that we seek in building market share and enabling compliance for automakers and suppliers.

There are no plans at this time to change or eliminate the rebates.

I'll add, again, although I said previously that the incentives are offered through

B.C. Hydro sales of low-carbon fuel standard credits, these are not incentives that

are being provided by taxpayer dollars, but instead through the sale of LCFS credits.

R. Merrifield: For this transformation…. I'm going to go through some numbers, and I'll try and be

as specific as I possibly can.

Currently there are 3.7 million vehicles that are registered in B.C. We're looking

at 200,000 new ones, if I just go rough numbers. I mean, it kind of fluctuates a little

bit — 194,000, 192,000, 203,000 — but let's just call it 200,000 a year of new vehicles.

We're looking to accelerate the timelines, so that we get 200,000 per year of 100

percent ZEVs. Really, if you look at 200,000 of 3.7 million to fully electrify the

light-duty vehicle fleet, we're looking at 18.5 years, if you go new vehicles, new

vehicles.

[5:25 p.m.]

Now that's a gross oversimplification that I recognize, because there are going to

be used ones and for sale. But I am also assuming that we save all 100 percent of

those ZEVs and don't need anything new. So we're looking at 18.5 years to get to that

100 percent goal.

The minister has just confirmed that there are no plans to eliminate the rebates.

If we look at 200,000 ZEVs and if we assume that maybe 80 percent of them are not

within the 1 percent of British Columbians who make more than $100,000, you're looking,

at on average, let's call it $3,000 per vehicle on that, so by my estimations, at

200,000, it is about $600 million per year.

Is that what the minister is estimating it's going to cost B.C. Hydro every single

year to offer the rebates for 200,000 vehicles on an accelerated time frame for 18.5

years?

Hon. J. Osborne: As I said before, the rebates, the incentives, the income qualified incentives are

fundamental to achieving this market transformation. We are seeing continued growth

there. The percentage of total vehicles out on the road, of course, is very, very

low right now. We're working to change that, and this act is an important part of

it.

As in any market transformation exercise, at some point price parity will be reached

between ZEVs and ICE vehicles, and that's the time to pull back or ask yourself if

incentives are really required at that point. Typically, they are not. Fine-tuning

a program over time…. Of course, this is going to be the purview of future governments.

There's an election or two between now and 2035, certainly.

With respect to the member's math, I don't think that's accurate. Certainly, it's

not the intention to provide incentives through or past 2035. I won't accept the math,

perhaps. I will say again that there are no plans right now as we are in this market

transformation exercise. We have not yet achieved price parity.

It's very important for British Columbians who want to make the switch, who can do

it, to have the support to do so. So we're going to continue with the rebates for

the foreseeable future.

[5:30 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Well, I'm very glad to hear that the minister has acknowledged that ZEVs actually

cost more, that that's why there is a rebate in place, which is why we've been advocating

to not accelerate those timelines until that parity is reached, until we can actually

see that ZEVs are no longer more expensive.

I'll also draw the minister's attention to the fact that the NDP pretty much admitted

that ZEVs are more expensive when they raised the luxury tax threshold from $55,000

to $75,000 on ZEVs. Obviously, they didn't want to charge a luxury tax on an item….

They're still charging it for ICE vehicles, but we won't even talk about that. We

won't get into that.

Even if I take the minister's rebuttal on the cost of this and only go to 2035, when

we reach 100 percent…. Let's hope that we hit parity at that point. With the acceleration

of this timeline and with the continual offering of a rebate, are we saying that by

2035, we'll have only reached one third of the vehicles that are on the road at that

time?

I'll just use a third of my numbers and say that to address a third of the light-duty

vehicles, of 8.6 megatonnes of emissions every year, we're going to basically spend

$720 million per megatonne in rebates.

This does not include infrastructure costs to actually get to those electrification

goals. This does not include the cost of electricity and what that's going to move

to or get to. It does not include the actual cost of an electric vehicle or the differential

on the cost of an electric vehicle, because they are more expensive than ICE vehicles.

With all due respect, I'm going to ask the minister again: how does the minister believe

that this bill will actually result in less expensive vehicles for British Columbians?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Osborne: Chair, I'm actually going to implore you to maybe examine the relevance of this line

of questioning and ask how it relates specifically to the legislation that's before

us.

I really do want to answer questions about the bill, and I just would appreciate some

guidance for all of us.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, for the reminder.

I do want to remind all members that we are on clause 1 on Bill 39, and we ask all

members to keep the questions relevant to the bill, please. Thank you.

R. Merrifield: Absolutely. This is entirely relevant to this bill. We are talking about a bill that

is accelerating the time frames of electric vehicles. My question is: why? Why would

we accelerate the timeline of the vehicles?

This whole bill…. What it does is accelerate the timelines. The minister in her second

reading, which I believe was really relevant to the bill, said that "it is going to

make ZEVs more affordable and accessible for all British Columbians." I've just canvassed,

through the course of the data and information that's available to us, exactly how

many costs it will take to come up with these electrification goals in the bill.

Again, how does the minister believe that acceleration of the timelines in the bill

will actually result in more, and I quote the minister again, "accessible and affordable

ZEVs for all British Columbians"?

Hon. J. Osborne: Well, the member and I may disagree on the math.

I'll just go back to an answer I provided before, around how ZEV mandates provide

signals to automakers that B.C. is moving in the direction of zero-emission vehicles.

Why are we doing this? We're doing this because we are committed to meeting our climate

action targets. We're committed to decarbonizing the province's transportation sector,

through ZEVs and through GHG emission standards, through purchase incentives, through

investments in charging infrastructure.

Increasing the choice and access for British Columbians to these cars, while supporting

the clean transportation industry with better coordination and infrastructure and

in research and economic development and training, is an important goal for this government.

[5:35 p.m.]

Again, the ZEV mandate sends signals to automakers that B.C. is moving in this direction.

It is a global trend. In response to those global mandates, manufacturers are responding

through their production of these vehicles to be able to provide price points in response

to consumers and what consumers are asking for. We've cited a few examples, I think,

both the member and I, around different automakers and what they're doing to respond

to those price points.

We know that this is the way the global auto industry is moving, and we want to capture

that and be a part of it to meet those climate action goals. We want to make sure

that those cars are delivered here to British Columbia, so to do that we use ZEV mandates.

Again, there are over 40 vehicles that are available, different models that are available

to people right now. The member is absolutely correct. I certainly would never deny

that there's not price parity yet. There's a difference between the cost of a ZEV

and an ICE car. And that's why using the income-tested means to provide incentives

for people is an important part of the market transformation that we're trying to

achieve.

Prices, given the fluctuation — we've talked about fluctuation in the auto industry

as well — are coming down, and parity is expected by the end of the decade. This is

really important work that we're doing. I'm really proud of the government's record

in setting up these standards and being proud that we are one of the leaders in North

America. I don't think that's anything to be sorry for or to shy away from.

We know that British Columbians want to drive less-polluting vehicles. They are showing

us with record rates of adoption that over one in five cars being purchased today

are zero-emission vehicles. So that's the response British Columbians are expecting

of us.

We've planned for these targets. We've canvassed a number of subjects around meeting

the electrical demand for that, meeting the infrastructure demand for that. I continue

to be here to answer your questions on the bill.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer to the question.

I think that that was maybe a more direct answer in that it's based on emissions lowering,

which we've also canvassed in terms of…. We're downloading the production of the vehicle

to someone else. They can count those targets and those emissions, and we'll just

benefit from the running of the vehicle, which is, I would argue, maybe not the best,

but that's neither here nor there. It's an ideology, and it's a purpose in terms of

lowering emissions.

My curiosity comes around how much this is going to cost. How much is it going to

cost a very burdened British Columbian? While I also laud all of those who have adapted

and have gone out and bought electric vehicles, I would argue that the vast majority

of those that I see on the street today are expensive vehicles and are probably owned

by those that are wealthy enough to be able to afford them. When I think about the

young professional starting out or some of the workers that I have on job sites or

the single mom, they're not able to afford those.

When I think about those that live in rural and remote communities, when I think about

some of the different communities that I've travelled to around British Columbia,

they're powering their electric vehicle chargers and that infrastructure that we canvassed

already and that we will continue to canvass throughout this bill with diesel. We

don't have it available to us yet.

This acceleration of time frame in this bill seems somewhat, I would say, premature.

I don't think that British Columbians right now, being the most expensive jurisdiction

in all of Canada, can afford for us to be a leader in this particular way, all agreeing

on the targets that were already set in the 2019 bill.

This acceleration is a further burden that does not help the cost of living and will

actually burden us, my fear is, beyond the point of wanting those emissions lowered.

I'm going to turn it over to my colleague from Kootenay East, who has a question here.

[5:40 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Thank you, once again, to the minister for answering these questions. They're important

ones. Cost is, obviously, an important question.

I'll stick to what the minister wants to answer, and that's on the income-tested means.

I believe, with new ZEV sales…. The minister can confirm this. It's a $4,000 rebate

if you make under $80,000, it's a $2,000 rebate between $80,000 and $90,000, and it's

a $1,000 rebate between $90,000 and $100,000.

Now, there are, obviously, some federal rebates they can apply for as well. But as

far as British Columbia is concerned, and the minister, through her ministry, those

are the rebates available for new car sales, I believe. Can she confirm that?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes.

T. Shypitka: The minister gave a quick yes. That's great.

It's just on the individual, not the family. I'm concerned a little bit. My thinking

is this. For the individual that wants to go buy a vehicle and makes $80,000 a year,

they can get $4,000. But for the family, where one of the spouses or one of the caregivers

stays at home…. The one spouse is out earning the dollars for the family of four.

We know daycare comes at a premium these days and is not always there. The one spouse

will look after the children, while the main financial provider is out there. He makes,

maybe, $101,000. He doesn't get any rebate.

Can the minister square that circle on how this is fair for families with one income

earner? They may be at a disadvantage to a single person that has no dependents and

makes considerably less.

[5:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister, before you answer your questions, I would like to remind the members that

while it has been the practice to allow leeway on clause 1 to ask a broad range of

questions, the member may want to consider if some of the questions may be better

suited for later clauses.

I just want to put the reminder out there.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the reminder there.

I think I see where the member for Kootenay East is going. I want to answer the question,

maybe more generally, to say that designing any income-tested rebate program needs

to be done carefully and needs to consider a number of factors in setting the income

levels, for example, and the impacts on people and on families.

The member raises some interesting cases. It's important to minimize the risk of somebody

gaming the system, if you will, or unfairly receiving more rebate than they should.

The program has been in the market for one year now. So it is appropriate, of course,

to review the program, and we'll take an evidence-based approach to doing that, to

being able to examine and modify the program as needed.

If the member wants to provide more feedback based on cases he knows, I'd be very

happy to receive that.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister.

Well, it's a little concerning because these are the thoughts that need to be put

in place when legislation comes out and bills like this are presented.

It's not inconceivable for a large family, when we're talking about getting a new

family wagon to put the kids in, that those large families usually have a care provider.

One of the spouses is usually at home with the children of large families. And the

new vehicle is what you need to ensure the safety of those children.

I know that when me and my wife got an SUV, we drove a beater around for quite a few

years until we got our kids, and then we called them "precious cargo."That was our

term that we used, and that was the rationale that we used to get a newer vehicle.

We knew that, especially living where we live, the rural roads aren't quite as dependable

as they may be on the Lower Mainland, with snow and ice conditions and mountain ranges

that we have to go through every day. When we talk about rebates and how they affect

the affordability of families, large families, you would think that the rebates would

identify with that, that it would be based on the family income or not.

It appears with this legislation, the rebates that we see associated with ZEVs aren't

addressing those concerns with larger families. I guess the question to the minister

is: does she feel that that needs to be addressed?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I just want to note the bill is not addressing

rebates. The bill addresses the ZEV targets, and the rebate and the design of the

incentive program is separate policy undertaken by government.

[5:50 p.m.]

As I said, it's important to be sensitive to a number of different parameters — and

I think the member is raising several of those — and designing a rebate program to

be fair and effective. To that end, of course, as I said, we take an evidence-based

approach to examining the results of the program and ensuring that it's resulting

in those intended outcomes that we have. That's work that we'll do.

I thank the member for his concerns.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister.

In clause 1, what's the significance of amending the definition of "consumer sale"?

Hon. J. Osborne:

Section 1. The purpose of this legislative change is to repeal and replace the definition

of "consumer sale" and "supplier" and to add new

definitions for "forecast report,"

"new" and "supply" in

section 1 of the act.

The amendments to

section 1, these

definitions, are necessary to align with the amendments

that are proposed to

part 3 of the act to transition from issuing debits and credits

on consumer sales of vehicles to determining debits, based on the supply of vehicles

for consumer sale, and then determining ZEV credits, based on the supply and registration

of the vehicle in B.C.

There are a few other things in there. That's not what the member touched on, so I

won't go any further.

R. Merrifield: The consumer sale is to actually shift what is specified as…. Are we changing the

actual credits and the actual definition of what is considered a sale or just to whom

it's being sold?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: This is how the compliance requirement is calculated. Currently that is on the sale

of the vehicle to the customer.

Some of the feedback we received from industry is that calculating that on the wholesale

sale is less burdensome. It's easier to do. It's easier for reporting and planning.

The intent, of course, remains the same. This is a shift that is based on feedback

from industry. That's around determining debits.

The other part of this is determining credits and shifting to basing that on the supply

and registration of a vehicle in B.C. It's not just a vehicle that is sold in B.C.,

but it is registered in B.C. That's to ensure that the benefit of this remains in

British Columbia.

A car isn't brought into British Columbia from somewhere else and then exported or

driven across the border. Another jurisdiction gets the benefit of the lower emissions,

but British Columbia does not.

R. Merrifield: Okay. I'm just trying to clarify. Forgive me for being daft. I guess it's the end

of the day.

The consumer sale is now the sale to the lot or once the car is sold to the wholesaler

or the dealership. That's for the debit. The credit is upon registration in B.C. Okay.

I'm seeing a nod. Just for the record, the minister is nodding.

Okay. How would that then…? Is there a possibility of a dealer or, let's say, a manufacturer,

potentially, loading the lot right before their year-end cutoff in an effort to try

and make sure that they have enough vehicles on the lot but not actually, then, achieving

the end sale, just loading the lot full?

Hon. J. Osborne: Interesting question. The answer is no. The reason is….

The dealer will only get the credit once the car is supplied and registered. It has

to be sold and registered. You might load the lot and have the car sitting there,

but you do not get the credit until you actually have the vehicle sold and registered

here in British Columbia.

R. Merrifield: Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

What's the purpose of the debit?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Okay, let's see how well I can explain this. I appreciate that the whole framework

and the compliance framework and debits and credits are…. It took me a while to wrap

my head around it too.

The debits — think of that as the compliance requirement. It is the obligation to

meet the targets. As each car is sold and registered in British Columbia, a credit

is issued. At the end of a compliance period, the credits are measured against the

debits, and then we'll see where…. If you've sold more cars than you needed to, then

you have an abundance of credits. If you've sold less cars than you should have, then

you'll be in a deficit or have debits. I hope that helps.

R. Merrifield: No, not so much. Okay, the debits, then, are all of the cars coming onto the lot,

whether they're ICE or ZEV, or are just the ZEV vehicles? The credits I understand

as, like, where it's registered as the sale. That's where the credit happens. But

the credits won't exceed the debits because the debits are the total that was delivered

to the lot. Wouldn't the debits and the credits…? Aren't they supposed to match?

If they are supposed to match, then what happens if suddenly a dealership is left

with a ton of debits — i.e., they've received them on the lot but nobody is buying

them, which is through no fault of their own? Perhaps they were just going through

a dry spell, or we're in an economic recession so people are not buying vehicles to

the same extent. Suddenly the credit wouldn't be a testament of their performance

but rather simply a symptom of the market.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: I'm going to try this again. I think we have to get away from thinking about the car

lot. Let's think about the supplier, like Ford, Tesla, GM or VW, whoever it is — the

suppliers.

Each of these suppliers has a compliance requirement. This is also set out in regulation,

not actually in the act, but the debits are the compliance ratio multiplied by the

total number of vehicles sold, ICE plus ZEV, resulting in a proportion that are the

debits. Then each time a vehicle — a Ford, a VW or a Tesla — is sold and registered

in British Columbia, a credit is issued.

Then at the end of the compliance period for those different suppliers, we'll compare

the credits versus the debits. Is that better?

T. Shypitka: Thanks for this. This is the part of the bill that I was looking forward to the most

— not. Anyways, it is an interesting conversation. Let me get this straight. The member

for Kelowna-Mission suggested that — how am I going to put this now? — at the end

of the compliance period, when you marry the debits and the credits, the number of

vehicles that were brought in under a compliance ratio to the dealership — those are

debited to the account.

When those are registered and sold, they're credited, and they essentially neutralize

each other, one for one. What would happen, as the member said, if the dealer brought

in 100 vehicles at the end of the compliance period? He would have a large debit to

his compliance report. He doesn't have time to sell those vehicles, to get the credit

portion to make him compliant.

Is this supposed to be…? It's not a perfect solution, but then of course when he goes

into the next compliance period, he has a surplus of vehicles that he doesn't have

to bring in. So those credits will give him more credits than what he brought in.

I don't know if the minister is understanding what I'm saying here, but it's kind

of a give-and-take situation, in between compliance periods, to what you have, what

you sell, and what you brought in. Is that close to what I'm understanding?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, it is getting late in the day. It makes it harder to explain the technical background

behind this.

To the member for Kootenay East, no, not exactly.

Let's move away from dealers. Dealers are not regulated; this is about suppliers.

We'll use Ford as an example. Ford wants to bring in a certain number of internal

combustion–engine vehicles into British Columbia. The total number of vehicles that

Ford brings in — ZEVs and ICE — multiplied by the compliance ratio determines the

amount of debits. As those ZEVs are sold and registered, the credits are applied against

the debits.

If Ford brings in extra ZEVs and they do happen to end up sitting on lots, that's

great. That's great for British Columbians, because then the car is there and ready,

and people can buy it right away. It doesn't play a factor into the way that the compliance

ratios work, and the debit-and-credit system, as to whether there's a preload each

year of cars available on lots. That's not part of the legislation and the regulation.

R. Merrifield: I am understanding the whole concept of wholesale. Thanks for drawing attention to

the actual manufacturers — Honda or Ford. We're looking at everything that Honda or

Ford brings in for a full year, multiplying it by the compliance ratio. Then when

it gets registered, that is the credit that gets issued back.

There is a way, though, that car manufacturers might attempt to meet their targets

and, in doing so, might actually do what happened during COVID: there weren't enough

cars supplied and cars overall. There was the chip shortage, there just were not enough

cars available, and what happened was that the prices escalated.

In an attempt to still make money, the car manufacturers — not the dealers themselves,

but the car manufacturers — with very short supply, ended up increasing the value

of all of the vehicles that were sold. We saw a very steep escalation in the price

of vehicles that were sold. If they are not able to meet their compliance targets,

and if they see that they're not making it, they could hold back on shipping vehicles

altogether.

Let's use Toyota as an example. If Toyota decides, "We're not meeting our compliance.

In order to meet our compliance, for November and December, we're not shipping out

any new vehicles," that ratio gets applied to a smaller number of total vehicles.

This makes their sales of ZEVs still good, percentage-wise, but in the absolute, not

able to supply to the market.

Is this a concern for the minister — a shrinking supply overall, because there aren't

enough vehicles to meet the demand or the ratio?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

I'll say that this is not a significant concern right now. Because we are so far ahead

of our targets, manufacturers and suppliers are sitting on a bank of credits, effectively.

This is a positive thing for them. Should supply chains impact their ability to bring

cars into British Columbia, they don't need to worry so much, because they've got

a bit of a buffer built in there with that supply chain bank.

Will they try to, overall, reduce their liability to meeting our targets? I would

ask: what is in it for them, in terms of the profitability of their company? If one

manufacturer has decided that they're not able to meet the ZEV targets, and they decided

that as a result of that, they're going to bring fewer cars into British Columbia,

there are many other manufacturers that are increasing their supply into Br