Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section C

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Wednesday, November

8, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 39 — ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

C) on Bill 39; S. Chant in the chair.

The committee met at 2:52 p.m.

The Chair: Okay. Good afternoon, Members.

I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 39, Zero-Emission Vehicles Amendment Act, 2023,

to order. We are on clause 1.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On clause 5.

R. Merrifield: A really simple question, actually. The specific motor vehicle has been changed to

a gross vehicle weight of 3,856 kilograms or less. Why?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you very much, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

Overall, this is about dealing with class 2A and class 2B vehicles. It's a change

that's needed to increase the vehicles regulated under the act to include vehicles

with a gross vehicle weight rating of 3,856 kilograms to 4,536 kilograms. Vehicles

with a gross vehicle rating in that weight range are also called class 2B vehicles.

They're light- to medium-duty vehicles.

[2:55 p.m.]

There are, for example, some trim levels of the Ford F-150 that fall into the class

2A category, below 3,856 kilos, while some trim levels of the F-150 fall into the

class 2B category, which is the new F-150, all-electric Lightning.

What this is doing is capturing 2B-class vehicles to regulate a class of trucks and

SUVs that are predominantly, about 60 percent, used as passenger vehicles in B.C.

It's going to enable suppliers to claim credits for their class 2B ZEVs, like I just

described — the heavier trim levels of the Ford F-150 Lightning. Even though the amendments

that capture the 2B vehicles primarily take place in the ZEV regulation, the definition

is needed in this

section of the act to change the ZEV targets, the ZEV reporting

and the ZEV ban to include class 2B vehicles.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

R. Merrifield: Could the minister just describe why the government is accelerating the ZEV targets,

as located in clause 6?

Hon. J. Osborne: I'm going to answer this question. It's going to be very similar to the questions

that I answered yesterday. So I would propose to answer this once and then not again.

This, again, is about setting ZEV mandates to send signals to automakers that British

Columbia is moving towards zero-emission vehicles. In response to that global trend

that we are seeing — the auto industry as a whole, across the globe, moving towards

zero-emission vehicles — the legislation ensures that we get a piece of that supply.

So it ensures that British Columbians get better access and a choice of models at

a variety of prices.

We do have the highest ZEV adoption rates in the country right now, almost 22 percent.

We're ahead of Canada's 2026 target. As I explained yesterday, we're four years ahead

of our existing targets. Now, the demand is high here in B.C., and that is in part

for the emissions benefits. It's in part for affordability benefits over the lifetime

of owning the vehicle and the operating and maintenance expenses, as I explained yesterday.

These amendments align with Canada's end goal of reaching 100 percent ZEVs by 2035.

The amendment to 26 percent ZEV sales by 2026 recognizes that sales in B.C. are already

ahead of Canada's target, ahead of our own. Setting the 2026 target at 26 percent

ensures that automakers continue to supply the increasing amount of ZEVs to B.C. at

affordable prices, meeting the consumer demand that we see here.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister. I will try not to be too repetitive. I'm not going to canvass

all the way through those questions again. But I will just ask the question: why wouldn't

we continue to use carrots rather than sticks?

As the minister aptly pointed out as we were canvassing questions in clause 1, the

whole ratio aspect will be changed based on the percentages. With the market choosing

to make those positive choices for our environment, they won't have as much time to

earn enough credits to continue on that transition.

[3:00 p.m.]

I'd love to see us continue to use aspects of incentives, or the rebate program that

we've seen is very successful, to look at things like the infrastructure and really

focus on making sure that we have an electric grid that has enough supply and the

infrastructure with enough chargers so that people have that confidence in making

that purchase of a ZEV, and really allowing the market to catch up.

I really feel like we're on a little bit of a fast track to nowhere for the affordability

vehicles. I fear that by forcing automakers' hands, we're risking the extinction of

affordable vehicles.

As I was canvassing on the ratio…. My fear is that automakers, because the lower-priced

vehicles are not as profitable, may rely on volume in order to make the necessary

profits for those. Even in ICE vehicles, I'm fearful that we see automakers choosing

to restrict the supply and only going to higher-end vehicles, thus making life continually

less affordable for British Columbians.

We've heard this warning already. Dave Adams, who is the head of the Global Automakers

of Canada, warns us to bid farewell to the budget-friendly compact car. I'll read

a quote from him. "These mandates mean that they can sell fewer and fewer ICE vehicles.

So they're going to scrap the least profitable ones, which tend to be the most affordable

ones."

We've already seen the edging-up as mandates have come in. Even as Canada has talked

about mandates, we've seen the average price of these new vehicles edge upwards to

an all-time high, up 18 percent year over year, according to Trader Corp.'s AutoTrader , which looks at thousands and thousands of listings.

Numbers don't lie. When I was looking into and researching this, not one country that's

leading in ZEV adoption has a sales mandate for ZEV cars in place. Why do we need

to be the first? These are the leaders. I canvassed the ones that are doing the best

job in adoption.

I look at our automakers. They've already slashed their emissions by 29 percent. That

should be lauded, in terms of ICE vehicles. We should see the manufacturing of these

vehicles to be as important as the running of these vehicles.

If we look at what the automakers have already been able to achieve in terms of lowering

those emissions, I don't understand why we would want to impose stricter British Columbia–only

mandates. I think it's overkill, and it threatens to limit our options and raise prices,

because we simply don't have the supply chain yet. I say "yet," because I think that

we're all on the same page, in the hope that we one day will have those supply chains.

In terms of the spiralling battery costs…. You know, we face inflation. Consumers

are hit from all sides. In a time where we're in a technical recession, I think we

need to just hit "pause" on this and say: "Why wouldn't we just align with the federal

guidelines?"

To that effect, I'm going to propose to the minister an amendment to the bill. I would

like to move:

[ CLAUSE 6 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown

Section 7 is amended

(

a) by striking out “ new light-duty motor vehicles ” wherever it appears and substituting “ specified motor vehicles ”,

(

b) in paragraph (

a) by striking out “ 2025 ” and substituting “ 2026 ” and by striking out “ 10% ” and substituting “ 26% 20% ”,

(

c) in paragraph (

b) by striking out “ 30% ” and substituting “ 90% 60% ”, and

(

d) in paragraph (

c) by striking out “ 2040 ” and substituting “ 2035 ”. ]

Basically, it aligns with the federal guidelines. It keeps us in lockstep with a very

large ZEV mandate program, which is a federal one. It allows all the automakers to

maintain pace as we were and to really see this be as successful as we possibly can

make it.

On the amendment.

The Chair: The committee will now take a recess while the amendment is reviewed and distributed.

The committee recessed from 3:04 p.m. to 3:12 p.m.

[S. Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, I call this committee back to order.

Members, we have an amendment to clause 6.

[ CLAUSE 6 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown

Section 7 is amended

(

a) by striking out “ new light-duty motor vehicles ” wherever it appears and substituting “ specified motor vehicles ”,

(

b) in paragraph (

a) by striking out “ 2025 ” and substituting “ 2026 ” and by striking out “ 10% ” and substituting “ 26% 20% ”,

(

c) in paragraph (

b) by striking out “ 30% ” and substituting “ 90% 60% ”, and

(

d) in paragraph (

c) by striking out “ 2040 ” and substituting “ 2035 ”. ]

On the amendment.

P. Milobar: I'll be fairly brief with my comments on the amendment. Really, I would echo what

my colleague has said around better aligning with where we're seeing rules heading

federally, because the reality is, although British Columbia is considered one of

the larger provinces in Canada, in terms of what really will drive the sales, the

Quebec and the Ontario market and things of that nature will drive a much larger portion

of where we see the shift with manufacturing.

By shifting from 26 percent to 20 percent in 2026 and by substituting 90 percent for

60 percent, what we're saying basically is that it gives that flexibility. If the

market is willing to advance ahead of those, there's nothing in this amendment that

would prevent that from happening. But it provides better flexibility for the market,

depending on what may be happening on supply chain issues, with the overall economy.

We're already seeing manufacturers rethinking some of their retooling and timelines

across North America in regards to the electrical vehicle fleet changeover. So this

would provide that little bit of extra flexibility that they would need to still achieve

goals but recognize that times can change quickly and are outside of their control

or any government's, especially provincial government's, control in terms of those

market shares.

This is really what this amendment is meant to do — to not be punitive if those outside

forces take effect while still making the shift over to the electric vehicle fleet

within British Columbia, and recognizing that that then ties it back into more of

a national issue and what's going on with markets and purchasing power of the public

as well as supply issues.

[3:15 p.m.]

I don't see the harm in providing that flexibility. As I say, if automakers and retailers

are able to exceed the thresholds and the numbers, as we've already seen on some years

that they do, that's a good thing, and they're actually able to do that.

But there's only so much market push that a government the size of the province of

British Columbia can truly enact. We are not California. The California emission standard

came in, and that changed all of North America. But the California market is the size

of all of Canada. In fact, it's larger than all of Canada. That is a big difference

in British Columbia trying to emulate California and the realities in the economies

of the world, the economic drivers California can bring to bear when they start to

change laws and emission standards and things of that nature.

I think this better reflects our actual size within that overall North American economy

and market. It better reflects the flexibility that automakers will need to make this

adjustment, in conjunction with the public, to better meet the demands, given what

might happen between now and 2026 and 2030 and 2035 with the overall economy.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Prince George–Valemount.

S. Bond: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and good afternoon.

I wanted to take just a few minutes, first of all, to reflect on the conversation

that has taken place here. I very much appreciate the dialogue and the discussion

and, in particular, my colleagues who have asked some incredibly important questions.

The targets that have been put in place have been described as ambitious. What I want

to make sure is that they're also realistic.

If you look at the work that Canada has done…. One would assume that the province

of British Columbia would want to find themselves in alignment with Canada. What's

really interesting is that when you look at the work that was done federally and you

read the materials that they provided, they made it very clear that the regulations

that they put in place followed extensive engagement with stakeholders. There was

a phased-in approach that allowed for "a gradual and orderly transition to a 100 percent

zero-emission future, as recommended by many stakeholders."

Here we have a situation where British Columbia is out of step. The minister has described

that as because we're ahead of the curve.

There were some very significant issues raised by the federal government in response

to stakeholder input. They made it clear….

Automakers reflect and absolutely understand that the transition to electric vehicles

is underway. They know that. In fact, many of them have set their own ZEV targets.

That's an important thing to consider.

If you look at Statistics Canada, you can look at the percentage. They've increased

but not dramatically. They are certainly moving in the right direction.

I think this is a reasonable amendment. If we exceed the target, so be it. But for

government to arbitrarily choose the percentages that they put in legislation…. Ninety

percent? I think all of us would recognize that that would be fabulous, when we think

about the stretch targets that have been put in place, but there is a lot of work

to do.

One of the critical factors that the Canadian government pointed out was the fact

that there are still a lot of people who don't even know what a ZEV is. Now, we may

be ahead of the curve in British Columbia. In fact, the federal government and many

organizations are putting in place initiatives to increase awareness, knowledge and

public confidence. It was interesting. They have education and awareness projects.

In fact, they had funding calls to put those particular programs in place.

One of the things that the Canadian government pointed out was the fact that we still

have to increase the understanding, the certainty and the trust that people actually

have in these vehicles. That takes time. So to set a target of 90 percent….

[3:20 p.m.]

We understand that the government wants to be ambitious. But even in the federal government's

commentary, they say that it's going to require a concentrated effort — and this is

with the targets they have in place — by governments working with industry, utilities,

experts, non-governmental organizations and individual Canadians.

They listed a set of key priorities. For example, first of all, we have to make sure

they're actually available. Many Canadians and businesses who actually want to buy

one have to wait a long time, or there is limited availability. So what we're suggesting

is…. Why is a more reasonable target not something that the government would consider?

They go on to list things like making zero-emission vehicles more affordable. Although

they're projected to reach parity in the coming years, they have a much higher purchase

price than ICE vehicles.

The list goes on: "Build charging and refuelling stations." But here's one: "Build

public awareness and confidence…. Many Canadians still do not know much about zero-emission

vehicles and have limited exposure to them. Awareness, training and education programs

aimed at seeing and experiencing these technologies in action will help consumers

discover the benefits of adopting these vehicles."

I think my colleague has made what I consider to be a very reasonable and rational

amendment. I think if the targets were to be exceeded, then that is something we could

certainly celebrate. But to arbitrarily set a 90 percent target and put it in legislation,

from my perspective, is a significant stretch. I think that the minister should consider

looking at a more reasonable target.

For those reasons and others, I support the amendment that my colleague has tabled.

D. Ashton: Speaking to the amendment. First of all, thank you again to the minister. Nice to

see you again.

Just a few things. I think it is a reasonable amendment that we're looking at here,

when you consider…. Just three examples.

First of all, early this morning, even though it was the United States I was reading

about…. The disposal of vehicles from the lots of the automobile dealers, specific

to electrical vehicles, is 90-plus days, compared to anywhere between 25 and 50 days

for gasoline vehicles. Things are slowing down. We've heard from some of my peers

about the opportunities that are being given to bring Canadians and bring British

Columbians up to understanding these vehicles.

Second of all, coming from a community…. Based in Penticton but living in Trout Creek,

in Summerland, I know both of these municipalities, which have their own electrical

systems, are in a scramble right now. I know for a fact that Penticton is proposing

a substantial increase to their electrical utilities that is being passed along to

all the consumers in Penticton.

When I left as mayor of Penticton to come to the province…. If I remember correctly,

if four people in one city block, coming from both sides, put in a 400-amp charger

— if I remember correctly, it was four — it would literally take the power lines down

for something like a three-block radius. This is one of the issues that smaller communities

are faced with. I would really encourage the minister to take it back and to consider

this.

Minister, I'll be frank for a sec. The NDP, the party you represent, have been trying

to hit targets and haven't been successful. Why don't you take a target that Canada

has, and we can work all together? We all want to see the climate become a number

one priority for most people in this province. We want to see this take place, but

why not put a target in that is probably obtainable?

When we go along with the rest of Canada and work on the backs and work together with

the rest of Canada to ensure the acceptance of more and more of these vehicles amongst

the people that are going to be purchasing them and that can afford to purchase them….

Why wouldn't we all work together to ensure that that transpires?

Minister, I want to thank you for your time. I think that a real consideration needs

to be made to this proposed amendment that brings us in line with the rest of the

country and makes a success story for all of us in British Columbia.

D. Clovechok: To the minister, I certainly appreciate the opportunity. And again to the minister,

I know she's rational and reasonable. I'm sure that she'll embrace this amendment.

[3:25 p.m.]

There's absolutely no doubt that British Columbians, Canadians, want clean air, clean

places to live. I know that on our side of the House, we are completely in support

of emission targets and achievements that demonstrate results. It's all about results,

in the driving results — results that are reasonable, results that are achievable.

I think the achievable piece of that is the most important.

As my other colleagues have already mentioned, Canada has set interim targets — at

least 20 percent in 2026, and 60 percent by 2020. I guess where I struggle a little

bit here is: why are we kind of going off script and not following along with what

Canada and the other provinces are doing?

The minister said that we're ahead of the curve. I'd sure like to have the opportunity

to see those metrics and where we are in front of that curve and what that actually

means to British Columbians. Overly…. I think they are ambitious goals. Ambition is

good, but it's not always good to be first in the line in a race that is brand-new.

So that's a caution that I would certainly put forward.

Supply and demand. We've heard my other colleagues talk about it. Will there be enough

ZEVs?

I'm from the Kootenays. That's kind of a new thing, and I just found out about what

a ZEV really is. If you said "ZEV" where I come from, they're going to look at you

like: "What are you talking about?" So is it realistic to have standards that are

for everybody and not enough?

I know that Canada, in their reports, have talked about educating people before you

jump in, all along that line. What is reasonable in the places that I live….

Just last Saturday I was filling up my big truck, and a ZEV came up beside me in a

panic and was saying: "Where's the next charging station?" I said: "Well, it's about

45 minutes down the road. If you're in trouble, we'll just put your car in the back

of my truck, and I'll take you there." They made out okay.

But at the end of it, we had another situation where the Kootenay National Park was

closed during a massive winter storm that came on like that. Both sides were plugged

up. The RCMP closed both sides. The only vehicles that were towed out of that park

were ZEVs because there weren't any charging stations or any ability for them to get

out.

I think, if you look at these goals, we certainly are in line with what Canada thinks.

I just would caution the minister to rethink this. Let's take a step backwards. I

used to tell my staff, when I worked in tourism: underpromise and overdeliver. That's

what I would say to the minister around this thing.

I think this is a reasonable amendment. I think it's well-thought-out. I congratulate

my colleague on that, and I certainly would support it. I know, to the minister, she

will as well.

R. Merrifield: I'm just going to conclude my colleague's comments by saying that mandates alone are

not going to spark buyer interest on their own. If we look to Norway as an excellent

example of ZEV adoption, they don't have a mandate, but they do have robust incentives.

They've got a solid charging network, and they also have electricity.

Again, not one country that's leading in ZEV adoption actually has a sales mandate

that's already in place. So as we face inflation and spiralling battery costs, plus

additional costs within our economy, I think that the focus right now does not need

to be on a sales mandate. I think the focus needs to be on our infrastructure, on

our electricity supply and making sure that British Columbians can feel secure in

the purchase of a vehicle, which is oftentimes one of the largest purchases that we

make in our lifetime.

I would just suggest that we accept the amendment, and then we can proceed with further

questions on that.

Hon. J. Osborne: First of all, I just want to thank my colleague from across the way there for bringing

forward the amendment and for everybody who's spoken in favour of it, addressing what

they feel is a more reasonable approach. I do want to address some of the issues that

were raised and offer a different perspective.

[3:30 p.m.]

First of all, I just want to revisit that the Canadian mandate that is before the

a federation of provinces and territories, their mandate numbers are based on their

expectations of what can be achieved within provinces.

Because Quebec and British Columbia are leading provinces, the sales targets that

we have proposed and that we have already demonstrated have formed part of that mandate

that the federal government has proposed. So by walking back or weakening our mandates

here in British Columbia, it would necessarily impact the federal mandates that have

been proposed.

I appreciate too…. I think, actually, we're much closer than we are apart in terms

of the overall picture here. But it is really around the 2030 sales targets that we

are proposing, around 90 percent, that are the sticking issue.

I also appreciate the member for Prince George–Valemount's comments about the extensive

engagement that was undertaken for Canada's proposed sales mandates and the phased-in

approach that's needed for a gradual change, because that's absolutely correct. That

is what has happened in British Columbia by bringing in the act back in 2019.

I may note there was a healthy amount of skepticism back then too that this could

be achieved, yet we've seen the incredible response from British Columbians in making

the switch.

The amendment as proposed would see us stay ahead of the 2025-2026 range — there's

no change there — and lowers the 2030 target. The reason why we need an ambitious

target for 2030 is to really drive the supply chain needs, to demonstrate and to send

that strong market signal to the automaker industry. Even if British Columbia's market

here is smaller, much smaller than California, it sends a strong signal that people

want, we know people want, to purchase zero-emission vehicles here. It sends a strong

signal that they're required to up their production and continue to bring down the

price of cars.

We are in a transition time right now where, as has been mentioned by several members,

we haven't achieved price parity yet with ICE vehicles, but we are moving that way.

And, of course, it's important to note that although the sales mandate means the availability

of a brand-new car that's available for sale in no way prevents people from driving

internal combustion engine vehicles…. I propose that there will be used ICE vehicles

well into the 2040-and-beyond range as the entire stock of cars driven in the province

makes a change.

I also just want to touch briefly on some of the comments around other jurisdictions.

It is true that Norway does not have a sales mandate, but what Norway does have is

a tax rate on ICE vehicles of 40 percent. So that de facto makes it much more expensive

to buy an ICE vehicle and is one of the drivers of change there.

European jurisdictions much more stringently regulate emissions from vehicles and

trucks, from cars and trucks, than we do here in British Columbia. So again, that

drives the market to provide zero-emission vehicles for people to purchase.

California is a leading state, of course, in the U.S., but 15 states have ZEV sales

mandates, and in fact, two-thirds of North American car sales are subject to a ZEV

sales mandate.

British Columbia is a leader in Canada, although Quebec is hot on our heels, I would

say, in terms of the adoption rate of zero-emission vehicles. Being a leader is not

a bad thing in this sense. I think it's something we can be proud of, because we know

it's an important component of reducing emissions, bringing emissions in the transportation

sector down.

As I stated yesterday several times, too, the framework that is in the act and the

regulation really allows for adaptive management of this — so with annual compliance

reviews with the ZEV advisory council that we have and with the periodic review of

the legislative framework, just as has been done. It is why these amendments are coming

forward today. This is when changes can be made.

It is possible to make changes in the future. But based on the evidence-based policy

work, the extensive analysis, the use of third-party forecasts, the modelling that's

been done internally and with the advice of the ZEV advisory council, we feel strongly

that this is the appropriate approach to take and that we will be successful.

[3:35 p.m.]

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers….

Amendment negatived.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the consideration. A disappointing result but consideration,

nonetheless.

I do want to just comment on what the minister said about the U.S. I wasn't going

to get into the U.S. a whole lot, because then we'd have to dive deep into all of

the different incentives and, obviously, their federal program with zero emissions,

etc.

If you look at the 12 states, which the minister brought up, that have ZEV mandates

in place…. The average registrations in those states was 6 percent, but it was only

3 percent higher than, on average, states without mandates. That, again, is why I

was urging…. Why don't we use a carrot, not a stick?

I mean, it's noted that ZEV mandates are not a silver bullet to boosting sales. You

really have to rely on people.

We'll go back to clause 6. How was it determined that the ZEV targets would be changed

to 26 percent by 2026 and then 90 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2035? The minister

had stated that this would "be the first in the world to put EV targets into law."

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The sales targets proposed in these amendments were set based on three key things:

first, third-party forecasts of vehicle availability; second, the provincial and sectoral

targets for emissions reductions that are modelled in CleanBC and informed the setting

of the sales targets; and third, provincial purchasing trends that we are seeing.

I think the member made an important point, which is that the ZEV Act itself and the

sales targets are just one part of market transformation. They're one of the tools

that are being used to achieve this. Vehicle rebates are incentives, the carrots.

Education that is ongoing is done by the province of British Columbia and, I will

add, started back in 2018, before the first ZEV Act came into place, to help pave

the way for the change that was coming. The charging infrastructure, too, really is

helping to reduce some of the anxiety and obstacles that people feel they will face

as they make the switch into electric vehicles.

Just out of interest, too, I'll comment on a couple of the surveys and the third-party

work that's been done. J.D. Power undertook some research that showed strongly the

interest in EVs here in British Columbia and that 46 percent of British Columbians

are interested in purchasing an electric vehicle within the next three years. B.C.

Hydro recently released the results of their research showing that three-quarters

of the people intending to purchase a vehicle within the next three years are looking

at electric vehicles as well. So taken all together, these went into developing the

sales mandate, the numbers that are proposed in the legislation.

[3:45 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: The minister talked about the provincial emissions targets and lowering those targets.

By changing to 26 percent by 2026, how many annual new ZEV sales will that translate

to in those next three years, and what is the government estimate on the lowering

of emissions?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The member has asked for a prediction or an estimate of how many cars will be sold

in 2026 if these sales mandates are put in place and what government estimates the

emissions savings or the lowering of emissions would be. It is challenging to answer

both of those questions with precision because of the way the modelling works and

because of the fact that we do not know precisely how many cars will be sold.

We know how many cars have been sold in British Columbia in past years. And how many

cars will be sold in future years is the compliance ratio multiplied by the total

number of cars being supplied that determines the number of ZEVs that need to be sold

for automakers to be compliant with the legislation.

We can provide the member, not at this moment but later this afternoon or soon, with

details around the past trends and then what is likely to be seen in 2026.

With respect to emissions, I can tell the member, too, that this is a bit of a challenge

to directly estimate, in the sense that the ZEV mandates are one of several different

climate policies that all interact with each other — for example, the low-carbon fuel

standard. Those interactive effects make it difficult to pinpoint what exactly this

mandate would do.

However, we are estimating that by 2030, the reduction in this subsector would be

half a megatonne of emissions. So some interpolation can take place, I think, for

I'm sorry that I can't give a more precise answer, but it does kind of speak to some

of the challenges in the way these policies interact with each other.

And predicting the future in terms of supply and sales that will happen? That we can

estimate, and we do a good job of estimating as best we can but can't be landing on

a precise number.

R. Merrifield: So by the minister's answer, I can assume that my next two questions might have similar

answers, so I'll combine them just to make sure that they are all still the same.

[3:55 p.m.]

Assuming that we don't have the numbers of what 26 percent by 2026 would be, I would

assume we don't really, totally have the numbers for the 90 percent by 2030 or the

100 percent by 2035, other than the 0.5 megatonnes that the minister had suggested.

Is that correct?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. The member is right. It is as challenging to provide the numbers for the next

target years, 2030 and 2035, as….

I'll come back to the 0.5 megatonnes of emissions predicted for the 2030 year and

just note, too, that it's important to remember that this is a tip-of-the-iceberg

situation. This is the purchase of new vehicles, and it's going to take quite some

time for the entire passenger vehicle stock in British Columbia to turn over.

As we move into future years — approaching 2050, for example — that's when we're going

to see deep emissions reductions and, again, why it's important to be doing this work

now, in the setup to future years and moving towards a net-zero 2050 future, which

so many countries in the world are aiming towards.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I would echo…. The answers I've received are very similar to what my estimates would

have told. If we look at 2024 to '26, we're looking at about 16,000 ZEVs. From 2026

to 2030, we're looking at about 40,000. From 2030 to 2035, we're looking at about

144,000. That totals about 200,000 new vehicles, new ZEVs, mandated through this exercise.

[H. Yao in the chair.]

If I add that to the total number that are already on the streets and that are currently

in circulation…. We're looking at the reduction. I had 0.47. So 0.5 is almost exactly

where I would have put the megatonne CO2 equivalency reduction at. However, it only

represents 5 percent of the total vehicles, the 3.7 million vehicles, that are on

the road.

The minister earlier had confirmed that we were going to continue on the rebate program.

The rebate of $4,000, for those 200,000, just to 2035, is $800 million. British Columbian

taxpayers, through the rebate, will be on the hook for $800 million to lower our emissions

by 0.5. If I use 0.5 instead of 0.47 or 0.476, which I had, we're looking at 0.75

percent of our total emissions lowering for $800 million.

[4:00 p.m.]

I have not done the math. I can quickly do the math to figure out what the necessary

lowering of our emission targets will be to get all the way to our 2030, 2040 and

2050 goals. Suffice to say, that's a lot of money to be spent.

This does not include infrastructure dollars. This does not include electricity supply.

This is just on the rebate alone. What this doesn't reflect is also the spend that

individuals have to do, spending more money on a vehicle that is in addition to what

they would spend on an ICE vehicle.

What will the impact be on the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 if these targets are not met

by 2026, 2030 and 2035?

[4:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you very much, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

I'm going to answer the member's question around what the implications to CleanBC

are if these targets are not reached. Before I do so, I just want to correct a few

things for the record.

First of all, yesterday we spoke quite a bit about incentives or rebates. I want to

be very clear. These are not taxpayer-funded rebates. These are rebates that come

from B.C. Hydro through the sale of low-carbon fuel standard credits. So the taxpayer

is not paying for incentives.

Second, I spoke yesterday around market transformation and the eventual removal of

rebates. Right now we're in a situation where we know that the capital cost of purchasing

a ZEV is more than an ICE. So the carrots, the rebates, are an important part of removing

obstacles for people who want to make the switch to a ZEV.

In time, these rebates will diminish. They will not be needed to achieve market transformation.

We expect price parity between the cost of, say, a Hyundai Kona electric and a Hyundai

Kona internal combustion engine car. It becomes the same, making it not necessary

to have a rebate for a person to overcome the obstacle of cost.

It's also important, I think, to understand and to remember that the…. One important

change we made in the incentive program was to target those people who need help the

most, and that's what will continue. As that particular policy evolves and changes,

we'll stay focused on the people who need rebates the most.

As a statistic of interest, in 2023, so far, 61.5 percent of vehicles sold have also

gotten a rebate. It's not 100 percent of cars that are getting a rebate. They're not

getting the full $4,000 either. So with respect to the member's math, I think it's

not entirely correct.

[4:10 p.m.]

The other important benefit to realize is that over the lifetime of owning a zero-emission

vehicle, it is more affordable for a British Columbian to drive. Clean Energy Canada,

for example, recently came out with a study showing that over the lifetime of owning

the vehicle, there is an 82 percent saving. We're avoiding the cost of gasoline, avoiding

much of the operating and maintenance costs that an internal combustion engine has.

That's a benefit that's worth pointing out as well.

Back to the emissions. In total, the transportation sector…. This ZEV Act is part

of a package. I spoke to the 0.5 megatonnes that are predicted to be achieved by 2030.

That's part of a 4.9 megatonne reduction in the transportation sector overall. That's

about 10 percent. I cannot predict precisely what the emissions cost would be if we

fail to achieve the 0.5. We don't know, at this point, what's going to happen in the

next few years.

The last point I want to make is, again, this tip-of-the-iceberg notion that it is

so important to set this framework and take action now on this market transformation.

The emission savings are low in the initial years, where there are fewer zero-emission

vehicles out there on the road. Over time, as the entire stock is overturned, we get

to a situation by 2050 where that's what people are driving if they've chosen to purchase

a vehicle at all. That does not cost government in rebates, because by that time,

of course, rebates won't be required.

R. Merrifield: Just in response to a couple of the comments that the minister made. Understanding

that the rebate is being funded through B.C. Hydro and the sale of carbon credits,

I just want to remind the minister that dollars come from somewhere. There's only

one taxpayer, there's only one consumer, and any cost that a business has to take

on — i.e., the purchase of the carbon credits — will be passed on to the consumers.

Anything that B.C. Hydro has to take on will be passed on to the consumer. So I would

disagree somewhat, maybe in just semantics alone. Theoretically, this will cost British

Columbians, maybe not directly, but certainly indirectly, as those credits are exchanged.

I understand that my numbers are very rough and were based on shooting in the dark,

as it were. Having said that, even if we use my numbers for the sake of argument only,

and even if I was to give it wiggle room of a 5 percent to 10 percent margin of error

on those particular dollars…. Hopefully, in 2035, with the inflation rate where it's

going, maybe it's not 4,000 anymore. Maybe it's 6,000. Perhaps we can hope not.

Let's just say, for argument's sake, that it averages out to where my number was,

which was $800 million. That $800 million to achieve full transformation of the reduction

on the CleanBC plan….

We're looking at $62.8 billion. That's a gargantuan number, and that doesn't include

any upgrades. It doesn't have any infrastructure. It doesn't include electricity production.

It doesn't include any cost of business. That's just if we were to emulate that type

of a program. So obviously, very, very rough numbers, but it gives us an order of

magnitude that's fairly frightening when we look at just those that attempt to reduce

emissions.

The Clean Energy Canada study was actually debunked fairly comprehensively across

the board because they didn't include depreciation. Depreciation of a vehicle is very

important to include, and right now, ZEVs are depreciating much faster than ICE vehicles.

Therefore, once you include that, sadly, ZEVs are still more expensive. They're still

more expensive to get into. This is why I so appreciate the means testing that was

introduced, because at least then it does favour those that will have the most difficult

time getting into them.

My next question is: in the 2021 B.C. Public Light-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Study , it was estimated: "194 fast-charging sites are needed to facilitate travel across

the province and 6,710 ports across 400 sites will be needed by 2040 to support the

expected EV population. Approximately 82 hydrogen fuelling sites comprising 141 hydrogen

stations are needed by 2040 as well." This is on page 26 of that report.

[4:15 p.m.]

Currently, there are over 1,400 gas stations in B.C., and there are 3,800 charging

ports in B.C. How many of them are level 2 ports, and what is the goal to get to those

targets?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: I just want to be clear on the language, and then I'll answer the member's question.

The low-carbon fuel standard credits are not the same. They're not the same at all.

In fact, it's carbon credits. I just want to be careful on that.

The member asked about chargers and level 2 chargers. CleanBC has a goal of 10,000

public chargers by 2030, and this will include level 3 fast chargers, direct current

fast chargers, and level 2 chargers. I cannot give a statistic for this exact moment

in time, but I can tell you that in 2022, there were 854 fast chargers and 3,018 level

2 chargers. That's a total of about 3,900 chargers.

Since then, almost 1,000 more have been added to the network. I just don't have the

breakdown of the numbers exactly today. We know that there are 4,800 public chargers.

Fun fact: B.C. Hydro recently announced they will be installing 180-kilowatt chargers.

What's great to know about this is that it takes ten minutes to charge 180 kilometres

onto your vehicle.

A strong public charging network is, obviously, absolutely fundamental to this transformation

that we're achieving. The average commute in British Columbia is 23 kilometres. Everybody

has access to electricity at home. It might be a trickle charge, or they might have

installed a level 2 charger of their own. I want to be clear that the stats I'm providing

are about publicly available chargers for people who are making longer-distance trips.

There are so many people who are benefiting from zero-emission vehicles. The car sleeps

in the driveway at home. It's able to charge at home at night. Again, I don't want

to dismiss at all the incredible importance of having a strong public charging network,

which is why we have a goal of 10,000 public chargers. That is why we are proud of

the fact that we're almost halfway there.

[4:25 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister for answering the question.

I'm late to the parade here today, but the minister may be happy to know that it was

time well spent. When I was gone, I was at the Minerals South conference here in Cranbrook,

and I gave my regards. A lot of issues, obviously, in that area, but that'll come

at a later time. All is well with Minerals South. I thought I'd relay that message

to the minister.

We're talking about the output that we're going to need to facilitate the increase

in ZEV sales. The minister just stated that 10,000 public charging stations will be

needed.

Can she tell me what the breakdown is on level 2 and level 3 charging stations — and,

at the same time, maybe answer the question: what is the cost of putting in a level

3? What is the power requirement for a level 3? I thought she said 100 kilowatts,

but I'm not too sure.

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

I'm glad he had a good time at the minerals conference. He missed my last answer,

where I answered one of his questions. In terms of the breakdown of level 2 chargers,

you can read that in Hansard . I will say that we did just get some facts for where we're at today. I will tell

you that precisely today, with 4,879 public stations, 1,075 of those are fast, and

3,804 of them are level 2 chargers.

The cost of a fast charger really varies. It depends on several different factors.

I'll just say that on average, it's about $100,000 to install a fast charger.

How much power is required? Again, it varies. Fast chargers can be 50 kilowatts up

to 350 kilowatts. It would depend on the number of chargers or station ports that

are available at any one site.

Hopefully, that answers the member's questions.

I just want to note, again, that we're on clause 6. I know we're straying into some

other elements that are important about zero-emission vehicles, but I just want to

take note of that.

T. Shypitka: I'm not too sure if the minister did answer the question. I thought she said that

we will need to be bringing on another 10,000 public charging ports in B.C. to match

the goals that will be streamlined into the 90 percent by 2030. I thought she said

we'll need 10,000 more. I just wanted a breakdown on the level 3 versus level 2 in

that 10,000.

I'll just leave it there. Maybe I got it wrong. Maybe she could answer that again.

Hon. J. Osborne: The total goal is 10,000 public chargers by 2030 — not another 10,000 but a total

of 10,000.

[4:30 p.m.]

There isn't a breakdown of that goal, but I have given the numbers for the current

breakdown of the 4,879 public chargers that are out there today.

T. Shypitka: Well, it's an important piece. We're missing about 5,100 stations or ports, and the

minister is not sure what the breakdown is on that. But it is important to know, because

it comes down to the cost of what that infrastructure is going to be. If it's 100

percent of that…. If it's 5,000 more level 3s, that could be a significant difference

in cost than if it's 5,000 level 2s. They both have different power demands on the

grid, and they both have different cost structures.

It's too bad the minister doesn't know what the intended goal is for 2030 to get that

breakdown of 5,000. I think that relates to the amendment. I'm sorry I missed the

amendment, but that is primarily what the amendment was all about.

We've seen, through this series of discussion through this committee stage, that I'm

not…. I don't think I'm very satisfied with what consultation happened with First

Nation governments. We've heard unintended consequences from consumer groups and business

councils, car manufacturers, car dealers, all voicing their opinions. And the minister

has got some of that correspondence that I think has been put her way.

That was the whole idea of the amendment — to get something that's more reasonable.

When we don't have cost breakdowns on projections to 2030 when we're putting this

legislation in that will dictate what we need for capacity, going forward, that becomes

a critical part of the legislation itself. So we're sad to see that.

Now, I can't remember what else I was going to ask here. Oh yeah. I'm going to ask

about fuel tax, and that's going to obviously relate to this. Will these ZEVs and

hydrogen cell vehicles be subject to a fuel tax? I would imagine, because it's electrically

driven. I guess the question is: how much do B.C. coffers bring in on fuel tax every

year? And what is that fuel tax used for?

The Chair: Member, do you mind asking the question in a way that's related to the clause, please?

T. Shypitka: Sorry, Chair. Yeah, maybe I'm on the wrong clause. I just got into my seat. So we're

on clause 6. If the minister can direct me to where that clause would be appropriate

to ask, I'm more than happy to redirect that question when it's appropriate.

R. Merrifield: Okay, let me try here. We're talking about accelerating the time frames. This clause

6 specifically sets out how we are going to be accelerating those. And the questions

that we're asking are related to the infrastructure that's required for this acceleration,

making sure that consumers actually have the ability to charge the vehicles that are

based on this accelerated pace and what's going to be used to actually fund that.

What will happen, then, as well, to the funds that are currently used for our roads

and for all of the necessary infrastructure that will still be necessary for these

electric vehicles? The question is: how will the fuel tax be applied to ZEVs?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: I'm going to try to answer this question in a way that pertains to the infrastructure

required for being able to meet these goals, although I'm actually going to turn around

and state that the ZEV mandate is part…. Again, I've spoken about the market signals

that it sends to auto manufacturers to supply those. It also sends a signal out, of

course, to the private market to respond with chargers.

I spoke about the 10,000 chargers that we aim to have in place by the year 2030 and

that a portion of these are public. They're all public –– pardon me –– but a portion

are publicly funded, and a portion are privately funded. The funding for public chargers

comes from a combination of B.C. Hydro, some CleanBC funding, federal government involvement

in those.

With respect specifically to the gas tax, that's not a question that I can answer.

It's not in the purview of the bill, but it's also not in the purview of my ministry.

So I would direct the questions around the gas tax to the Ministry of Finance.

[4:40 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the minister.

Yeah. Private or public. As the member for Kelowna-Mission stated, there's only one

taxpayer in the province. That's you — and me. Whether it comes from the public sector

or the private sector, there will be a ripple effect that will increase costs. There's

no question about it.

This is what we're trying to get at in the breakdown — what I asked earlier, on level

2 stations versus level 3. Once again, that has a cost implication and a power requirement.

We've been questioning, all along, the grid that we have right now and whether it's

self-sufficient to not only bring on these initiatives but also other great clean

initiatives such as electrifying LNG and the 50-some-odd hydrogen projects that are

in the queue right now and in application form. The list goes on. Cryptocurrency,

data storage — all energy-intensive industries. This is going to add to the pile,

for sure.

I can't remember exactly what the next question was going to be. It was in relation

to the fuel tax. I know the minister is saying now that that's the Minister of Finance

or another ministry. What I was getting at is…. Will EVs pay a charge on the infrastructure?

Right now we have a fuel tax that pays for infrastructure — roads, road maintenance,

those kinds of things. That will be, essentially, gone. Ninety percent of it will

be gone by 2030. Well, maybe not quite. It won't be exactly 90 percent of vehicles

that will be ZEVs, but that's the direction we're going. So we'll lose that funding

for that infrastructure.

Where do we make that up? Will there be a charge on ZEV vehicles in the near future?

Will ZEVs be charged a rate at the charging station, if it's a public one? Maybe that

would be the question, then. With this legislation, will there come a charge or a

cost to charge at public ports?

Hon. J. Osborne: Again, I think I'll leave this one. The purview of the bill is around the ZEV sales

mandates. It doesn't contemplate fees or charges. Those are purely within the Ministry

of Finance. I would direct the member to the Ministry of Finance there.

T. Shypitka: I'll leave it at that, but I'll make the case known that we are making policy that

will actually force the hand of the Finance Minister to find up the shortcomings for

this type of implementation implication.

When we change mandates or targets, tripling them, in effect, from what we had before….

It was 30 percent by 2030, 30 by 30. Now we're going to 90 by 30. That's a tripling.

That's going to have some cost effects. So for the minister to simply say, "Well,

that's just another department. It doesn't really involve our legislation," it's a

little shortsighted, in my opinion.

I think we need to bring all these considerations forward when we put legislation

that is game-changing, such as it is. I'll leave it at that. I'll give it to the member

for Kelowna-Mission.

Once again, from some of the questions and some of the answers that we've heard so

far…. I've highlighted a lot of them. That's what brought the amendment forward.

Just to be transparent and clear…. Actually, just having a game plan that's consistent,

I guess, with the federal mandates and what the manufacturers have been screaming

for, what the car dealers have been screaming for….

I think, once again, the minister has overshot the runway on this. It's not working

in synergy and in collaboration with the other agencies that we're all going to have

to work with if this is going to be successful.

With that, I'll turn it over to the member for Kelowna-Mission.

R. Merrifield: Did the minister want to respond at all?

Interjection.

R. Merrifield: Okay. All right.

Similar to the 2021 infrastructure study that I referenced earlier…. Has the government

completed any analysis as to what the demand for installation of at-home charging

capacity will be?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: To the member, I just want to ask for a little bit of clarification, if she is asking

about the installation of home charging stations or power.

If it's power, I would offer that we canvassed quite well yesterday the ability of

B.C. Hydro to forecast demand and had an extensive conversation on that, which I would

posit included home charging as well as public charging stations. So maybe she could

clarify if she meant stations or not.

R. Merrifield: Absolutely willing. It's actually both. What will be necessary in order to increase

the capacity of home charging? Both the home charger and the actual physical charging

capacity and understanding that, yes, you can plug a car into a trickle charge, and

it will take eight to ten hours. That's not necessarily where we to go with, I think,

every single EV. I don't think that that's necessarily a practical solution.

So if we look at the level 2 or level 3 chargers, that takes us up into a different

demand. But even if there's…. Has the government completed any analysis of that? That's

for the actual charging stations and then the actual power that's necessary.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Yesterday we had an extensive conversation around the capacity and load. I'm not going

to touch on that today because that was asked and answered.

On the subject of…. Yes, we have undertaken an analysis of the need for home chargers.

That has informed the suite of go electric programs that provide support for people

and workplaces to install level 2 chargers in single-family-dwelling homes, in multi-unit

residential buildings, in stratas and in workplaces as well.

I also want to note…. We had a brief discussion there about trickle chargers. They're

not uncommon. We expect that a number of people will continue to rely on them. Before,

I presented the statistic that the average commute is 23 kilometres. For many people,

their cars sleep in the driveway at night. So for some people, the choice of just

trickle charging off of their regular 110-volt line into their house has been satisfactory.

R. Merrifield: My question was actually around the study. Is there an anticipated study and analysis

done?

My next question is: is it anticipated that the EV charger rebate program for single-family

homes will need to be expanded or increased, then, in order to meet the new targets

that are here in clause 6?

Hon. J. Osborne: Again, yes. Providing support for the infrastructure that's required for zero-emission

vehicles is extremely important. In fact, the targets in CleanBC have informed our

decisions around funding rebates for home chargers. We're always monitoring these

programs, of course, and making adjustments where required.

It is the decision of Treasury Board, of course, around what funding is allocated.

I can't comment on or compromise a Treasury Board process, except to say that we're

well aware…. Again, the targets in CleanBC very much inform those decisions.

[4:55 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Without going into the specifics…. If the rebate is expected to continue, does the

minister have any analysis as to what the order of magnitude would be for those chargers

that will be put into homes and what the rebate order of magnitude would be as well?

Hon. J. Osborne: It is always important that we align our climate targets and our goals in that space

with our support for people and make sure that people can afford to install the infrastructure

that's needed to make changes like these.

We've had a suite of go electric rebate programs for quite some time. That includes,

of course, the home chargers. We don't pay for the full cost of installing home chargers,

but we do provide rebates. I know the member knows and is familiar with them and can

visit the website. Again, it's always targeting the dollars where they're most needed.

It's very important in any program like this to be constantly monitoring its effectiveness

and its update. That's exactly what we do.

Again, the exact magnitude of financial support and the program design itself are

brought forward by the ministry and go through the Treasury Board process. I can't

speak to that right now, except to say that we're….

This is an important factor in achieving those CleanBC goals, again, and achieving

the ZEV mandates. We'll be aligning those goals with the rebates and support that

we provide people, always targeting those folks who need it the most.

R. Merrifield: Will those rebates also take into account demand in apartment rentals, condo buildings

and retrofits?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, absolutely. One of the programs that's available to people is the EV Ready assessments,

for example. So not getting to the stage of installing the chargers but being able

to do an assessment in a multi-unit residential building and understand what electrical

capacity is needed so that the strata can make a good decision.

Of course, as the member knows, we've recently amended the strata legislation to enable

a lower vote threshold for people to make that decision. Again, we're seeing more

and more people wanting to make that switch, and we want to be able to support them

in doing so.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for the answers to the questions.

Again, our greatest concern is that we are causing unintended consequences and an

undue burden on British Columbians when the cost of living is some of the highest

in Canada already. This will further add burden to British Columbians. Even if we

offer rebates or incentives of sorts, ultimately, they come from one taxpayer that

is already fairly burdened.

[5:00 p.m.]

Although the amendment for this particular clause was not accepted…. Our belief is

that staying with either the federal or the ones that we have currently would have

better served British Columbians.

With that, I'll conclude my comments for clause 6, because I believe the other party

wants to ask some questions.

J. Rustad: Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question on this.

I'll state from the beginning…. I mean, I oppose this bill outright, as the minister

probably understands and knows, unlike the United party, which just wants different

targets.

Particularly when associated with these targets on Bill 6, I'm quite concerned about

what the minister is trying to achieve here. I want to read into this a little bit

of evidence from the carmakers, from the people that are actually producing these

cars that the minister would like to have for sale in British Columbia, in setting

these targets.

For Volkswagen, who has announced that their sales are down 45 percent, their targets

are low, and they're looking at dropping off what they're doing.

Ford is losing $36,000 per vehicle, a loss of $4.5 billion, and they are backing away

from their investments on production of vehicles.

General Motors is completely backing away from its targets, citing slowing demand,

continued manufacturing bottlenecks and other profitability concerns.

Even Tesla is raising the alarm about prices and the challenge and issues that are

there.

Mercedes-Benz is calling it a brutal EV pricing market, even as the company's all-electric

vehicle sales rose, and that whole side of it is unfilled.

Honda and GM announced that they're scrapping their plan to work together on the EV

stuff.

The Toyota manager and CEO told reporters at an auto show, warning that demand for

electric vehicles is a sign that people are finally waking up to the reality that

EVs aren't the silver bullet against the supposed ills of carbon dioxide emissions.

Fortune magazine has come out and said that the automakers are struggling to make EVs affordable,

pinching price on customers. Even after government incentives, what they are doing

is unsustainable, selling vehicles below cost and delaying EV investments.

This speaks broadly to a real serious problem that this government is creating for

consumers in this province. They're setting targets that are unrealistic, that are

not going to be able to be met by manufacturers. They are putting a burden on taxpayers

associated with this. They're actually going to be preventing people from being able

to have the freedom of mobility in this province, to be able to drive and go back

and forth, because EVs are just going to be too expensive.

It's clear from these reports from all of these automakers, all of the major automakers,

that prices are going to have to rise dramatically, that supply chains aren't there,

that the materials are not going to be there. Manufacturing is going to be a problem,

meeting targets. Yet this government is now not only taking flawed legislation but

actually making it worse, in terms of increasing the inability of people to be able

to access the freedom of mobility and vehicles.

For that reason, I just wanted to state this and ask a simple question to the minister.

Is she aware of all these problems that are out there, aware of the fact that this

industry is going to go through a significant upheaval, and if the minister is still

going ahead with these targets, even though she may be aware that there are huge problems

coming in the electric vehicle markets?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to my colleague for his submission.

I'll just say, respectfully, that we'll disagree and that we have canvassed at great

length yesterday and today a number of topics that have been brought up, some that

he has brought forward today. I would direct him to Hansard to take a look at those responses there.

With respect, I think I'll just leave it at that.

J. Rustad: Once again to the minister, this is specific to the targets that are being set here,

these targets and goals and the admissions by all of these CEOs of the major car manufacturers

that they are not going to be able to meet the demand with their manufacturing and

the cost structures in place.

The question to the minister: was she aware of all of these problems within the car

manufacturers when she set these targets?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Yesterday, again, we spoke about the engagement process and how the targets were developed

over yesterday and today. We've done that.

I thank the member for the submission.

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the minister for that response to the member of the Fourth Party. We did

canvass this quite a bit. The B.C. United Party has made their stance pretty clear

on the unintended consequences. The member for Kelowna-Mission was saying that just

before the member previous to me came up and spoke. He speaks…. What is reality?

We've heard from stakeholders far and wide — not only car manufacturers but car dealers,

consumer groups, business councils — that really question the trajectory that this

bill takes us. It is a concern. Through the process of committee stage, we haven't

gotten a lot of answers on some of the more important questions. We've mentioned that

time and time again.

The question to the minister…. She has stated numerous times that people are wanting

to switch. They're wanting to do that. I'll just ask the minister to clarify. Is that

what she hears?

If I can clarify, Chair.

The Chair: Yes, please.

T. Shypitka: In clause 6, we are making some drastic increases to the targets, from 30 percent

by 2030 to 90 percent by 2030. That's fairly substantial.

The minister has said on numerous occasions that people are wanting this switch. People

are wanting to go to zero-emission vehicles. I'm just asking the minister to clarify

if that is indeed what she is saying.

Hon. J. Osborne: I'll just let the record speak for itself. The fact is that almost 22 percent of new

vehicles being sold today are zero-emission vehicles. I've read into the record two

different studies that have talked about what people are intending to do in the purchase

of their next vehicle.

With respect, we're on clause 6, and we're focused on the targets. I know there's

a lot more to accomplish in this bill, and that would be good.

T. Shypitka: Well, it is on clause 6, because clause 6 is talking about accelerating the targets.

The minister has said on numerous occasions, and actually some other quotes, that

we're ahead of the curve.

She just mentioned now that we're at 22 percent. It seems like there is an appetite

to move to zero-emission vehicles. I'm not questioning that. My question would be,

to the minister, then: why do we need the strong arm of legislation to put that ahead

of the curve that we're already ahead of on now?

It just seems that we're really putting the cart in front of the horse on this. We've

heard the concerns from numerous stakeholders and industry on what this could mean.

Sometimes more isn't always better. You know, exercise is good for you, but if I do

too much, I'll probably have a heart attack. It might be a poor analogy, but that

is the truth to what we're trying to say here.

Does the minister have any response to that?

Hon. J. Osborne: I hope the member is always healthy. I'll say asked and answered on the others.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, shall clause 6 pass?

Division has been called.

[5:10 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.]

Members, before restating the question, I remind all members that only the permanent

members of

Section C or their authorized substitutes may vote.

The question is: shall clause 6 pass?

[5:20 p.m.]

Clause 6 approved on the following division:

yeas — 7

Bains

Beare

Begg

Osborne

Rice

Robinson

Sharma

nays — 4

Bond

Clovechok

Merrifield

Rustad

The Chair: We will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 5:20 p.m. to 5:27 p.m.

[M. Dykeman in the chair.]

The Chair: We're going to call the committee back to order. We are on Bill 39, and we are going

to vote now.

Division? Okay.

[5:30 p.m. - 5:35 p.m.]

Division has been called. I remind all members that only the permanent members of

Section C or their authorized substitutes may vote.

Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive approved on the following division:

yeas — 7

Bains

Osborne

Paddon

Rice

Robinson

Sharma

Yao

nays — 4

Bond

Clovechok

Merrifield

Rustad

On clause 10.

R. Merrifield: Why is it necessary to specify "in British Columbia" under this provision?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the Chair.

This legislative change is needed because when the definition of "consumer sale" is

amended on October 1, 2024, it would no longer reference British Columbia, so therefore,

British Columbia needs to be specifically included in this

section to make it clear

that this only applies to the sale of new specified motor vehicles sold in British

Columbia.

J. Rustad: Just a quick point of clarity. I think I know the answer to it, but I want to make

sure it's on record. Where you have vehicle sales in British Columbia for somebody

that is out of province, how does that apply?

I'm just curious in terms of sales, because obviously, people who live along the border

may come into British Columbia to buy a vehicle, as opposed to buying it in other

jurisdictions, so I'm wondering if those are restrictions within this province.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: The division has been called in the main chamber, committee.

We will take a short recess and return back after.

The committee recessed from 5:42 p.m. to 6:07 p.m.

[M. Dykeman in the chair.]

The Chair: We will call committee on Bill 39 back to order. We were on clause 10.

Hon. J. Osborne: To answer the member's question, for a supplier of ZEVs to get credits, it must be

sold and registered in B.C.

J. Rustad: Just to be clear, the car has to be registered in B.C. It can't be sold and then go

on to another province.

What I'm wondering, of course, is…. When you sell, you've got to get insurance so

that it's registered. But if they move to another province and it changes registry,

how would that work?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The point of this specific clause, this amendment, is to shift the issuance of a credit

from the point of sale to the point of registration. The registration would have to

occur in British Columbia.

Should a person register a car in British Columbia and then, at some point in the

future, move…. I mean, that does happen. People do move out of province or move out

of country and sometimes take their vehicles with them.

The Chair: Shall clause 10 pass?

Members, division has been called.

[The bells were rung.]

[6:15 p.m. - 6:20 p.m.]

The Chair: Before restating the question, I'd like to remind all members that only permanent

members of

Section C or their authorized substitutes may vote.

Clause 10 approved on the following division:

yeas — 7

Bailey

Osborne

Paddon

Popham

Rice

Sharma

Yao

nays — 4

Bond

Clovechok

Merrifield

Rustad

On clause 11.

R. Merrifield: Before I ask my question, I'm just going to start by saying that what is occurring

here with the Fourth Party is a disgusting misuse of the rules of this institution.

It's a brutal abuse of taxpayer dollars in the form of costs for the staff to have

to come in and out repeatedly and wait for 15 minutes at a time for all of the incredible

staff that keep a room like this running. This is fully disrespectful to all of those

who hold this space and the work that we do in high regard.

I can tell you that when I put my name forward on that election ballot, it was not

for shenanigans. It was actually to do the earnest work of delivering statements,

of delivering speeches, of asking questions and engaging in thoughtful debate. And

what is happening here today are nothing more than political stunts for contrived,

childish videos.

I would ask that the member from the Fourth Party would stop the shenanigans, grow

up, and treat this institution and the work with the respect they're due. There are

ways to convey disapproval, but this is not one of them.

I would urge him to use the said ways. Speak at second readings. Use those opportunities.

Vote at second readings. Vote at third readings, and engage in questions for committee

stage.

[6:25 p.m.]

And I would urge us all to work toward this end and stop the disrespectful tomfoolery.

The Chair: Okay. On clause 11?

R. Merrifield: I'm now going to ask my questions.

What is the practical effect of amending the compliance ratio formula for vehicle

suppliers?

Hon. J. Osborne: This is the specific clause on an item that we touched on yesterday, but I'm going

to go into detail on it.

This is around basing the compliance requirements on the wholesale supply of vehicles,

rather than on the consumer sale. I see the member nodding, so I'll just stop there.

T. Shypitka: I feel a need to just basically support what the member for Kelowna-Mission said.

It's kind of an unfortunate situation because, as she said, we're elected to do a

job. We're not always going to agree. That job includes healthy debate in second reading.

I didn't hear the members from the Fourth Party have any discussion in second reading

on debate at all. I will give some credit to the member for Nechako Lakes that did

have a couple of questions here in committee stage.

To be quite honest, there are a lot of bills that I have not supported that this government

has put through over the last seven years. But if I was to take the same approach

that the member from the Fourth Party is doing right now, I mean, some of these bills

are 500, 600 clauses long. That would take literally weeks to duplicate what is going

on here today. That's a misuse of taxpayers' money. It's a misuse of staff time. It's

not doing any justice to the people of British Columbia that elect us. I just wanted

to concur with that because I felt….

I get it. We don't agree. That's what me and my colleague for Kelowna-Mission have

been doing here for the last two days. We put some very good questions to the minister.

The minister has been able to respond. Some I agree with, and some I don't agree with.

Some of the answers, I truly think there are some gaps in them. But at the end of

the day, we do our job. We do what's best for ourselves and the people of British

Columbia. I think what's been going on here today has just been a little bit less

than ingenuous.

The Chair: All right. Just to clarify that question….

A reminder: we're on clause 11 of the bill.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the additions to debate that aren't part of this bill. I appreciate the

fact that this needs to be asked, but I also feel compelled to point out that it was

the United Party that actually stood up in the House and said it was an affront to

the way this House operates to be having three Houses open debating bills.

There is only one way to be able to register that. I've sent a letter to the Government

House Leader, expressing our disappointment with running three Houses. It's not even

just having the three Houses; it's the weight of the bills that are moving through,

where you've got two parties with only two members trying to cover off all of this

and watch what's going on, plus the other things that are happening.

[6:30 p.m.]

I appreciate what the members are saying, but I am doing my democratic duty here by

expressing my views about this particular bill, by expressing my opposition to this

bill, and by voting against those sections. I was elected to do that, and I will not

be bullied, cajoled or anything else by members from the other party.

To the actual bill…

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

J. Rustad: …that is going on in the Legislature here — these lists, these targets that are being

made — I just want to….

You probably have covered this off before, but I'm just curious. The whole point of

having the list of these vehicles is to make sure that they meet these targets, from

a wholesale level as well as a sales level, if I'm correct on this.

I guess the question is: if there aren't enough zero-emission vehicles being sold,

does that mean they're not allowed to sell other vehicles in terms of that, both on

a wholesale or at a consumer level?

Hon. J. Osborne: There's a variety of compliance pathways for the regulated parties.

I would point the member to Hansard . We did canvass this extensively yesterday.

The Chair: Okay, thank you, Minister.

Just as a reminder to members, I know it's a passionate conversation, but this is

not the parliamentary committee on running the House. So we're on the bill.

We're going to go…. I don't see anybody standing up.

Shall clause 11 pass?

Members, a division has been called.

[The bells were rung.]

[6:35 p.m. - 6:40 p.m.]

The Chair: All right. Members, before restating the question, I remind all members that only

the permanent members of

Section C or their authorized substitutes may vote. The question

is if clause 11 shall pass.

Clause 11 approved on the following division:

yeas — 7

Bailey

Osborne

Paddon

Popham

Rice

Sharma

Yao

nays — 4

Bond

Clovechok

Merrifield

Rustad

Hon. J. Osborne: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:44 p.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada