Hansard - Thursday, April 10, 2025 Afternoon, Issue No. 40

Hon Chan: I move that the bill, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Repeal Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

British Columbians have been told that zero-emission vehicles are the only path forward, but we need to be honest about the challenges.

This bill is not about opposing EVs. In fact, I am a proud EV owner. I have driven multiple EVs for almost a decade. That’s precisely why I know EVs are not for everybody.

B.C. Hydro has already warned of the looming electricity shortage. With increasing demand from EVs, heat pumps and new housing, our grid is being pushed to its limit. If we do not have the power, how do we meet our clean energy goals?

In rural and northern B.C., EVs just aren’t for everyone. Harsh terrain, cold winters, long-distance travel all impact range and reliability. Add to that the lack of repair shops and replacement parts, and the anxiety becomes real.

We also need to respect consumer choice. Surveys show that British Columbians are worried about the high upfront cost, battery life, range, resale value and inadequate infrastructure. And now, with the end of the federal EV rebate, sales are expected to drop.

Let’s not forget the charging challenges. Rural areas remain underserved. In cities, many residents in stratas or older buildings have no access to home charging. Some public chargers even charge a premium for electricity, sometimes more expensive than getting gas.

I am pleased to introduce this bill today to amend the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act. This bill will eliminate the mandate that all vehicles sold in B.C. must be zero-emission by 2035. This repeal will allow consumers to choose whether they would like to opt for a BEV, PHEV, FCEV, hybrid or even an ICE. It’s their choice.

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

Motion approved.

Hon Chan: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next seating of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Ravi Parmar: In this House, we call estimates for the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions.

In the Douglas Fir Room, we call continued estimates for the Ministry of Forests, followed by the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

[1:05 p.m.]

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Energy and Climate Solutions

The Chair: I’m calling the committee to order, and I recognize the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions to move the motion.

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $90,831,000.

The Chair: Do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just wanted to…. As someone who truly enjoys the estimates process, it’s kind of, as I was saying earlier, like a combination of B.C. Day and Christmas Day for me. It’s going to be fun. I’m looking forward to engaging with hon. members. I think it can be really positive for all sides.

I just want to introduce the Deputy Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, Peter Pokorny, who’s to my right. To my left, Ranbir Parmar, the chief financial officer and assistant deputy minister. Behind me, Chris O’Riley, the president and CEO of B.C. Hydro.

Also behind me, Les MacLaren. There’s a special spot for Les in the public service hall of fame. You do have to wait five years after retirement to be in the hall of fame, but Les will be there. He’s a first-ballot hall of famer, and he’s the associate deputy minister and special adviser to the Ministry of Energy.

With that, I’m happy to take questions from the hon. members.

David Williams: Before we begin, I’d like to acknowledge the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions and his staff for their work in preparing for today. We appreciate the effort that has gone into this process.

We believe that energy and climate solutions are foundational to sustainable growth and a resilient economy. The most successful economies are built on access to affordable, reliable energy — energy that drives innovation and productivity while supporting long-term self-reliance. Our team is composed of critics responsible for the relevant departments, and we are here to engage constructively in that capacity.

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

Pete Davis: I’m looking forward, actually, to having some constructive conversation with the minister on my critic role of the Columbia River treaty. Of course, just on the record, we all know that this was actually paused, as of March 11, due to some escalating trade tensions. And we all know that there are some issues going on with cross-border talks.

With that, my first question is: with the U.S. pausing Columbia River treaty negotiations, can the minister confirm if the prior standards for agreements will stay in place with the pause?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just want to say a few things in an introductory way.

The member will know that the Columbia River treaty dates from the 1960s, that it really involves Canada, of course. British Columbia is the lead party in the negotiation, but they’re Canada’s negotiation. It’s an international treaty, after all.

The entity which is often referred to in the Columbia River treaty is B.C. Hydro. It’s had an enormous impact, both positive and in challenging ways, for the member’s region.

[1:10 p.m.]

I think when we talk about its benefits to Canada and the United States, we have to acknowledge the very strong feelings that people in the Columbia Basin, people in the region, feel about the Columbia River treaty, which is profound. The treaty is still in place, still in existence. It can only be abrogated by either side with ten years notice.

In 2016, the government of British Columbia, the government of Canada and, ultimately, First Nations and communities started to engage with the United States on the renewal of the Columbia River treaty, the modernization of that treaty. Those negotiations started under the first Trump administration and then, obviously, under the Biden administration, and now we’re back in a renewed administration led by President Trump.

Some of what we see…. So there were very significant negotiations between the parties. In July of last year, an agreement-in-principle was achieved between the parties. At the table, of course, for Canada, as I say, were Canada and British Columbia and First Nations as observers but part of every negotiation, which I think is really profound and exciting and has greatly contributed to the negotiation. An agreement-in-principle was put in place for a renewed treaty, and from that, one negotiates the detailed treaty language.

As the member will know, there are different ratification processes. First, you have to negotiate the detailed treaty, and that process has been going on since the agreement-in-principle. There are interim arrangements around those treaties, and those have been agreed to — for example, on the value of the downstream benefits to Canada and to British Columbia. Those interim arrangements have been put in place as we continue to negotiate a final treaty.

Very significant efforts were made, including in December of 2024, led in part by Mr. MacLaren and by our outstanding team. People will know, in the Kootenays, Kathy Eichenberger, who’s just an outstanding person and is connected to the region and has really involved the region in the negotiations in a way that I think is unique and extraordinary. For everyone in the region, across political lines and other lines, her work is recognized. We made a very significant effort to finalize treaty arrangements.

On the Canadian side, the treaty requires the support of British Columbia, but obviously, it can be ratified by the government of Canada through a regulatory process so, essentially, a decision of cabinet. In the United States, of course, international treaties, if they’re being…. They each require the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate — indeed, two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.

In the interregnum between the election of Mr. Trump and the new President and the election of a new Congress and the new Congress taking shape, efforts were made to make progress on the language, and in fact, progress was made on the language. But no final treaty happened or was likely to happen with what they sometimes call a lame-duck Congress. It would be like after an election where the government changes sides, negotiating a treaty in those times. It wouldn’t make sense.

So Mr. Trump has taken office and negotiations have been paused. I’d say two things about that to the hon. member in terms of the pause in the negotiations.

It’s not atypical that that would take place. For example, when President Biden took office in January of 2021, the negotiations didn’t resume until the fall of that year. There was a gap, a new administration in place. Perhaps the Columbia River treaty, while singularly important to us, isn’t necessarily the first item dealt with, with a new State Department in the United States.

What’s different this time, of course, have been the comments and the actions of the United States government towards Canada, towards British Columbia, in that time, some of the comments of the President of the United States about Canadian water, and so on and so forth, which give this a different tenor.

What we’re going to continue to do is negotiate and work and strive to see that the agreement-in-principle, which I think has broad support in the region and broad support in B.C. and broad support across party lines, is the basis for a final treaty that we ratify together. We can only control what we can control, which is to be Team Canada, to be together and look at the interests involved on our side, and that’s what we’re trying to do.

With respect to the United States, I think people will know my view on their conduct and the nature of these discussions and the idea of diverting Canadian resources to California, which has been expressed by the President, and the other comments. All of that is their thing. We have to be strong, united and determined to transform what we agree to, together with our American friends, into a final treaty.

That’s where we are today.

[1:15 p.m.]

Pete Davis: Thank you, Minister.

Since he said that the negotiations are paused — and that was a very good answer, lots of information there — can the minister also table maybe what the offer was prior to the pause?

What I’m saying is: what’s within that agreement-in-principle? Can you elaborate on that a bit more?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just to summarize…. I really appreciate the members also, and they can always get briefings from us on that. He’s taken briefings, so we’ve taken him through some of these things, but it’s also important, I understand, to get them on the record. So I appreciate that debate.

The agreement-in-principle was approved by the government of British Columbia and then signed by the corresponding parties in July, but it was agreed to in June. It included coordinated power operations and upgrading those in corresponding fixed amounts of the Canadian entitlement. The member may have questions about that in a moment, which I’m happy to respond to. This is a related payment to electricity as well as annual indexed U.S. payments for flood risk management operations and additional benefits to the United States.

The province also benefits from non-financial initiatives related to Indigenous cultural values, ecosystem enhancement, socioeconomic objectives and greater domestic flexibility for our ability to manage our hydroelectric dams. That is the core of the agreement-in-principle.

Some of the basic issues that are fundamental: namely, the money and the overall management system on both sides of the border. Then what people in the region and what First Nations wanted as well in the agreement was more flexibility on the Canadian side for the life and the central importance to the region of the river and the river basin to residents of the region, including First Nations but not limited to First Nations.

This was really the region that drove these negotiations, and I think our negotiating team did an excellent job in both consistently working with the regions and the different elements of the region — different regional districts, different municipalities, different citizens of the region, of course the Columbia Basin Trust and Columbia Power and then the Sylix, the Ktunaxa, the Secwépemc First Nations as well.

Pete Davis: You did mention that the renegotiation has been going on for quite a few years. We’ve heard that prior in the pause, B.C. was willing to take an agreement to terms that would have seen the drawdown in water storage in B.C. and less money as well.

Can the minister confirm that this was the case, and if yes, what were we going to get out of this negotiation if we’re just drawing everything down and getting less? And why would this government even consider such terms if it’s not beneficial to us in British Columbia?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The reason the government supported Canada…. Of course, the agreement is ultimately between Canada and the United States, and understand that B.C. has a special role in this treaty that maybe no other province has in treaties, although there is provincial involvement in treaties. We supported the government of Canada in entering into the agreement-in-principle, which also had interim arrangements around these questions of benefits to British Columbia.

The main monetary benefit we’ve been receiving from the treaty is the Canadian entitlement to downstream power benefits, which is in the form of power delivered by the United States to the border. We sometimes refer to it as the delivery to Blaine, but it’s to the border. In other words, power that, in B.C.’s system, Powerex is able to sell in the United States or take back as based on the needs of British Columbia and the wants of British Columbia.

The entitlement is based on calculations that are set out in the treaty, so it’s calculation — people talk about drawing it down — that looks at the capability of the U.S. power system with and without the flow regulation provided by the B.C. treaty reservoirs. The amount of Canadian entitlement has always been projected to decline over time, and, indeed, it has as demand grows in the U.S. Pacific Northwest and new generation is added. So the contribution of Canadian flow regulations is reduced.

[1:20 p.m.]

Over the past seven years, the entitlement revenues have averaged $264 million. Our forecast for the fiscal year just ended is $295 million. You can add to this the $37 million, I think it is, with higher revenues coming in the next three years.

Our negotiators had a mandate to secure benefits at least as what would have been received under the current scenario, and they achieved that mandate. In other words, they met the requirements in the negotiations.

During negotiations, the U.S., of course, sought, as you do in negotiations, to introduce new assumptions to the entitlement calculations that would have accelerated the decline of the entitlement. The result from the MOU from last July is a reduction in the amount of power benefits over the short term and an increase in the power benefits over the longer term. In other words, a levelling out in consistency of benefits that was beneficial to British Columbia.

Our assessment of the value of the entitlement, along with the new annual payments for flood risk management and other benefits, met the test of being better than the treaty continuing in its present form, and that’s, of course, the reason we signed it.

Additional benefits in the MOU that met Columbia Basin communities’ and First Nations’ interests include — I talked about this before — the ability for B.C. to unilaterally change operations for B.C. for environmental, Indigenous cultural values and socioeconomic objectives; a new bilat national group led by First Nations to advise on the operations, with a one-river focus and adaptive management; and a new working group to address issues on the Kootenay River and the Koocanusa Lake reservoir.

Obviously, these parts of the agreements, the financial parts of the agreements, are now in place by interim arrangement between Canada and the United States and British Columbia. They’re in place, and I think our negotiators, on our behalf, did a very good job of ensuring that we have full value, going forward 20 years. Those arrangements around the downstream benefits are in place through to 2044.

Pete Davis: I think the thing we’re concerned about here is that our entitlement to the downstream power benefits is set to drop from 1,140 megawatts to under 660 megawatts next year. This is a nearly 50 percent reduction, and it appears that our province is giving up a significant long-term energy asset with no clear gain in return.

Can you explain how the massive reduction supports our energy security and independence, particularly at a time when British Columbians are facing rising energy costs and your government is pushing aggressively for climate policies that rely heavily on electricity?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member’s assumptions are just incorrect. We looked at what we receive over the next 20-year term, and this is as good as we would expect under the present arrangement. We negotiated and signed off on the agreement-in-principle and the interim arrangements on that basis. So the member’s assumptions are simply not correct.

It’s fair that he asked the question, because I think a lot of people would ask these questions about it. So I’m not criticizing the question. I’m saying that’s what our negotiators looked at: what would we expect to see under the present arrangements, and can we maintain that over the next 20 years. And we achieved that goal.

Pete Davis: British Columbia’s farmers and ranchers are already struggling with high costs, unpredictable weather and labour shortages. Water from the Columbia River is essential to their success.

Can the minister confirm that this treaty protects their irrigation rights long into the future and that the water needs of producers will never be secondary to the goals of American navigation or the hydroelectricity?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Draws for domestic use are fully allowed under the treaty.

Pete Davis: The Columbia River isn’t just about water and wildlife. It’s also a vital economic corridor that supports jobs, industries and trade across our region.

[1:25 p.m.]

With $22 billion in trade and 40,000 jobs linked to this waterway, has your ministry done a serious economic impact assessment of how the treaty change would affect rural jobs, transportation and industry in British Columbia? Are we risking long-term economic damage just to appease the U.S. negotiators?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, it’s quite the contrary. What we have done is negotiate a treaty that maintains Canadian rights over the treaty, which is important for British Columbia and for Canada. We’ve enhanced local control over the very circumstance the member is talking about.

I would say…. This one’s something in my life I’m very proud of, which is the creation of the Columbia Basin Trust out of the original discussion of the downstream benefits in the 1990s. This has made a profound impact. The Columbia Basin Trust is so central to the life of the community, we forget that it only started in the 1990s, and it has profound impact, investing in communities, in economic growth and in energy security through its relationship with the Columbia Power Corp.

The purpose of the negotiation wasn’t to give away authority, but it was to give more control and flexibility to the entity, which is B.C. Hydro, and also to local communities. That’s why they were so involved in developing our negotiating position. That’s why First Nations, for example, were fully representatives and observers at the table for all the negotiations.

Pete Davis: Many British Columbians care deeply about provincial rights and local control. I mean, this is something that people are actually quite worried about.

Can you tell us what guarantees are in place to ensure that British Columbia, not Ottawa and certainly not Washington, maintains full decision-making power over its water and energy resources? Are there enforceable legal protections in place in this treaty that make sure we don’t get overridden in the future?

The Chair: Member, just a reminder for all questions and answers through the Chair.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yeah, I mean, that’s the purpose. When you think back on the moment of history that is the Columbia River Treaty, which so affected our lives and affected the lives of the people in the member’s region, but the people in B.C.… It was a singular achievement of a Premier of British Columbia, whose vision was what? He nationalized B.C. Electric.

It’s something of the discussion we’re going to have about B.C. Hydro: what a huge advantage it is in B.C. to have a 100 percent publicly owned company in electricity in our province and the difference that it made.

In those negotiations in the 1960s, B.C. Hydro is the operating entity here in British Columbia, controlled and owned by British Columbians. So in the treaty itself, by definition, not Canada but British Columbia is the operating entity for the treaty. It was a unique achievement that’s been continued over time as we’ve worked through the discussion in the 1990s of the downstream benefits and are working through this discussion.

British Columbia is central to that, central to the detailed negotiation, to putting forward the Canadian position, because that’s established in the treaty itself. It is a great achievement of someone who’s now part of historic memory but was a significant figure in our province: W.A.C. Bennett and his government. Obviously, all of us are the beneficiaries of that legacy.

Pete Davis: Through the Chair to the minister, how will British Columbians know if this treaty is delivering on its promises? Will there be an independent, transparent body monitoring its implementation? And will there be regular public reporting so taxpayers and communities can see whether this agreement is actually working for us or just working for the neighbours to the south?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think you can get a sense of that through the approach we’ve taken so far. I believe the member was part of these calls, so he’ll know about it.

For example, in this stage of the negotiations, I personally reported to the people of the Kootenays in March at a telephone town hall or a video town hall and, again, prior to that, in December. The participation in those things was extraordinary. In December, I think it was close to 500, just before Christmas. It gives you a sense of the interest in the community — 600 at our most recent session with people in the community.

We have regular community meetings. When we make progress, we’re going to go community by community, briefing the communities on what’s in the treaty. We have enormous ongoing involvement of people in the communities around this treaty and, of course, the creation of entities.

[1:30 p.m.]

The Columbia Basin Trust is not a subject of the treaty but is, obviously, a significant part of it and one whose achievements I’m personally very proud of.

There are, because of the central role, almost visceral feelings of people in the Kootenays, from those who lost their land when flooding occurred and everyone else, to this treaty and what it means. There is, I think, an extraordinary level of engagement by the community and the engagement of our negotiators. It’s very rare you have negotiators who are on a first-name basis with just about everybody on a 600-person conference call. That’s an indication of our approach.

This is an established treaty. It has been in place since the 1960s. We know what we can do with it. We’re trying to do some more because of the advocacy of local communities. We believe that the agreement-in-principle that we’ve put together and negotiated with the United States is good for them.

By the way, it’s good for the United States as well, as it should be, right? You don’t succeed in these processes — it’s important to remember this right now, when the United States is engaging in tactics with Canada and other countries in the world — by it not being supported in the United States as well, which received significant benefits in the 1960s and since from the value of the treaty. They’re able to pay us that average of $264 million a year because of the value of what the treaty brings to them.

I also want to acknowledge that, notwithstanding the administration’s position, senior senators of both parties, including the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the United States, are supportive of the treaty and the agreement-in-principle and are supportive of going forward. It has bipartisan support in Canada. It has bipartisan support in the United States.

We’ve just got to hold true to what the communities, what the Kootenays, what First Nations people and what our teams put in place and ensure that the agreement-in-principle is reflected in final treaty language, because this will be, hopefully, when it passes, an achievement on both sides of the border.

Pete Davis: My question to the minister….

We have an agreement-in-principle. What is your plan B if the government in the States decides that they want to terminate this treaty? What’s your plan B?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The current treaty remains in effect, and we have interim arrangements that are consistent with the current treaty that are in effect.

Should one party of the treaty…. Sometimes I hear this; maybe the hon. member does as well. I was telling the people on the conference call with the Columbia Basin that people come up to me in Safeway and say: “Boy, we’ve got to turn off the water, break up the treaty or do something to the United States on this issue.” But if the United States government or our government wants to end the treaty, they would require ten years’ notice.

I’ll just note that ten years’ notice is a number of presidential elections, a number of provincial elections and a number of federal elections, if the ordinary pattern of those elections is in place. So our default, if you will, in this matter is that the treaty remains in place. This is an improvement, we believe, for both sides, but particularly for the people of the Columbia Basin. We are ready to go tomorrow, the next day, Sunday, at any time to re-engage with the United States government on this point.

If the United States government were to give ten years’ notice, obviously, we would continue to operate the treaty as it currently exists with the interim arrangements. We’d obviously, as well, be considering other options, but we’d have ten years together, all of us, to do so, and a number of governments would be involved in that process.

I don’t believe that that will happen, because the Columbia River treaty is in the best interests of Canada, of British Columbia, of the Columbia Basin, of First Nations and of the United States.

[1:35 p.m.]

Pete Davis: What you’re essentially saying is that if it were not renewed or they decided to terminate, they’d have to give you ten years’ notice. Tell me the benefits of renewing this and not just leaving it the way it is right now.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Both sides in the discussion felt that a treaty that was negotiated in the 1960s should be modernized. I think it makes sense. Things have changed since the 1960s. People in the region wanted more control. First Nations had interests there. We wanted more flexibility in managing our side of the treaty so that we could provide better circumstances for the human and natural environment in the region.

Those were our main priorities in the renegotiation of the treaty: to ensure that it met modern circumstances. Things are different now than they were in 1961, and so on, in 1964.

Both sides had interests at the table. Ours were long-standing concerns in the region around control, flood management and other issues. They had their own set of issues, and we came to an agreement on those arrangements to modernize the treaty — put it in place for the next 60 years, or at least the next long period, we would hope.

The member is quite right. We can continue to operate under the existing treaty. How do we know that? We have been operating under the existing treaty. But I think trying to improve a treaty in the interests of both sides makes a lot of sense, and that’s what we’ve done here. I think that the circumstances by which either side would give ten years’ notice aren’t justified. The treaty continues to benefit both sides.

We think we can make it benefit both sides more. That’s why the renegotiation occurred, under multiple provincial governments and multiple U.S. administrations and has now arrived as an agreement-in-principle. We can’t, of course, make the U.S. Senate and the U.S. administration sign off on anything, but we are going to hold close and strong to our position on that. If it’s the case that they don’t proceed or don’t come back to the table, then obviously, the current treaty arrangements will hold.

Pete Davis: I’d like to pass it on to my colleague for Peace River South.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to my colleague for this opportunity to ask a single question.

With respect to the treaty, I’d like to understand the rationale of keeping the renegotiation within the province, as opposed to utilizing the International Joint Commission or a similar methodology that is used by other provinces.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The current treaty negotiations are led by the government of Canada — because it’s an international treaty, under our constitution — and led by, essentially, the U.S. State Department on behalf of the U.S. federal government, not by the state of Washington, in this case, although obviously it greatly affects the state of Washington and other U.S. states.

So we have an international agreement which we manage together, all the different partners, but the main Canadian entity is B.C. Hydro. That’s control over a British Columbia river that is defining for a region. How can you do better than that?

I think perhaps what the member is suggesting is there may be some sort of approach to assist us with the negotiations or something to make it easier. But in fact, we’re at the table together negotiating these things, and they can only work if it’s an agreement between, essentially, Canada, British Columbia, the region represented by British Columbia, and the United States.

Our negotiators, including Mr. MacLaren and Ms. Eichenberger, spent weeks working on this there. That’s how we resolve problems. We came to an agreement-in-principle together that’s in the interest of both our country and the United States. You can’t do better than that, because it’s an international treaty.

For British Columbia, we would not want to give up our authority. I may be the representative of an NDP government, but I’m the representative of the people of B.C. and the B.C. government. We wouldn’t want to give up our authority to anyone else in negotiating and setting the terms of this arrangement. I think if we were to do so, there would be significant objection from the opposition side.

[1:40 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer. I am satisfied with that, and I appreciate your position.

Pete Davis: Let’s talk about the agreement-in-principle just a little bit more.

Regarding the Columbia River treaty, it includes commodities that will affect British Columbians for decades to come. While the treaty addresses flood risk management and power coordination, we must ensure that British Columbians are not left behind.

How will the minister ensure that the agreement doesn’t disproportionately favour the U.S., particularly when it comes to compensation, which, if I understand it right, expires in 2044? How can we guarantee that British Columbians won’t be left behind, powerless, without any power in the future?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Because it’s a treaty between Canada and the United States in which British Columbia Hydro and British Columbia is the main negotiator and operating entity. The special role for British Columbia was carved out by Premier Bennett at the time, W.A.C. Bennett, and has been supported by every Premier of every political stripe since that time.

The member will know that yes, we’ve negotiated an extension to the agreement around the downstream benefits through 2044. We think that’s consistent with the requirements and the expectations of the treaty. We’re taking, as I’ve mentioned, slightly less in the early years and slightly more than we would have expected in the later years. We have 20 years of certainty around which that will be done, which helps us and assists any government in the future in dealing with its fiscal requirements and the requirements under the treaty.

Twenty years is a long time, I would say. I would say it’s one, two, three, four, five provincial elections from now. It’s possible I won’t be Minister of Energy still at that time. It’s possible. I don’t want to speculate. I don’t want to upset the House too much by suggesting that change could happen. That’s up to the people of B.C. every time. But 20 years is a pretty significant negotiation — negotiated by, really, our outstanding teams of public servants, who have, I think, supported and protected our interests.

The agreement-in-principle enhances the role of the region, and it enhances the role of the region because we believe and have believed over time that more benefits from the Columbia River treaty should go to the region. It’s why, when I worked for Minister Glen Clark, who continues to play a small role in these matters as chair of the board of B.C. Hydro now, we established the Columbia Basin Trust legislation, the Columbia Power Corp., which gave the region more resources and more authority to make decisions about economic development in the region.

So with time, these things evolve. I’m going to pay tribute to those governments, the Bennett government, at the time the Harcourt and Clark governments in the ’90s, and governments since that, including a different Clark government, which started these negotiations in 2016.

Pete Davis: The modernization process emphasizes integrating ecosystem health, Indigenous cultural values and adaptive management. While these are important, how do you plan to balance these concerns with the practical needs of British Columbia?

I want to specifically talk to industries like mining and agriculture. They rely heavily on water management. What assurances can you give that these interests won’t be undetermined in favour of environmental or cultural priorities?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think, first of all…. The member will know this because he knows the First Nations in his community, their interest in economic development and values as well. So on the issues of water and flood management and management of the Columbia system, all of those interests are balanced, as they have been over decades around multiple governments — in fact, enhanced, for example, under the NDP government in the 1990s, and under other governments as well.

[1:45 p.m.]

The intention, and this is something that the people of B.C. Hydro are particularly expert in, is managing the system for the broader public interest. This has been done now over the last 40 years, or the last 60 years, I should say, and will continue to be the case — enhancing and giving ourselves more flexibility to address issues, including issues of ecosystems, which are so important to people in the Kootenays. Well, I agree they’re important to First Nations.

Every time I go to the Kootenays, I’m inspired by how much interest there is across political spectrums and in the broader population in the management of ecosystems and the importance of ecosystems — whether you’re First Nations, and it’s fundamental to your values; whether you’re a hunter, fisher who’s inspired by, surely, one of the most extraordinary places on earth.

Those have economic values as well. If you talk to guide-outfitters or anyone else, you know that ecosystems matter for the economy, as well as for society. The way we do it is to have the leading experts in management deal with the broad range of values. What this agreement-in-principle does is expand our ability to do so, and that’s a good thing for everybody, whether you love fishing, whether you’re First Nations, whether you love hunting, whether you love hiking, whether you’re a business person, whether you’re in forestry, or whether you’re in mining.

Pete Davis: We’re told that…. I’ve heard there might be…. There’s more flexibility to manage water under this new treaty, but that flexibility comes with a four-year advance notice requirement. Let’s be honest. That’s not really that flexible — four years.

In an era of extreme weather droughts and sudden climate events, how is this arrangement going to help us respond in real time to emergencies? Does this actually tie our hands rather than freeing them in what we think it’s going to do?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the treaty is already flexible enough to deal with emergencies, but when you’re changing the operations of a system on a river that’s been there, you know, a very, very long time….

Let me put it in that sense. If you’re going to change the way you manage the system, then you require notice so that everyone gets lined up and it’s done properly. We can deal with emergencies all the time, but when you’re changing the management of a river system, between all of the parties that requires some notice to get it right. That makes sense in the current arrangements and would make sense in the future.

Harman Bhangu: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Harman Bhangu: It’s my honour to introduce the first of three groups of fifth-grade students from Langley Christian High School in the gallery today.

The students at Langley Christian School have excelled at giving back to their community through numerous volunteer programs they participate in. They’re here to witness the democratic process in action and learn more about how B.C. is governed.

Would the House make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Pete Davis: The U.S. is offering $37.6 million per year for flood risk management and $16.6 million for other so-called benefits. Frankly, that sounds kind of like peanuts compared to what we’re really giving up. I mean, this is our water.

Can you explain how this deal can calculate it to reflect fair market value? And did your ministry even consider asking for a higher compensation, or were we just simply told that this is what we get, this is what we take?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: First of all, hello to all the students at Langley Christian. We’re in the debate of the Ministry of Energy. We’re discussing a treaty between Canada and the United States that was signed in 1964, the year I was born. I’m 60. We’re debating it here today because we’re seeking to renew the treaty.

The hon. member opposite, who lives in the region most affected by the treaty, is asking me, the Minister of Energy, questions about the treaty and about how it will work in the future. It’s an exciting thing, something that starts at the beginning of my life and is continuing to be in place now. So that’s what we’re discussing — because you just joined us.

We got a payment of $64 million for this in 1964 that covered the first 60 years. The member asked: did we ask for more than $37 million? We probably did. This was a negotiated amount. This was an annual amount. It’s a lot more than $64 million over 60 years.

Pete Davis: Can the minister confirm that there is Indigenous consultation on the Canadian side, and there’s no Indigenous consultation on the U.S. side?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The U.S. does consult its tribes, and we can confirm that there has been a First Nations participation on the U.S. side in the negotiation as well.

Pete Davis: Thank you for confirming that. It was actually something that I was really wondering.

The AIP proposes a transboundary work group for the Kootenay River system. How will the ministry ensure that the interests of residents and industries in the Kootenay region, particularly the mining sector, are represented in the work group? How can British Columbians protect local economic activity and regional development during these negotiations?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’ll do that, I say, by doing it. Local governments and the provincial representatives and others, including the nations, will be part of the group, as will such groups on the other side of the border.

Pete Davis: I would like to pass it on to my colleague from Salmon Arm–Shuswap, please.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

We’ll move on to the core business of B.C. Hydro and the ministry.

The ministry’s operating budget has increased from $109.867 million in 2024 to $112.095 million in 2025. My question to the minister is: how is this additional funding being allocated, and what outcomes does the minister expect to achieve with the budget increase? Can the minister also provide a breakdown of where the extra $2.228 million will be spent?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m tempted, of course, to give a big speech about all the things that we’re doing in British Columbia, particularly with respect to energy over the next period.

[1:55 p.m.]

But I suspect many of those issues, issues around LNG and the natural gas industry, will be covered with my colleague from Peace River South, and the initiatives around CleanBC and the environment with my colleague from Richmond Centre.

I won’t give a big speech, and I’ll just give a really precise answer around the 2 percent and what it involves. It involves an increase of $1.984 million in the First Nations clean energy business fund spending plan. It involves $579,000 increase for the shared recovery wage mandate, which is just wage increases, etc.

The coming together of the two ministries requires $593,000 in spending, because it’s a new ministry with people coming from the climate action secretariat into the Ministry of Energy, and then people in the Ministry of Mines leaving to form a new ministry. There’s $100,000 to support corporate resources for the new ministry and all the actions we’re taking, particularly in the northeast but other places in B.C.

On the other side of that, there’s a decrease in what’s called the ICE fund spending plan of $863,000. And alas, in the minister’s office budget, a decrease of $165,000.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

My next question would be regarding a hiring freeze. How many full-time employees did the ministry have on December 11, 2024, and how many full-time employees does the ministry currently have?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think that when the member asked me how many employees there were on December 11, 2024…. I think he would understand that it may not be reasonable to have done a count on that day or that it would even be productive to go search for that information.

What I can tell the member is that in fiscal year 2025, which is the fiscal year just ending, the average FTE burn and the number of FTEs in the ministry — which is not employees but FTEs; you’ll understand if there are 2.5, that’s two people but one FTE — is 358.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Can the minister confirm that the ministry is complying with the Premier’s directive of a hiring freeze?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

David Williams: Of that, how many positions are subject to the hiring freeze, and is the ministry committed to not contracting any more outside consultants, as they cannot hire any more staff?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re adhering to the rules of the hiring freeze, which is a hiring freeze.

With respect to contracts, the ministries do contract for services. Contracts end, and they might be renewed. Otherwise, if you had annualized contracts, they would just end.

But the rules of the hiring freeze are straightforward for us to deal with, and we’re adhering to them.

David Williams: To just confirm, so the minister is confirming that there will be no more hiring of any additional consultants.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re not replacing staff with consultants.

David Williams: Has the ministry conducted or initiated a review of all existing programs and initiatives to ensure programs remain relevant, are efficient and grow the economy and keep the costs low for British Columbians, as set aside by your mandate letter?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

[2:00 p.m.]

David Williams: Has the ministry found any dollars in savings? Has the ministry found programs that were not useful and that have either been reformed or eliminated? Can you please specify which departments?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, this is the process initiated by the Minister of Finance in its early days. Although we’re certainly doing that now, this is something that happens continually in government.

I recall — from my time, with a slightly bigger budget, as Minister of Health — that we would sometimes have programs end and other programs start. That would be the same here. This current review process is underway now, and I look forward to discussing the outcomes with the member next year in estimates.

David Williams: We’ll move on from there.

I want to ask about B.C. Hydro’s customer and corporate affairs division. There is a senior vice-president responsible for that department. According to Hydro’s own website: “The team works directly with customers, stakeholders, Indigenous nations, employees, regulatory bodies and our shareholder, the provincial government, to support our customers, conservation and teams within our organization.”

Can the minister please describe the shareholder relations component? How many employees work on this at B.C. Hydro, and what is their main function? Please include full-time employees that are currently in that department.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I want to introduce again Chris O’Riley, who is the president and CEO of B.C. Hydro, who is to my left. Just to say about Mr. O’Riley that he has announced that he will be retiring soon. We are very disappointed that he’s leaving us because he has made, I think, on behalf of the people of B.C., a really extraordinary contribution in his long career at B.C. Hydro. I want to acknowledge that achievement, those contributions today.

In terms of shareholder engagement, there’s a handful of people, according to Mr. O’Riley. I’d be happy to share the precise number with the member. I don’t think we want to delay. It’s a handful of people.

The Ministry of Energy and other regulatory bodies play an important role in dealing with B.C. Hydro’s role, as we’ve just been talking about, in the Columbia River treaty and in many other things. A handful of people, in dealing with those regulatory relationships with the shareholder, not only is not a large number but would be typical of many companies.

David Williams: I was wondering what purpose this has, if there’s only a handful of shareholders. B.C. has a Crown as an extension of the government. The ministry provides directives all the time. Why can’t other senior leaders just speak with the ministry directly? Why would policy decisions happen through this division?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, they do, but there are significant policy decisions to be made and to be managed between the provincial government and B.C. Hydro.

I’ll just give the member an example, in the wake of the 2021 heat dome…. At the time, I was Minister of Health. I promise to stop mentioning Health; I think I’m not going to do that. After 28 hours, the Legislature may have had their fill of Health for the moment.

At that time, the Ministry of Health took an initiative to deliver air conditioners to people who are vulnerable in B.C.

[2:05 p.m.]

That’s one of the dozens, if not hundreds, of initiatives that we coordinate every year with B.C. Hydro, which is surely one of, some would argue, the central economic Crown corporations in the province. So a small number of people ensuring that the direction that’s given is the direction achieved and making sure that everybody understands what they’re doing makes a lot of sense.

That said, of course, Mr. O’Riley and Mr. Pokorny, to my left and right, would speak frequently, as do many others, in the thousands of B.C. Hydro employees. I think it’s between 7,000 and 8,000 — maybe that’ll be a question I’ll get from the member — in terms of the number of employees all the time.

B.C. Hydro, through Powerex and other circumstances, does extraordinary work. This is a normal practice between the shareholder and a major Crown corporation. I don’t agree with the member that it’s excessive.

David Williams: B.C. Hydro has a senior vice-president with a core responsibility of shareholder relations and a team responsible for this, a small team. Is it correct that Hydro has contracted a government relations firm to lobby the government, and if so, is it correct that the firm is Framepoint Public Affairs?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There are four people in the unit, and they don’t lobby the government.

David Williams: Purchasing cards, a different focus. The ministry spent $3,172 through their purchasing cards on Gravitystorm Ltd. Can the minister tell the House what the purpose of these expenses was?

A second set of expenses here. The ministry spent $7,329 to attend a conference at Colorado State University. Can the minister please tell the House what the conference was and what the ministry gained from their attendance?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’ll commit to the member that I will return in this session with detailed responses to those questions that he has, so that he’ll understand the money spent, before we adjourn this afternoon. The alternative is to wait a long time to have someone deliver the information. That’s the member’s time. So we’ll keep things going, but I commit to coming back to the member.

In terms of travel, I would say that as a minister of the Crown, in the last seven years, certainly since 2018, I’ve left the territory of British Columbia — I don’t even go to Blaine — one time. That was to a conference of Health Ministers in Charlottetown.

There is a freeze on travel now, and people won’t be travelling outside of Canada in the near future.

David Williams: The Clean Energy Act says, on electricity self-sufficiency in clause 6(2): “The authority must achieve electricity self-sufficiency by holding, by the year 2016 and each year after that, the rights to an amount of electricity that meets the electrical supply obligations solely from electricity generating facilities within the province.”

Can the minister confirm that this legislation is currently being met by B.C. Hydro?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

David Williams: My understanding is that we have a shortfall. I was told that we are currently importing 20 percent of electricity. Is the minister asserting that enough power capacity exists and it just isn’t being used?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, these things get reviewed by the BCUC. In the most recent review of the IRP, they reviewed the average water conditions, that we met the standard of self-sufficiency. As you know, water conditions aren’t always average.

One of the remarkable things about B.C. Hydro is that when there’s import and export of power, which there is, the export of power is worth a lot more than the import of power. We know this because of the average of $572 million a year in profit that Powerex delivers to the people of B.C. that reduces B.C. Hydro rates here. The result of that, of course, is the third lowest electricity rates in North America, which is a real tribute to the people of B.C. and the people of B.C. Hydro.

These matters are reviewed, and decisions are made by the B.C. Utilities Commission. They say we’re in compliance on the definition of self-sufficiency that we need to meet in the act.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Since we’re on the topic of Powerex, we might as well move on to it.

Established in 1988 and based in Vancouver, Powerex is a wholesale energy marketer trading electricity, environmental products and natural gas, amongst other things. Over the past five years, Powerex has a range of net incomes from $192 million to $1.052 million. In the fiscal year 2023-24, three employees made over $1.3 million, and nine employees made over $500,000. Total staff cost was $45.7 million.

In the fiscal year 2023-24, B.C. Hydro imported 13,600 gigawatts of electricity on net basis, almost 25 percent of our total needs, costing $1.377 billion. This is according to Energy Futures.

My question: what is the current gross income of Powerex for the current fiscal year, and what is the projection for the upcoming fiscal year?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, if you look over the last five years…. The fiscal year has just ended, so the report will be coming out. I would be happy to share it with the hon. member when it’s available. But the average is in the neighbourhood of $500 million to $600 million. When he said $1 million, he meant $1 billion, which is what Powerex has made in individual years for the people of B.C.

Powerex is unusual, I think, different from virtually every other unit of the provincial government or the broader public sector. They’re energy traders, and they serve us well. When you make that much money a year for the people of B.C., based on your skills and talents, in a trading market that is very competitive…. It makes a lot of sense to tell them to go get it, and they go get it. It’s an extraordinary thing.

Again, this is an achievement of B.C. Hydro over time. It started in 1988, with the Social Credit government. Leading role in the 1990s, when we were selling our power to California in difficult times for them, NDP government. Leading in the 2000s and 2010s under a Liberal government.

And leading again now, because we believe that a dynamic, free-thinking, skilful group of people using the resources of British Columbia and the flexibility of our amazing hydro system can make us a lot of money that we can use to pay for the net income of the province — that means the share of hydro profits that go to the people of B.C. — and also to ensure that rates are kept low.

I think that makes sense. If you think of it, $60 a percent…. You make $550 million, say. Well, that’s 9 percent less on your hydro bill. Thank goodness for Powerex. Thank goodness for the vision putting it together. Thank goodness for the people that work for it.

[2:15 p.m.]

The message at B.C. Hydro and at Powerex is: let’s use that ability — the ability to be part of a trading system that involves 14 states, Alberta, British Columbia, northern Mexico — to trade our power in the best possible circumstance, to hold resources behind dams and then sometimes to take power when it’s virtually free from other jurisdictions.

They do a brilliant job at Powerex, and I’d be happy to have them brief the hon. member if he would be interested in hearing about the work they do.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. Yes, I wouldn’t mind being briefed at some point.

I think this answer has probably been already given. The current net income of Powerex is probably also not available until reports come out. But I will say… Is the minister happy with the compensation structure of the CEO and the current structure of Powerex?

Jody Toor: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Jody Toor: Can the House please welcome the second group of grade 5 students from Langley Christian School. These vibrant young learners are eager to watch and learn about the work of our chamber today.

Let’s give them a warm welcome as they embark on this exciting education experience.

Debate Continued

Hon. Adrian Dix: Welcome to the new group from Langley Christian.

We’re talking in the House…. Every year, every minister of government has to defend their budget in the House. The hon. member is the opposition critic for B.C. Hydro, and he’s asking me questions about B.C. Hydro. I’m doing my best to answer those questions. I’ll let all of you be the judge about how well we’re all doing, but it’s great to have all of you here. This is truly profound, what goes on, on a daily basis, here.

I’m very impressed with the group at Powerex. We have a new CEO who’s excellent; he’s president and CEO of ICBC. And the group is, as I say, different than everyone else in government and in the broader public sector.

You think of an organization…. They say: “Well, we pay our traders a lot, and they deliver with profits to the people of B.C.” Isn’t that fantastic? They earn, and I feel sensitive because he’s in the camera shot, quite a bit more than the president and CEO of B.C. Hydro — how about that? — because of their value, because of what it takes to recruit them, what happens when you lose them and their value in the open market.

So am I happy? Yes, I’m happy, and the people of B.C. should be happy every time they deliver the kind of results they deliver for the people of B.C. that allow us to avoid rate increases.

David Williams: To the minister: I understand there are probably a lot of traders, and you want people that are very competent. Is their compensation structure based on performance?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Is the minister concerned that a trade war with the United States could result in being unable to trade and provide revenue to B.C. Hydro? Basically, Powerex being affected by the trade war.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m concerned about everything with respect to our relationship with the United States, and this is one aspect of this. I was asked — as the member will know because he is obviously responsible for B.C. Hydro and on the opposition side of the House — to answer these questions a little while ago. What occurs if the trade between B.C. Hydro and other entities in the western grid were to somehow be interrupted? That would have an impact on British Columbia.

We would have power in British Columbia that we might not otherwise have, but the advantage of the flexibility of our system is we hold power behind our reservoirs at its greatest value. Other jurisdictions don’t have that benefit. We’re able to sell into the United States, and it’s a real benefit to sell into the United States.

The western grid, which is 14 states, northern Mexico, Alberta, British Columbia…. We’re a small part of that grid.

[2:20 p.m.]

There are hundreds of millions of people in that grid, and we’re, I think, 5.8 million people in British Columbia now. So we’re a small part of that enterprise, probably 2 to 3 percent, I would say.

Some people ask — for example, when Premier Ford took his step; it feels like a long time ago; I think it was about a month ago now — about putting a surtax on energy exports to the United States, why we didn’t do the same thing. I’m very supportive of Premier Ford and all he has been doing and respect very much the things he’s doing for all Canadians.

Well, why it doesn’t make sense for British Columbia is that we’re in this marketplace. If we were to impose some sort of surtax, it would affect our ability to sell our power but have relatively little immediate impact, especially this time of year, on the overall marketplace. So it wouldn’t have had effect, and you don’t, when you’re in a trade war, hit yourself in the face. You don’t take actions that hurt you more than they hurt them, by definition.

I am concerned, of course, because B.C. Hydro, I think, is a key part of the western grid with our American friends — most of the time, a little less so now — and with the province of Alberta as well, and our Mexican friends. This has enormous benefits to B.C., which I’ve described to the member, which is the net income of Powerex, so we’d be concerned about that.

The other concern, of course, is that when you’re exporting and importing…. In the last 14 years, we’ve exported more than we’ve imported eight times, and we’ve imported more than we’ve exported six times. The last two years we’ve imported more than we’ve exported, because they’ve been drought years, and we may talk about this in a few moments.

But if that system has advantage and it’s interrupted, we would have to take action to ensure the reliability of electricity service in B.C. So you bet, in light of what’s happened, we’ve prepared and are prepared for those circumstances. We don’t see them as desirable, but we are of course prepared, should the somewhat erratic actions of the President of the United States continue.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. I think that we should all be very concerned about a volatile stock market, especially with a traded commodity.

Question to the minister. If B.C. Hydro is unable to realize revenue from trade through Powerex, which is a real, distinct possibility with what’s going on with the stock market these days, what are the effects on B.C. Hydro providing affordable electricity?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it’s not really related to the stock market. What it would be related to is some sort of regulatory intervention by the U.S. government. That would be the risk. The current circumstances in the stock market would not be the significant factor there, I’d say.

With respect to Powerex and B.C. Hydro, when you have a successful entity such as Powerex and that effort is interrupted, that would have an impact on rates, of course. That’s why we have considered all of our options with respect to the United States and electricity, why we’ve acted as we have done — seriously, both at the bargaining table with the Columbia River treaty and just in general.

We’ve acted seriously to protect our own interest and to prepare for those eventualities. But the current system and the actions of Powerex benefit British Columbia. If it were interrupted, it would affect British Columbia.

Let me say, on rates, that since the current government has come to power, rates have increased 15 percent under the rate of inflation, and that’s a great achievement for B.C. I say in contrast, and I won’t dwell on this at this moment, that rates between 2001 and 2017 were 54 percent above the rate of inflation — so above the rate of inflation by 54 percent under let’s call them Liberals and 15 percent below the rate of inflation under the current government.

We have two increases now, at 3.75 and 3.75, which means that at the end of that process, it’ll be 12 percent below the rate of inflation.

What B.C. Hydro has done in terms of hydro rates for British Columbians makes us huge beneficiaries of a nationalized, 100 percent publicly owned system. I know our neighbours in Alberta, in the period between 2020 and 2024, have had 40 percent increases in electricity — 40 percent; and we’ve had, in that same period, 6 percent.

[2:25 p.m.]

That benefits us, and anything that disrupts that is obviously a negative, as with Powerex. I think I gave the member the sense that if it’s $60 million a point, roughly, in a rate increase, then you can think of a profit of $550 million having a 9 percent or a 10 percent impact on rates, were that to go away. But we’re obviously acting to make sure that it doesn’t go away.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

With that note, is the minister saying that the current rates are suppressed?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m saying that B.C. Hydro, which is owned by the people of B.C., does everything it can to make sure rates are affordable, and we sure need it at this time.

I don’t know of anyone out there who thinks that life is more affordable or so affordable that they don’t have to worry about it. It’s not at the grocery stores; it’s not anywhere else. And having a publicly owned Crown corporation that delivers rates dramatically below Seattle, dramatically below Portland, dramatically below Edmonton and Calgary and Toronto is a huge benefit. And compared to New York? Well, I don’t need to tell you. It’s an extraordinary advantage for British Columbia.

One of the ways we keep rates low is we maximize revenue on the resource that we all own, and isn’t that the right thing to do? Does anyone really say that that’s not the right thing to do?

So when we say that Powerex drives rates down, to use the member’s words, suppresses rates, you bet we do. And we’re going to keep doing it.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

I believe we just went over the Columbia River valley treaty, where we’re actually not going to be producing as much electricity and we’re going to be buying power back at market rate. I would imagine we’re buying back that power at high time. I don’t know. I just don’t see that being a workable thing to try to keep rates down.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it’s quite the contrary. The reason that Powerex makes money is that we sell high and we buy low. Good thing. Lots of people here have been in business. Selling high and buying low — that’s good business practice, and that’s exactly what we do. It’s quite the contrary.

What the Columbia River treaty provides, and Powerex does this work on behalf of the province and the people of B.C., is it takes the downstream benefit and, typically, sells it in the American market at a profit, which makes sense. We use that profit to, amongst other things, keep hydro rates low, which is a benefit to the people of B.C. That’s what we do. It’s quite contrary to what the member is saying.

What the downstream benefits do and what the B.C. Hydro system does is allows us to use electricity when it’s at its most valuable, to sometimes sell it when it’s at its most valuable.

In case members think that I’m taking credit for something the government is doing, these dams have been built over time by multiple governments across our province, under the time of B.C. Electric and Social Credit and NDP governments in the past. The Site C dam started under the previous government and was completed under our government.

This is the extraordinary thing about B.C. Hydro and hydroelectric power. In a time of climate change, to be able to produce clean electricity in a hydro system is an enormous benefit for the people of B.C., and I don’t think anyone could argue with that.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

With that in mind about buying low, selling high, has the ministry or B.C. Hydro forecasted potential for America to cut off electricity imports as part of an escalating trade war?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think this is the exact question the member asked a few minutes ago. I’m happy to talk about it again. It’s not a problem.

What Powerex does, as I noted…. I just want to be clear on this point, on the downstream benefits. Powerex sells the power on behalf of this consolidated revenue fund of the government. With respect to B.C. Hydro’s resources, it buys themselves power.

The short answer is, if that action were taken by the American government…. It’s why, because we’re in this system, we don’t recommend that action be taken by the Canadian government — because the system benefits us. Should there be a trade war in that nature, of course it would harm people, but not just on this side of the border, on both sides of the border, and most especially those customers in the United States, who also can benefit from the clean energy produced by B.C. Hydro.

[2:30 p.m.]

We have a system where we export and import power, where, in the average year, more years than less, we’ve exported more than we’ve imported in terms of the amount of power. But every year, the value of the power we export is greater than the value of the power we import by a massive margin. And that’s just great for British Columbia. That’s our legacy of B.C. Hydro that I’m so very proud of.

If the member is asking if the United States were to engage in new actions in a trade war to harm Canada, yes, they can harm Canada. And we’re preparing for that eventuality, although obviously it hasn’t taken place. We’ll be doing everything we can, also, to avoid it taking place.

I think “everything we can” includes Team Canada actions from coast to coast to coast that defend our interests. When they go after auto workers in Ontario, those are our interests too. When they go after our resource industries, it should be their interests too. That’s the nature of having a country, and we’re stronger together.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

With that in mind, is B.C. Hydro currently able to fully deliver on electricity demands without imports?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, they are, but that would be a change in our system, so we would respond to that accordingly. For example, you would take…. There are a number of IPP contracts that currently export to the United States, but we have the ability to keep those here. We would take advantage of that. We would use our vast and effective reservoir system. And we would engage with other provinces in a spirit of reciprocity to ensure that systems were maintained in B.C.

We’re prepared for that eventuality. We don’t want it to happen. We made it clear we don’t want it to happen. But should the American government take what would effectively be illegal and inappropriate action against our province, we are prepared for that.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Just to clarify, when I meant imports, I mean interprovincial imports as well. So you’re saying that B.C. is self-sufficient right now?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we regularly trade power with the province of Alberta and will continue to do so. It’s one of the reasons why I’ve been working hard to enhance our relationship with the province of Alberta. I think I said in the House a week or so ago that we should work more closely with other Canadian provinces. It’s not just what we formally call internal trade barriers, but we’ve got to work more closely together.

The inter-tie, the relationship, which is the source of trade between B.C. and Alberta…. And I mean Alberta wind power, because they have, as you know, some of the best wind power in the world in the province of Alberta — and obviously, Alberta natural gas and other things, and B.C. natural gas and B.C. hydroelectric. There’s trade all the time between our provinces, and that will continue.

We’ve got to enhance our ability to do that. It strengthens us all when B.C. and Alberta and Saskatchewan and the Yukon, in particular, work as one to enhance our collective interests. I’ve been really honoured to work with the Minister of Energy of Alberta, whom you may know, Mr. Jean. Also a former leader of the opposition. Didn’t become Premier. How about that? We have a lot in common, I would say. And Mr. Neudorf, who’s the minister responsible for utilities in Alberta.

We’re doing a lot of work together because I think we should be stronger together, and we’re going to continue to do that work.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Just to clarify, since we are depending on Alberta, it seems, quite a bit…. We are certainly getting imports through Powerex, through different importing. Some of those imports are coming in, you just finished saying, from Alberta — LNG, biomass, wind, solar. There are different facilities, correct?

I just want to clarify that some of our power that we’re importing is coming from what we would consider, in this province, not green energy.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, just to say the province of Alberta, and I give them a lot of credit for this, has stopped using coal in June, for example, which is part of their efforts to address climate change and to respond to the needs of our province. Good for Alberta for doing that. We have to, I think, acknowledge when people other than ourselves make progress, right? That’s important.

Does B.C. import energy from Alberta? Of course we do, much, and especially, for example, gasoline, which we’ll talk about later. In terms of electricity back and forth, we buy and sell electricity with Alberta all the time. That makes sense for us, and it makes sense for them. I’m not sure why we wouldn’t want to do that.

We buy and sell energy with Washington state and Oregon and other states. Of course we’re going to do that with Alberta and other Canadian jurisdictions. That makes a lot of sense — to me, anyway. I don’t know what the member is saying.

With respect to whether we need more energy, which I think is where the member is going, well, we’re doing that, and we’re going to do more of it. Site C added 8 percent to B.C. Hydro’s energy production. The wind power projects, which I know members of the opposition support, are going to add another 8 percent.

We’re going to do further calls for power. We need more electricity. We need more clean electricity in B.C. We need more transmission capacity to take that energy into places where it’s not right now, including and especially the northwest of B.C. where there is, really, limitless economic potential and which has been underserved under multiple periods of time, for decades, in my view, in terms of the distribution of energy. We think there’s opportunity there. Of course we’ll do that. We’re producing….

That’s why we’re adding energy to the electricity of the system: because we think we need more. We’ve added more than half a million people in the last three years to British Columbia. More than half a million people in three years increases our load as well — an 11 percent increase in population in three years, almost 20 percent over the time of this government. All of them use energy, so we need to meet that demand as well. We need to do it by creating more energy, and that’s what we’re doing.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Just to clarify, a simple yes or no. Is 100 percent of the energy that we’re importing through B.C. Hydro, through Powerex and Powertech, 100 percent green energy, or is some of it fossil fuel or other fuels, yes or no?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it’s not yes or no. It’s a mix.

Misty Van Popta: I seek leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Misty Van Popta: In the chamber today, we have Ms. Wessner’s grade 5 class from Langley Christian School — up behind me here, I believe, if they want to give a quick wave.

This is a great independent school with a long history in Langley. They have a strong educational program, which includes teaching about Canadian democracy and our parliamentary system, and I am very happy to see them here.

Will the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Outside of the ten new wind and solar projects, what is B.C. Hydro doing to ensure electricity reliability without importing?

Hon. Adrian Dix: A number of things. One of the least expensive ways to address these issues, the cheapest energy, if you will, is the energy you don’t use. B.C. Hydro — for generations, but especially now, as we’ve added to its conservation programs — is investing heavily in conservation. The conservation program….

The incremental value of the conservation is about 200,000 homes, just to put that in context, in case people think it’s a small thing. It’s a large thing. In particular, it benefits low-income people, because B.C. Hydro’s programs have really focused on that in recent years.

Secondly, 8 percent, the Site C, so 8 percent on the new projects, new calls for power coming. I can tell…. We obviously, as well, need more firm power and capacity — so expanding firm power, expanding the energy we produce in our calls for power, increasing conservation.

[2:40 p.m.]

All of these are ways B.C. Hydro addresses the growing population and, really, the economic vibrancy in B.C. and the potential of economic vibrancy, particularly in natural resource industries but also in high tech and life sciences and other things, industries that sometimes have high energy requirements that are happening right now. So while there are real challenges with the United States that affect our economy right now, we’ve got to lean into building British Columbia, and B.C. Hydro is the means to do that.

What I’ve said to B.C. Hydro, and what I believe, is that we need to, more so than in the past, reach out to our potential. That means building the North Coast transmission line. I’m disappointed the Leader of the Opposition opposes that. I’m not sure about that, but it benefits his region in any event. We need to create more, to get more energy in our province, renewable energy in particular. So $6 billion in investment in the wind and solar projects that we have before us.

Of course, we’re not the only jurisdiction in the world doing this, quite the contrary. Xcel Energy, which is the second leading company in renewables in the United States, is doubling its capital investment this year — doubling its capital investment; while Exxon and others are cutting their capital investment.

The value of renewable energy everywhere in the world is clear. We in B.C. have to invest in that as well, and we are.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Well, we’ll move on to some clean energy. I understand that Powertech Labs and Powertech USA…. They were established in 1988, and they’re based in Surrey. Powertech is a wholly owned subsidiary of B.C. Hydro, and Powertech USA is located in Boston, which began its operations in 2023. I believe its focus is on developing hydrogen transport and fuelling infrastructure solutions.

In their August 2024 report, Powertech USA reported a net loss of $2.2 million, which was less than the projected loss of $4.8 million. This was the first fiscal year. Powertech revenue, over the last five years, has ranged from $49 to $63 million, ranging from a loss of $1 million to a revenue of $5.4 million.

In the fiscal year 2023-24, Powertech paid out salaries totalling $25.9 million, and $19 million for supplies. Its subsidiary, Powertech USA, paid out an additional $1.9 million in salaries and $1.7 million to suppliers. I don’t know what suppliers.

My question to the minister is: Powertech and its subsidiary, Powertech USA — can the minister outline what role they play and provide to B.C. Hydro?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, Powertech Labs and their American subsidiary play a significant role in innovation. They provide services to utilities, so they make money. The member answered his question there when he described their income over the years. They make money for B.C. Hydro. They employ leading-edge researchers and engineers. They do a lot of work in the hydrogen space, which has got enormous potential for our province. The member will know…. Maybe he’ll be able to tour, once the session ends, the hydrogen filling station, for example, at UBC, which is a reflection of the work of Powertech Labs.

[2:45 p.m.]

We have clients in the United States as well, which is the reason for the American subsidiary. It makes a small amount of money. It’s a relatively small organization. It really punches above its weight in terms of the innovation it brings to our problems.

So you have an agency that brings together engineers and researchers that innovate some products that have been around for a long time, that benefit B.C. Hydro, that benefit other utilities, that make money for the province and that hire engineers and researchers. It’s a pretty good deal for B.C.

David Williams: Thank you for the answer, to the minister.

I do understand that innovation companies are very volatile, but apparently they don’t make money, at least not all the time.

My question is to the minister. What measurable accomplishments have Powertech and Powertech USA accomplished in the last five years?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, before industries become big industries, they’re smaller. It’s the leading supplier of hydrogen filling stations. It’s innovation here and in lots of places. It’s on the cutting edge of the hydrogen industry.

The member says it doesn’t make money. Well, it makes money over time, and it’s proven that. He listed off the net income. I didn’t list off the net income. If you look at that, you see that it makes money over time, and it brings innovation in that space.

It works with private companies, such as HTEC and others, to…. In the hydrogen space, which is a growing industry — everybody says it’s going to grow; how quickly and when is a discussion and a question — well, Powertech is a leader.

This is a part of B.C. Hydro’s innovation, which I think most people in B.C. would say should continue, given the success they have in that market, in being a leading player in that market, albeit a smaller market, and the people they employ and the advancements they make. But what a great thing to do at a company and, at the same time, produce, over a period of years, net profits to B.C. Hydro and the people of B.C.

I think he would agree with me that that’s a pretty good deal for the people of B.C. And I’m sure that the people of Powertech…. I know this for a fact, because they are very proud of their work. I’m sure they would be delighted to give members of the opposition a briefing on all their activities.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

My question to the minister is that…. Yeah, I understand that new companies are sometimes very risky. They’re a gamble. Gambling, you can make money at too. I’m not sure if that’s something that I think that a publicly owned utility should be doing — gambling with the public’s money.

That aside, my question to the minister is: can the minister explain why it was necessary to open up a subsidiary, Powertech USA, in Boston?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Taking advantage of expertise. Selling our services in the United States.

To compare a money-making subsidiary of B.C. Hydro that invests in the energy future of the province and the world to gambling…. I don’t know where…. Perhaps the member is a good tout. I don’t know. But to compare it to gambling is just wrong.

It’s gambling not to invest in the future if you’re a major energy utility. B.C. Hydro is one of the most important companies in the province. Of course it should invest in research. Of course it should use cutting-edge engineering. Of course it should develop new services and deliver services to its customers better. Powertech Labs is a small company, but it isn’t a gamble. It’s a success. It’s a success for the people of B.C.

I don’t know what the member’s game is, whether it’s slots or roulette or blackjack or poker. Maybe he gambles on the NHL. It’s been a tough year.

[2:50 p.m.]

But I would say that what he’s doing is comparing high-tech, cutting-edge industry to gambling in Las Vegas or, I don’t know, maybe Salmon Arm. I don’t think that’s a fair comparison.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Yeah, I’m saying that not all innovation is bad. Of course we have to have lots of innovation. We should be investing in Canadian companies. We have a lot of creative, innovative companies, especially in the electrical field. But I think that when you’re spending money in the U.S., that is kind of spending our money elsewhere and taking a risk.

With that in mind, what is the mission of Powertech USA?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Powertech has two missions. One is to serve B.C. Hydro and other utilities with equipment and innovation, and the other is in the hydrogen space, as we build the energy transition and we look to the future.

I think when I hear people talk about, for example, LNG…. We’re going to have a discussion, I suspect, with the member for Peace River South on Monday on these questions. One of the advantages of LNG is we’re upgrading and then selling our product elsewhere. Equally, in terms of innovation and tech and equipment and the work of Powertech Labs, selling those goods and services in the United States makes a lot of sense for us if we’re going to maximize our return.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

My question to the minister is: why was this work unable to be achieved in Canada and you had to have a U.S. subsidiary?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Because if you want to take advantage of the U.S. market and you’re selling in the United States and you’re servicing the United States, you’ve got to be in the United States.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

In light of the tariff and trade war, do we have any plans to relocate the subsidiary or close the subsidiary in the U.S. of A.?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s an export business, and it supports our jobs here. There’s no question that the tariffs and the threat of tariffs are impacting every industry.

We discussed earlier the ways that it might potentially affect B.C. Hydro, the way they might affect the energy industry — and, obviously, that would be the case — and the way that such actions might affect Powertech Labs, about any number of thousands of companies, private or public, like it.

We’re serving customers in the United States. We’re supporting our Canadian business and, ultimately, the people of B.C. I think that makes a lot of sense, and I think we should continue to do it.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Since we’re concerned with innovative technologies and keeping prices low for the consumer, let’s move on to the Utilities Commission.

BCUC efficiency drive seems to be reducing the involvement of public interest groups. The B.C. Utilities Commission used to engage a lot of public interest from different groups that wanted to engage with them so they could have input on rates, and that has been severely curtailed because of efficiency cutbacks.

Can you confirm that, and what’s your plan moving forward?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I have two points.

You know, I understand because for many years, 12 years, I participated in the estimates process on the opposition side of the Legislature. So I have experience in the challenges of being an opposition member.

In the case of the B.C. Utilities Commission, it’s an aspect of administrative justice and is under the purview of the Attorney General. But I’m not going to let that stop me answering the member’s question because we’re trying to make progress here. I’m sure his colleague, the critic for the Attorney General, will have lots of questions for the Attorney General, and the member might not get into those questions with the Attorney General.

Let’s say that the new head of the Utilities Commission…. He has been new for a few years. Dr. Mark Jaccard is, I think, really a remarkable figure in B.C. life, and we recently reappointed for five years. He’s has been increasing the efficiency of the commission, which is good for the ratepayers, good for those engaging in the commission. So what you’ll see over a period of years under Dr. Jaccard’s leadership is a reduction in the time that it takes to make decisions.

And while that sometimes affects B.C. Hydro, it also affects private entities such as Fortis and others who go through the Utilities Commission. So what you have is a utilities commission that is maintaining its transparency, providing more regular and frequent reports and cutting down on the regulatory burden by reducing the time to decision, all of which I believe members of the Legislature on all sides would support.

David Williams: My question to the minister — we’ll just jump back a bit — is to do with rate increases among the B.C. Utilities Commission. The recent application to the B.C. Utilities Commission for 2025-26 shows a forecast of $546.5 million in trade income from Powerex, which reduces the utilities’ revenue requirement. This forecast for trade income is apparently based on the five-year average of Powerex’s results from 2019-20 to 2023-24.

But B.C. Hydro itself said that Powerex’s income from 2022-2023 was extraordinary, and it cannot predict whether or not these opportunities will continue or persist, going forward, which brings us back to the volatility of the markets.

My question to the minister is: how confident is the minister that Powerex will be able to earn this forecast income of $546.5 million? If Powerex earns less than this amount, what will be the effects of B.C. Hydro’s net income and, subsequently, the effect on the provincial deficit in ’25-26?

Hon. Adrian Dix: What the member said was: “Well, one year it was more than the other years.” And it’s why there’s a long-standing convention to use five-year averages to judge these things. The five-year average is $546 million. B.C. Hydro has a way, because income can vary in a present year, of balancing out that income over time, using deferral accounts.

The member said: “Well, what if they get less?” Well, what if they get more? That’s affected both ways by that process. So the reason there’s a five-year average is because averages are more descriptive and take away the vagaries of a particular year. That’s why we use five-year averages.

David Williams: I understand. So you’re saying that there’s cost averaging over five years, which is great. So you’re saying that there’ll be no impact to the rates for B.C. Hydro’s customers, using that cost averaging over five years.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m saying that if you’re judging the need for rates, going forward, use five-year averages to measure what the rate increase is and what the balance of incoming costs is. That’s what we do. And that makes more sense than a one-year average, which can skew things. You make $1 billion in a year; you shouldn’t assume you make $1 billion next year or $1 billion the year before. That’s why virtually every regulated utility uses some version for profit centres, like Powerex, of a five-year average.

[3:00 p.m.]

David Williams: In light of Powerex’s trading and costs averaging over five years, as well as new streams of electricity coming on board, what you’re saying is that rates should be fairly stable and that B.C. customers can expect fairly stable and no significant rate increases over the next five years.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I don’t need to speculate on that. We know what the rate increases are in the next two years. They’re 3.75 percent and 3.75 percent. We also know that the average in the previous years, from 2020 to 2024, was dramatically below the rate of inflation. This is ’25-26 and ’26-27. In other words, over the time of the government, in the ten-year period of the government, B.C. Hydro rates will have been 12 percent under the rate of inflation.

I think, given the nature of costs and everything else, given that a lot of us are customers of B.C. Hydro…. Some people live in Fortis territory, I know.

In comparison to anyone else in the business — Seattle, Portland, anyone else in the business on the west coast; Alberta, which has seen 40 percent increases in the same period that we saw 6 percent increases — I’m saying that B.C. Hydro is committed to providing affordable rates for people.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

What also happens and we also might understand is that we need more electricity. The member talks about it. Other people talk about it. I hear people talking about it in the media. When you have incremental electricity…. One of the reasons B.C. Hydro rates are low is that our resource is often a heritage resource. We kind of paid for the Revelstoke dam a while ago, as the member will know. So that power, that energy, is cheaper, that electricity is cheaper because it’s kind of our legacy electricity.

When you add incremental electricity, such as, say, adding Site C to the system by probably, I’m guessing, late summer…. The CEO of B.C. Hydro will shudder at that, because he’s saying that we think it would be late summer, but it might be as late as November.

In any event, in the 2025 calendar year, all of the units of Site C are going to be operating. When they operate and they go on the rate base, that power — because it’s new and because we’re paying for it and are borrowing money over 80 years, amortized over 80 years for that — is going to increase, the cost of power, as will any incremental source of electricity.

When you have more people — half a million more people in the last few years, one million more in the last ten — then you need more electricity. When you have the opportunities we have in critical minerals and the demand for electricity is even higher, that will be an upward pressure, because we are going to have to add electricity. New incremental electricity is more expensive than our existing heritage electricity, which we, in effect, have already paid for.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

I’d like to move on. Since we’re talking about utilities and the Utilities Commission, let’s move on to rate increases. On April 1, the NDP announced that electricity rates would increase 7.5 over two years. That squeezes the pocketbooks of many British Columbians.

In addition to this increase to electricity rates, this will result in an increase of 16.6 percent over four years. Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec all offer electricity at lower rates than B.C. B.C. Hydro needs a long-term plan to keep rates affordable. A 16 percent increase in four years does not achieve that, at least not in my mind.

B.C. Hydro increased labour costs up to 15 percent. I understand that labour has gone up significantly. B.C. Hydro has also applied to the B.C. Utilities Commission to eliminate the two-tiered power system.

For two years, B.C. Hydro has run an operating loss prior to borrowing the funds through a deferral account, right? Based on that, my question: does the minister expect that a 16.6 percent increase in hydro rates is an acceptable number for ratepayers to accept?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member said that electricity rates are higher in B.C. than in Ontario. That’s absolutely not true. They’re dramatically higher in Toronto than they are in Vancouver, say. So the substance of his question is wrong.

But in any event, let’s just give the member some comparisons. Western North America residential electricity rates: $11.49 in Vancouver; $19.72 — this is a comparison in cent per kilowatt hour — in Seattle; $21.56 in Portland; $25.28 in Calgary; $25.68 in Edmonton; $55.43 in San Francisco, five times higher. We have the lowest electricity rates, except for Manitoba Hydro and except for Quebec hydro, in North America.

We have them because we’ve reduced hydro rates against inflation by 12 percent since this government has been in office. The member will ask: “Well, what was it like under the previous government?” Well, I’ll tell him. It was 54 percent above the rate of inflation under the previous government, from 2001 to 2017.

This isn’t an achievement by me or by magic; it’s an achievement by the people of B.C. and the people of B.C. Hydro. We have the lowest electricity rates around. Yes, there’s an increase. Site C has come on. We have to build a stronger hydro system, and we have many new customers. We have a $36 billion capital plan, because when you have 500,000 more people, you need more substations. You need to deliver more resources everywhere, whether it’s in Vancouver or Williams Lake or wherever it is.

I would say to the member that this is an extraordinary advantage for British Columbia. To say that a 12 percent decrease against inflation of electricity rates in B.C. is unaffordable is wrong. It’s the opposite. It’s an achievement for B.C. When compared to the 54 percent above inflation in the years before that or the circumstances in Toronto or in Edmonton or in Calgary or in Seattle or in Portland, when we are leading North America…. When he says the rates are higher, well, he’s simply wrong. The Quebec government does an international comparison, which I’m happy to share with the member.

I agree with him. We’ve got to keep hydro rates affordable. That’s what the direction to the Utilities Commission and the decision to limit rate increases, at a time when we’re adding the Site C power, to 3.75 percent in each of the next two years does. It’s in the context of, in the previous eight years, a 15 percent below the rate of inflation decrease in electricity rates against inflation, which is an achievement, again, not by me or anybody else but by the people of B.C. and the people of B.C. Hydro.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

My question to the minister. I believe you probably are reading from your report, which basically states the 12 percent. But according to our research, it found that Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba all had lower hydro rate options.

Why is the minister trying to mislead British Columbians about the cost of electricity in B.C.?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I said we had the lowest electricity rates. Aside from the fact that the question is out of order…. When you’re making the statement that electricity rates are lower in Ontario than they are in B.C. when they’re lower in B.C. than they are in Ontario, and then you add to that the suggestion that we’re being misleading or misleading the Legislature, that’s both not really on, but it’s also incorrect.

We have the third-lowest electricity rates in North America. The lowest, Quebec hydro. The second lowest, Manitoba Hydro. We’re very close to them, and then there’s a gulf. You know why they’re the lowest? Because they’re nationalized Crown corporations. They’re public utilities. That’s why they’re the lowest. It shows the value.

In B.C., that value was put in place, interestingly, under a Social Credit government, which nationalized B.C. Electric and created B.C. Hydro. It has served us under administration since then, and it’s given us the third lowest electricity rates in North America.

You should see the comparisons between B.C. and New York. You should see the comparisons — we talked about it — between B.C. and San Francisco. They’re five times higher. If you’re trying to run a household in San Francisco, that impacts you. So 40 percent increases in Alberta, and higher rates in Toronto, of course, than here.

You know, nobody is doing anything. These are public reports, and they’re not my reports. They’re just the information that’s available. Quebec hydro, lowest. Manitoba Hydro, second. B.C. Hydro, third. And we are way ahead of everybody else.

[3:10 p.m.]

The Chair: I just want to caution members against using terms like “misleading.” Certainly, we may have disagreement in data or information, but that’s a serious allegation, and I would caution against using that type of a term.

David Williams: Thank you, Chair, and I withdraw that comment.

I thank the minister for the answer.

So you’re saying that Alberta rates are quite a bit high. On the same token, we are buying electricity from Alberta. Is that correct, yes or no?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we’ve just had a lengthy discussion. B.C. Hydro is part of a western grid, and we buy and sell electricity across that grid. To the benefit of British Columbians, we make $550 million in profit from doing it. Why? Because the B.C. hydro system is exceptional. Because the work done by people who built our dams is exceptional. The work done on transmission lines is exceptional. We have a huge territory compared to lots of places in the world, and we’re delivering some of the lowest electricity rates in the world here in B.C.

Yes, we trade between Alberta and B.C. Yes, we trade between the United States and B.C. And because we have a flexible hydro system and basically Alberta doesn’t, so it’s not…. I don’t blame them for those circumstances, but they don’t. They have very much more volatile rates than we do.

Equally, people who are in FortisBC territory are seeing much higher rate increases, dramatically higher rate increases this year than B.C. Hydro, which is a real challenge for them. Both on the former West Kootenay side of things and the gas side of things, they’re seeing rate increases that are significant because of the nature of commodity price increases. They go to the BCUC too. I’m not being critical of Fortis; I’m just saying that’s true.

Because of the work of British Columbians over time, we have the lowest electricity rates around. They’re lower than Ontario. They’re lower than anywhere else but Manitoba and Quebec, and that’s because Manitoba and Quebec, like us, have extraordinary publicly owned provincial hydro systems.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

My question to the minister would be going back to the importing and the rate increase. Of the rate increase, how much is it because we import 20 percent of our power?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’ve had this discussion before, but I’m happy not to say “asked and answered” but to give it another go.

B.C. Hydro rates are lower because we import and export power. How do we know this? Because Powerex, which imports and export power on behalf of B.C. Hydro and the people of B.C., makes on average — the member said it — $546 million in net income. So that importing and exporting of power reduces hydro rates for people in B.C. and allows us, for example, to have residential rates, cents per kilowatt hour — 11.49 cents in Vancouver, 15.06 cents in Toronto, the opposite of what the member said. And 14.28 cents in Ottawa, lower than what the member said.

In other words, B.C. benefits because of that very system of importing and exporting power that I talked about. And the evidence for that he provided, and I provided, which is the net income we make from Powerex every year.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

My question is to the minister. Since we’re getting such a great deal and we’re doing such a good job in trading…. Alberta has a totally transparent grid system where they can see where the power is coming from. Anybody can go on the website, and they can see which plants are producing what at what time, and you can tell what’s being exported and imported.

Is the minister saying that he is committed to making that as open and public and transparent in this province as well, yes or no?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member will know that B.C. Hydro posts the real-time net actual flow for imports and exports through the B.C.-U.S. and the B.C.-Alberta interties, sampled every five minutes online.

[3:15 p.m.]

For the member’s edification, it’s www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/operations/transmission/transmission-system/actual-flow-data.html. I’ll send it to him.

Unlike Alberta and California, we do not have a deregulated wholesale electricity market. It’s a different system where an hourly pool price is set for the cost of megawatt hour of electricity. Disclosing our production volumes at an hourly interval has the potential to disclose our trade positions across the Western Interconnection. In other words, it affects our ability to make money for the people of B.C. and to reduce the increases in hydro rates here in B.C., which we’ve both acknowledged now that we’re doing through this net income.

So we have a different regulatory system and we operate differently, but that said, the system is quite transparent. And of course, it’s regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

With that in mind, the provinces and the states that have a website and an open, transparent system. Do they trade, same as Powerex does?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Different jurisdictions have different regulatory systems. I just noted that Alberta and California have deregulated energy markets, which function differently than ours. Every major utility trades in electricity.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

My question to the minister. Maybe I’m just a little confused. They have a deregulated market, and we have a public utility. But if they’re trading, and even if it’s a deregulated market, would they not have shareholders that are buying into those, whoever’s trading, much the same as B.C. Hydro is doing here?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think I made it clear that B.C. Hydro doesn’t disclose at an hourly interval because that discloses our trade position. But that said, there’s detailed information about B.C. Hydro’s trading volumes back and forth across interties that’s available on a public website.

Our system is different. We don’t have a deregulated market like they do in Alberta and California. When you have a deregulated market, there’s different access to that market.

We’re a trader. We trade to maximize the value of our asset, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do. It’s been pretty successful over time, doing that. The people it treats best, the people that it’s an aid to, the people it’s supporting are the people that vote for the member and vote for me: the people of B.C.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Again, maybe I’m a little confused. I understand you don’t want to affect the trading ability and the ability to make revenue by trading electricity. I don’t see how you can regulate when demand is high because it’s cold or it’s dark. I don’t think that changes the market.

Can the minister please elaborate?

Hon. Adrian Dix: That’s why we trade by the hour. We take advantage of that fully. The market is different when there’s more demand for electricity, when there’s less demand for electricity. That makes sense. That’s the way it has always worked, that’s what it makes for, and that’s what we benefit from.

When you can trade on an hourly basis, you can take advantage to a maximum extent. When I say take advantage, I mean maximize the value of our asset in B.C., which is what the people of B.C. want us to do — maximize the value of that asset. And that’s what we attempt to do. These are very sophisticated traders in B.C. Hydro. It’s its core business for a generation now — two generations now, three generations now, I should say.

[3:20 p.m.]

B.C. Hydro uses its expertise in this area to maximize value for the people of B.C. The member may be against that, and that, I guess, would be his position, but I’m in favour of it. I’m in favour of B.C. Hydro doing the best possible job for the people of B.C. That’s why we put the system in place that we have now.

David Williams: My question to the minister. A little more than a year ago Alberta almost had a blackout because of demand, and because they had an open and transparent system, they were able to deal with that. Does the minister think that this information should be kept from British Columbians? Would that not be a safety factor or…?

Certainly it’s a good thing to mitigate risk, as much as it happened in Alberta a little over a year ago.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member is referring specifically to January 12, 2024, when an extreme cold snap in Alberta affected their system. That was also, as you’d expect because we share a border with Alberta, a pretty cold day in B.C. too. We had peak-load demand, and we still sold Alberta power to help them out. We still sold power to our southern neighbours to help them out, so we have a pretty extraordinary system, yes.

David Williams: Question to the minister. Does he not agree that having an open system where people could go on there, quickly react to the demands and stop the province from having a blackout because they could buy power from B.C. or elsewhere…? Would that not be helpful to British Columbians? Shouldn’t British Columbians have that same ability?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the lesson is that the B.C. system withstood that and even helped out Alberta. That’s a pretty good lesson for our two provinces, which is that we should do that for one another. They use the cell phone system, as the member will know. In Alberta, on that day, it had a mixed effect, I would say, on the Alberta population, but that’s a debate for the Alberta Legislature, not for me.

What I can say is that B.C. Hydro obviously prepares for those circumstances because of the remarkable job they do delivering electricity to people across B.C. Every day, they continue to do that. On that day, which was a tough day for us, we helped out Alberta too.

What a great country this is that that happens. What a great country, and what a great organization B.C. Hydro is, that we’re flexible enough to be able to do that — to meet B.C. demand, help out Alberta and, yes, help out Washington state. Isn’t that a great thing for our country, that we have a system flexible enough to deal with that?

I would say, in fairness…. I mean, Alberta is — let’s acknowledge it — in North American terms, an energy superpower. They are. But in some areas, particularly electricity, they are not as well off as we are. They have great natural resources in Alberta that we use, of course, including many of us, to drive around, right? So this is not in any way a criticism of Alberta, and it’s one of the reasons my response to all this is to engage with Alberta to take advantage of their strengths, take advantage of our strengths and work together more closely. That’s precisely what we’re doing.

David Williams: My question to the minister. Currently we import as well as export electricity. Can the minister tell me exactly how much electricity we import and what percentage that would be?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Let me take the member through that, net exports or imports over the period 2005 to the present. So 2005, 2006 and 2007 were net import years in the range from 4,526 gigawatt hours in 2006 to 7,560 in 2005. Then 2008 was a net export year, and 2009, 2010 and 2011 were net import years. And 2012, 2013 were net export years; ’14 and ’15 were net import years; ’16, ’17 and ’18 were net export years; ’19 and ’20 were net import years; ’20, ’21 and ’22 were net export years; and ’24 and ’25 were net import years.

In other words, sometimes we import more power and sometimes we export more power, but always the value of what we export is more than the value of what we import, hence the remarkable profits and success of Powerex and B.C. Hydro in keeping rates low in B.C. Our power is more valuable because we have an integrated hydroelectric system that is remarkable and is our legacy from our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents.

It changes every year. In drought years in B.C., we take those times to keep our reservoirs as high as we can. So we import more power in drought years, and we’ve had a couple of sustained drought years. The member may have questions about this subsequently, but I won’t anticipate his questions. I’ll let him ask them. Those are the nature of those things. This is public information. I’m happy to share it with the member. And rather than reading it all out, I might just send it to him or provide it to him at the end of the day.

Amna Shah: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Amna Shah: I am absolutely thrilled to welcome 18 grade 10 to 12s from a school in my riding, the Honour Secondary School. Yeah, give it up.

We have a very excited and thrilled bunch here, and I’m so pleased to welcome you to this House so that you may learn about the processes and procedures that are involved in one of the best things about this planet, and that is democracy. I sincerely hope that you enjoy your time here.

A special shout-out to your teacher, Amelia Misak. I hope I’m pronouncing that correctly.

Will the House join me in making all of these students feel very welcome here today.

Debate Continued

David Williams: My question to the minister is that British Columbians deserve transparency. Currently we have import and export years. If B.C. Hydro became 100 percent self-sufficient, going forward, that would mitigate the reason for not to have a transparent and open system that the public could go on to see where our power is going, because we would be selling our power. Is that correct?

Hon. Adrian Dix: First of all, it’s great to have the students from Honour Secondary School here. Just to say, right now in the House, it may not seem like there are as many people here as you might expect. I’m the Minister of Energy, and I’m defending the budget for B.C. Hydro. We’re debating B.C. Hydro and what it’s doing. The member on the opposition side, the critic, is asking questions about B.C. Hydro. He wants to know about rates and about new projects and all kinds of other things. So we’re having that discussion.

Every year I have to do this as the minister. I have to come in and say this is my budget and this is what I’m spending the money on. And the opposition gets to ask any question they want for a long time. This current debate — I don’t expect you to stay for the whole debate — will be about 11 hours. You don’t have to say for the whole thing. It’s longer than Survivor.

[3:30 p.m.]

In any event, you see…. After all that, I almost forget the question, except I don’t.

As I said from the beginning, B.C. Hydro is compliant in terms of self-sufficiency. If you were to build energy costs at high cost to meet the highest-demand import year, it would increase rates. And that’s not what we do. We build for average rates, and then we use our trading system to keep rates low for the people of B.C.

Now, when the overall population rises and we have these extraordinary opportunities in economic development that we have now, we need to build more wind power projects, more solar projects. We just built Site C. We have to look at other dam projects. We have to look at other projects across B.C. to build up both our firm power — in other words, the power that’s available to us all the time, if you will — and our intermittent power, like wind, which is available to us most of the time but not all the time because it’s, by definition, intermittent. And that’s what we’re doing now.

I know there are some people who would argue or want to argue for higher hydro rates. I don’t recommend that view to the hon. member, but of course, he’s open to have it. But B.C. Hydro is compliant with the self-sufficiency requirements, as established most recently, in 2021, by the BCUC.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister. I’m not quite sure if that was a really clear answer.

What I was trying to say is that if you are trading…. There’d be no reason to trade if you’re 100 percent self-sufficient, because you’re not importing electricity, so you don’t care what you’re buying it for because you’re not buying it.

So with that in mind, if you’re not buying electricity and being a public utility, the fact is that you should have an open system where people can know where their electricity is being generated from, correct, yes or no?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think I’ve answered this on a few questions. I’m happy to answer it again, because these are important questions and the member is asking them.

The trading system we have is really valuable to the people of B.C. and B.C. Hydro. This is, I think, hard for people to understand. I sometimes explain it to people. It took me two or three times hearing Mr. Gilmore explain it to me before I fully grasped the situation.

We sometimes buy power at negative numbers. In other words, people pay us to take power. Pretty good. Pretty good deal. I’d like to do that for other things, I think. Maybe a 10 percent discount in gambling, for example. The member was saying you could make money in gambling. I don’t know. They often make offers. Those don’t seem like good offers to me, though, when I hear them on the television.

So we have a trading system. In all trading systems, no matter how much electricity you produce, you’d always have to trade. There are always variations in load, and the trading system we have really benefits B.C. In other words, the power we have is so valuable because it’s a hydro-based system that we…. It’s more valuable. The power we sell is more valuable than the power we import, even in years where we import more power than we export, because our power is more valuable. That’s a pretty good system for British Columbia.

So to raise rates in order to meet some artificial tests, which I think is what the member is suggesting, wouldn’t make sense for British Columbia. But to build to meet demand is obviously a requirement, and that’s what we’re doing.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister. I’m not sure if that was a very clear answer, but saying that….

Moving forward, the other question I had was: does B.C. Hydro plan on being self-sufficient for electricity usage in the current fiscal plan?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As I’ve answered several times now, based on the requirement of self-sufficiency, which is average demand, we’re self-sufficient.

[3:35 p.m.]

But we have to increase our production of electricity. That’s why we have the call for power, and that’s why we added Site C, and that’s why there are other projects. The population of B.C. is rising considerably, and there’s increase in demand because of all of the opportunities in B.C. — for example, in critical minerals but in other areas of the province.

In addition, the opportunity to electrify — for example, the electrification of parts of the oil and gas industry, which we’re going to talk about a bit on Monday…. Those are huge opportunities for B.C. So all of that is positive for B.C.

Trevor Halford: Just a couple of questions Surrey-related, for power. Has the ministry or B.C. Hydro identified an area for the substation for specifically providing power to the Campbell Heights area?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We haven’t made it public yet, to the member, but we expect to soon. I’ll be happy to let the member know when that happens so he’ll know that for his constituents.

Trevor Halford: In regards to Campbell Heights…. We can talk about some other areas in Surrey in a second, but I think the commitment was made last year to have that substation in service by 2032. We are seeing rapid growth in Campbell Heights, which I think is a great thing.

I know that there are severe concerns about the electrical grid out there. I think the minister has probably met with mayor and council on this. They’ve expressed their concerns on that.

In terms of the service plan, budgetary things, what commitments have been made in this budget specifically for that substation to outfit Campbell Heights?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There are two things. There’s a whole series of feeder stations that we’ll put in place in the next few years. And yes, in the ten-year capital plan of B.C. Hydro, which is $36 billion, this is a priority.

It’s interesting. The member talks about this, and we were talking about the increase in population in B.C. It’s a significant issue for lots of ministries and lots of parts of government. It’s certainly important in Surrey but also in Burnaby and other places. If you’ve travelled through Brentwood recently, you know the transformation of that neighbourhood, which is almost Surrey-like in its growth in population.

The majority of B.C. Hydro’s investment in the capital plan is actually addressing those issues of population growth and addressing older substations. So even though the dams get a lot of attention, the production of new electricity gets lots of attention, the transmission lines get lots of attention, this is fundamental to the work of those plans.

But yes, Campbell Heights is in the capital plan.

Trevor Halford: Has community consultation begun in terms of the area location for that substation in Campbell Heights? I suspect that…. It’s growing. I think that we’re looking at thousands of new homes out there, thousands of new businesses that are going online there. We’re hearing that even right now the electrical needs are not even close to being met.

Again, for this budget here, what is the dollar amount that this minister has committed to for that substation specifically to Campbell Heights?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As I told the member in the answer to the first question, we’ll be announcing decisions around that soon. As he knows, with property development, sometimes you announce when you announce, and he’d understand that. We’ve talked about this on other issues, so he knows that.

In terms of the allocation in a particular year, we’re building out the capital plan, but it’s not just the substation in question. We’re going to have to take steps to support the community in the meantime, as well. He’s quite right. And we’re making those investments now.

Trevor Halford: With Campbell Heights…. Would those be the exact same answers that we get for the substation in city centre as well?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just to put it in context to the member, we’re spending about $1 billion in Surrey in the next ten years. It gives you a sense of both the growth of Surrey and the expected growth in Surrey. Equally, that action has been taking place in Surrey Centre, where we’re not announcing the purchase of property but we’re there on that.

But you see it’s not just Campbell Heights or City Centre. Surrey is going to be a major focus of the B.C. Hydro capital plan. When you think of…. B.C. Hydro is already there, and we’re already serving the people of Surrey. To be adding $1 billion to, essentially, the distribution of electricity in Surrey indicates both the growth of Surrey and also its priority for B.C. Hydro.

Trevor Halford: I thank the minister for that answer.

Through the minister’s conversations with the mayor of Surrey specifically, was it ever expressed to the minister that there are fears the city or those specific areas — we’ll focus on Campbell Heights right now, for a second — are not able to meet those demands right now in terms of electricity, or is it hampering investment when we’re looking at industries coming into Campbell Heights, given the lack of electricity that we’re already finding out there?

Has the minister gotten that expression from the mayor at all, or anybody else from the city of Surrey?

Hon. Adrian Dix: So Campbell Heights is about $450 million, to put that in context — just for Campbell Heights. They go billions for the city of Surrey, but it’s obviously a significant priority.

I think, in a general sense, one of the biggest challenges…. The member may hear this when he talks to developers. Certainly, when I meet with developers…. I’ve met with the mayor of Surrey one time, and it wasn’t primarily about Campbell Heights.

I want to say on that occasion, we were talking about a number of areas. We were talking about interconnection and housing projects and other projects for the city of Surrey. So they’re concerned about that, and we’re concerned about that, given the growth in Surrey. We’re dramatically building to meet demand there. So those issues I’ve discussed with the mayor of Surrey, and I’m sure she’s raised them with B.C. Hydro.

I won’t describe in detail my conversation with the mayor of Surrey, but they’re always amicable and always positive on these questions. They were in my previous ministry; they are now. So these are issues that the city of Surrey and B.C. Hydro is certainly working on, because the sheer growth of the city of Surrey and the ability to meet that growth is a challenge. That’s why you’re seeing such dramatic investments, $450 million in the Campbell Heights project alone.

Trevor Halford: I understand the investment, appreciate the investment, but I think the question is regarding needs being met. I think the fear is that currently, needs are not being met, and we’re talking about 2032, in terms of the commitment.

My question would be: is B.C. Hydro or is government on track to meet that commitment of 2032? I’d imagine, hopefully, the answer is yes. But it’s seven years out from where we are today, and I am hearing from developers, I’m hearing from elected officials, I’m hearing from a lot of people out there in that area, Campbell Heights, that needs are not being met and not being serviced.

Again, is the minister confident that in terms of all the new development that we’re seeing out there, the construction, the new businesses that are going in or making investments or about to open up…? Is there sufficient electrical servicing out there to meet those needs?

We’re talking about an expansion of 2032, so before that, when we’re talking a year or two out, are there any concerns from the minister that those needs will not be met by the current power structure that’s out there right now servicing…? We’ll talk specifically about Campbell Heights.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think what I’d say to the member is that there are concerns in lots of communities. You’ll know in Fortis territory — in Kelowna, for example — it’s a major issue right now with the development community and Fortis around delivery of service in that community and new development. So there are issues all over.

In terms of the Campbell Heights area, we have four major feeder projects that are going to happen: now, in April 2025, a $6 million project; in July 2025, a $34 million project; December 2025; and August 2026 — all feeder projects from other substations to serve Campbell Heights.

B.C. Hydro…. The member talked about waiting till 2032 or the new substation being in place. B.C. Hydro isn’t waiting till then. We are working hard with all of those smaller projects to feed that community.

Trevor Halford: I thank the minister and his staff for that reply there.

I’ll say this as one of the primary guys who represents Surrey–White Rock, two municipalities, obviously, and absolutely honoured to have that…. The challenge that we’ve got out there — and we’ve had these conversations in previous ministries with the minister who was serving as Minister of Health and now Minister of Energy — is that there is a growing sentiment, and I share it, that south of the Fraser, and we’ll talk about Surrey specifically, continues to get shortchanged.

Campbell Heights is not a new development. It didn’t happen last year or the year before. It has been growing for quite a while now. Actually, the growth really started about seven years ago. I know that stakeholders, both elected and unelected, have gone to this minister since he’s gotten this role as Minister of Energy and expressed very, very serious concerns about the lack of power in that specific area of Campbell Heights, which is growing at an astronomical rate right now.

I think part of the frustration…. Health care is one thing, and that’s very topical, but I think that people are more and more getting concerned about some of our electricity needs out there, specifically around Campbell Heights. To the fact where we now have developers, people that are looking to open up sizeable…. Some of those employers there in that Campbell Heights area are employing between 500 and 1,500 people in just those units. It’s considerable.

Not to mention that there’s no transit out there either, but that’s for a separate ministry. There’s zero transit out there, but it’s growing at an astronomical rate.

Again, with respect to the minister, we seem to be playing catch-up ball in the city of Surrey when it comes to energy now. I think that’s a really, really bad situation for us to be in when we’re trying right now. Again, the minister is very, very passionate about talking about the situation we’re in and the projects that they’re working on very diligently, and I believe that all to be in good faith.

Part of the challenge we’ve got, though, is that when we’re talking about how we want to buy B.C., we want to build B.C., we want to do all this, and I support it wholeheartedly, in some areas that I represent, we’re not set up to do that because this government has chosen not to make those investments in critical areas that we know are growing, like Campbell Heights.

I know this is not new to the minister, and I know the minister has been on this file for a few months. He had previously been working on other elements that are important city of Surrey, but this is vitally important.

For me, I think that we think of Surrey as a very big urban area, and it is. Campbell Heights is very big as well, and it’s sprawling, and it’s growing at a rapid pace right now. So again, my hope would be that the minister would take my comments in good faith as a call to action to make sure that we’re in a better situation, going forward.

In terms of some of the areas that we want to develop, like Campbell Heights, there are thousands and thousands of jobs out there. We can have more if they are serviced properly. Right now they’re not. By two massive areas…. I won’t get into the transportation one. That’s separate; I get that. They’re not served there. What I am hearing on the ground from a number of people in terms of the electrical needs is they’re definitely not served there as well.

[3:50 p.m.]

I’ll leave those comments with the minister. I think that there’s something that we can follow up on as we go down the road, but I think it’s vitally important — I get that we’re talking about the city of Surrey here, specifically; it’s an area that I represent — that when we’re looking at those areas of growth, and it’s not new, there is a focus to make sure that they’re serviced properly.

Right now I can say with confidence that the city of Surrey and the people that live out there or are looking at building out there or doing their business out there are not feeling supported when it comes to meeting our energy needs out there.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think it’s fair to say that Surrey…. The member will know this because we’ve discussed it in other contexts: I feel really passionate about Surrey. I think it’s really the city of the future in B.C. It’s going to be our number one city in a few years. It’s getting close now. I think it’s going to happen much more quickly than all of the people say it will. And it’s why investments by B.C. Hydro in Surrey are essentially leading, as well, as you’d expect.

I felt passionately about this in health care. The member will know I felt that there had been inadequate investments in the past. We’ve discussed these in the estimates debate about health care when I was Health Minister. I passionately believe in all the things that we’re doing there in cardiac catheterization, in a new hospital, a new tower at Surrey Memorial Hospital, a new renal unit — all of these things that are important. Equally at B.C. Hydro, you see this development.

I think the challenge for B.C. Hydro historically has been to meet emerging demand that it’s not serving now. This is true, say, if you were looking at the northwest of B.C., if you’re looking at mining that suddenly develops in critical minerals and the value of those critical minerals that are there. The only thing stopping them from being developed might be electricity, and the electricity isn’t there yet.

That’s why we are moving ahead with the North Coast transmission line, which will serve the northwest of the province, which really needs that support. Sometimes in residential services, in the northwest, they don’t get as good a residential service as they should. That will improve that, as well as address economic issues, whether it would be the Cedar LNG project or it would be mining projects or it would be residential projects in the northwest.

Equally in Surrey, as development happens quickly, how do you meet that development? How we’re meeting that development is massive investment in Surrey. I mean, the project we talked about is a $450 million substation project, with other feeder projects coming in.

The member talked about keeping the people of Surrey involved. We just gave a briefing at Surrey city hall. B.C. Hydro did, not me. B.C. Hydro did.

I did meet with the mayor of Surrey, and we talked generally about these issues. We ended up…. I hate to say it, but because there are so many wide interests we both have, we may have talked about other things as well, which he will fully understand because he knows the mayor as I do, and he knows me as well.

So those are massive investments. I agree with him. We’ve got to…. It’s a huge challenge when growth is so remarkable that it changes our view of the future.

I’m encouraging B.C. Hydro…. I think B.C. Hydro as an organization, as a result, has to be more risk-tolerant, a little bit more risk-tolerant around growth that may or may not happen. Because if you wait until it’s absolutely going to happen, you might be behind it. But it’s a challenge. They’re ratepayers as well. They’re paying for this, so we have to have a balance of things. But I think he would agree with me that that’s required, and they’re really invested in it now.

I’ll just say to the member that if he would like, from B.C. Hydro, to get that briefing on our efforts in Surrey…. They may or may not meet the test that he’s talking about, but we’ve just got to go and do our best to meet them. And if he’s interested in that, I’d be happy to provide it.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to my colleague for giving me a bit of time here.

I just have a couple of questions for the minister, just kind of some stuff that’s specific to my riding, specifically around the Kemano dam, as well as a couple of geothermal projects that are being proposed by First Nations in the Skeena area.

[3:55 p.m.]

Given the reliable and clean energy that’s produced by the Kemano dam, I’m wondering if the ministry has explored any opportunities to expand hydroelectric capacity at that facility or something similar in the region to support broader energy needs in northwest B.C.

Is the province considering how that infrastructure could play a larger role in powering regional development or supporting new industrial projects in the North?

I know that currently they’re dealing with a bit of a drought situation, and it has impacted their ability to sustain power generation. But obviously, we’re hoping that that’s not going to be a problem forever. I would just like the minister’s thoughts on that.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think the member will know we have a very good…. I met with Rio Tinto in Prince George, at the natural resources conference, and talked about their plans for the future. As the member will know, they’re making significant investments. We’re assisting them — B.C. Hydro, I mean — during the drought. They assist us with capacity as well. There is a deep partnership there.

I think there is potential there, and certainly we’re prepared to keep working with Rio Tinto on that. In fact, we’re partners in some of the upgrade efforts they’re making there and also some of the potential development they have, not just on the site but in the region, around their activities.

The short answer is that they’re a big part of the electricity picture of B.C., a major partner of B.C. Hydro. We work very closely with them, and they’re making investments now.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister.

Specifically, because of some of the issues that they are having right now with this water drought situation, I’m also wondering what the ministry has done — is doing, is planning to do — to potentially assist them with that so that they can optimize the water in the reservoir to support both their environmental objectives and operational objectives.

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C. Hydro has a very close relationship with them and Kemano, and obviously, these are challenging situations. But sometimes it can happen in reverse, so we’re assisting them, ensuring that they can keep meeting their requirements with respect to electricity. That’s part of what the partnership is, and that’ll continue to happen so that they can meet their objectives.

They’re also, I say to their great credit, continuing to make important investments in the region, which create jobs in and of themselves that are important to the asset. So they’re a major player, and they’re an excellent partner. In the meetings that I’ve had with them…. We’re going to continue to partner together, help them through this difficult moment.

Also, understand that we have, both B.C. Hydro and the region, because of the transmission line…. All the work we’re doing and all the work that’s happening in the member’s constituency with respect to energy, which is considerable — and it’s going to be a good summer — is a really positive thing.

We’d be happy, and I’d be happy, to provide more detailed information about our relationship and how that works between Rio Tinto and B.C. Hydro, respecting their commercial interests and everything else that we have, for her. I could do that at the end of estimates.

Claire Rattée: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that.

Yes, as the minister knows, my riding certainly has a lot of different energy projects going on. I could go on all day about LNG, but I’m going to leave that up to my colleague who will be up later on LNG, because I know that he has got plenty there, and he’s very capable with that.

The last question is just around…. As the province is looking to expand electrification, especially in rural and industrial areas, I’m wondering if there’s any assessment underway of how facilities such as Kemano or the geothermal projects that have been proposed right now by First Nations and Skeena — specifically, I’m thinking of the Kitselas— could contribute to greater grid stability and resilience in northern B.C.

If so, could the minister please provide an update on where that work would be at right now?

Hon. Adrian Dix: First of all, we’re doing a lot of work on the North Coast transmission line, and the member will know that, in particular with First Nations along the line. I think it will be a unique moment. We’re not there yet, but I think we’re going to get there: a model of co-ownership which will be exceptional, both the resources and the benefits of the transmission line being shared in communities up and down the line, because of co-ownership, but also the benefits that come with having more access to electricity.

[4:00 p.m.]

I think it’s a major issue for me in the northwest and, I think, for anyone who wants to build in a just B.C. There’s often a discussion about how the dams that are in the Peace come down and transmission lines come down to Metro Vancouver or elsewhere and don’t benefit the northwest. Well, I think doubling the transmission line makes a fundamental difference for industry and for residential customers. I really encourage the member to support that effort, because I think it’s significant.

In her immediate part of the line, it’s called the K’uul Power Group that we’re dealing with. They’re really doing some exceptional and innovative things. With respect to firm power, such as geothermal can provide, we’re looking at opening up a process in the near future and working on those issues to provide opportunities for such projects to participate in the B.C. Hydro system. So there will be opportunities in the future.

Sometimes those opportunities are more immediate because the demand is more specific. We have specific projects with First Nations — for example, a small hydro project in Hartley Bay that’s under development. Those things are more direct. They’re not part of generalized calls for power and electricity.

There will be opportunities for geothermal projects. I’m enthusiastic. But I would say that they, like all projects, have to meet…. We’re all paying for them. The ratepayer is paying for them. We want to make sure that everybody has access to low-cost electricity.

We can’t pay for everything all the time. But those projects will absolutely be considered as B.C. Hydro seeks more firm power as well as more energy in projects such as wind power, which will also, I think, potentially benefit the region. The member’s region has some possibilities, it seems to me, for wind power, which has been distributed around the province in the projects that were selected.

I think there are some opportunities in the member’s regions as well, opportunities for transmission, for geothermal, for mining and, of course, for LNG and everything else that’s happening right now. So it’s all happening all the time in the member’s riding, and that’s, obviously, a good thing for Skeena, a good thing for B.C.

Claire Rattée: Just one more quick question before I pass it off to another colleague here, specifically around the example that I used of the Kitselas Nation and the geothermal project that they have proposed right now.

Has the ministry met with them, or has B.C. Hydro met with them around that at all? My understanding was that at some point, B.C. Hydro had. So I would like a bit of an update or clarification on that.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We have a great relationship with the Kitselas Nation, which is a real leader in the member’s region and also, really, in economic development in B.C. as well.

That project, which is, I think, a project in partnership with Borealis GeoPower in the region…. They acquired the plant at a public tenure in January 2014. They have a development company. They’ve requested a new geothermal permit based on their exploration. It’s in the exploration stage. The ministry issued that permit in February of 2023 to allow them to advance their work.

B.C. Hydro is looking, over time, for new sources of electricity, and they would fit into that process if all that works out for them.

But yes, I’ve met with them. I’ve met with the Kitselas. B.C. Hydro has, of course, and works with them. The ministry has issued them a permit and is in close contact with them, and for good reason. They do an outstanding job.

Ward Stamer: Thanks for the opportunity to speak to the minister.

I have a couple of questions. I’m sure that we were chatting a little bit about some of the deficiencies in our power generation in this province, knowing that in the past, we were net exporters, and now we’re actually importing a significant amount of power.

I’m just curious. Now that this government has renewed biomass contracts in B.C., will there be a renewed focus on similar projects and other power-generation projects — opportunities such as natural gas?

I would just like to ask a question and a comment. With our increases in our population, wouldn’t adding more projects with 100 percent redundancy still achieve our climate goals and targets per person?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thanks to the member for the question. I think we talked about this over breakfast — I don’t know, perhaps recently. There was no Hansard record of that, so I appreciate the member coming today.

As you know, we’ve done a call for power recently. We had ten successful proponents. So $6 billion in capital investment, wind projects — those were open to biomass, that call. But the wind projects were the low-cost projects and effective projects, and they were selected. They’re going to do very well for the people of B.C. We’re going to continue to look at that.

We look at lots of projects around B.C. I know that the member is the forestry critic for his party. Certainly, in terms of the potential stabilization of forest jobs, which are under stress right now…. I know he and the Minister of Forests have been talking about that for the last couple of days. I was party to some of those discussions as well. I think they’re real opportunities.

You’ll know, for example, in the case of Atlantic Power, the efforts we’ve done to work together to make that really important project for the people of Williams Lake. The member for Williams Lake — I won’t embarrass him, because he’s in the chair right now — worked very hard on that as well. We continue that.

There are other opportunities that I see around B.C. I won’t identify them. The member will understand that because I’m talking about the commercial circumstances of companies from Crofton to Houston, which may see opportunity. The issue there, in general, is not whether we’ll deal with them but whether there’s sufficient fibre, which is really the issue for Atlantic Power as well. Those are really important questions. Those are questions he’s been canvassing with the Minister of Forests. We’re certainly open to that.

We’re not proceeding with natural gas projects right now. There are some opportunities. One of the things we talked to the people of Alberta about is around carbon capture, which are important innovations. We’re working on that. B.C. companies are working on that. Alberta companies are working on that. That may create some opportunities there.

We, obviously, have been dramatically…. With the three liquefied natural gas projects that are under construction in B.C. and a $36 billion capital investment in those three projects, that, obviously, is a large opportunity for that industry as well.

The short answer is that we need more electricity. We’ve put a call for power in place to get more electricity. We have ten successful proponents. We’re not going to stop there. We’re looking at all of the options. I think the member as Forests critic will understand the value of the firm power you sometimes get from biomass, if you have adequate supply. That is really valuable to the system as well.

We consider private sector power plants like Atlantic Power really valuable in our power system. We were delighted with the work we did with the community in Williams Lake — the member for Williams Lake and everyone else — to see that B.C. Hydro’s contract was renewed in such a way that it can allow them to operate.

The challenge there and the challenge for a lot of biomass projects, as you know, is supply. The contract makes sense when you can fulfil the contract. When you can’t fulfil the contract and you’re producing less, then the contract that you agreed to obviously may not be profitable. We have to balance out these things.

B.C. Hydro represents the ratepayer, but we’re also very concerned with economic development through the region and, certainly, their biomass opportunities.

Ward Stamer: I appreciate the minister’s comments on that.

It’s refreshing that we’re looking at all the opportunities when it comes to power generation and not just a renewable source, especially when the minister talked about redundancy. There’s a big difference between a constant supply and intermittent supply.

I think we can agree that when we look at some of the renewable alternatives, it is not a 100 percent capacity redundancy — like the minister mentioned, biomass or whether it’s natural gas or hydroelectric with enough water behind it.

[4:10 p.m.]

I appreciate the minister sharing with us that all our power generation is on the table in this province. That is refreshing to hear from this government.

Having said that, I have a question, also. The minister mentioned, a few minutes ago, about forward-thinking. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about that because I’ve had conversations with B.C. Hydro before, in my former life as a mayor and a municipal leader. Every time we talked about future projects, there was always this reluctance of B.C. Hydro to be able to embrace, “Build it, and they will come,” knowing that they are coming.

When we start talking about opportunities to grow our economy in this province, we talk about 17 to 19 mining projects that are on the books and that we would like to be able to get processed sooner rather than later.

How does the minister feel on the proposal that Taseko and Simpcw First Nations are looking at in the Harper Mountain area, just east of Vavenby? Does the minister have any additional information on power supply to that project, if we are going to be able to speed up the process?

If we’re not going to be waiting 12 to 15 years on this mine project, is there an opportunity to try to fast-track? Exactly where would this power be coming from? How could we get into the loop with First Nations in determining where that line would be built and get the process going sooner rather than later?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, a couple of things.

First of all. We didn’t do a call for power for natural gas–generated power, for reasons I’ve described. Some of that is climate change, but we have some of the best renewable resources in B.C. We want to develop them. They’re good for the planet and good for the economy. The member and I have discussed that, and I know that he largely agrees, although he’s not as enthusiastic as I am. I don’t want to characterize him.

On the mining question, B.C. Hydro is in discussions. They’re not fully committed to the project. I would say that the member and I are aligned in this sense — that B.C. Hydro, of course, represents the ratepayer and has to be cautious. But we are building the North Coast transmission line. It’s intended to double our capacity from Prince George to Terrace and then up, which is a significant area for mining projects and for critical minerals in the province.

We don’t have any guarantee of that yet, but we are building the transmission line because we believe that on the balance of probabilities, it’s going to be a place that’s going to grow, and we want to be there when it does. So we are going now. That might be slightly different than what B.C. Hydro might have done, say, 30 years ago. I think that’s a good thing.

We’re working closely with mining projects. I think this project is in the member’s riding. I’m not saying it is. He’ll know better than I do. I think the name of the project might have changed recently. In any event, B.C. Hydro is working with them. It’s a long way, so they’ve got to get certain about what they want to do, but we’re also working with them to see that they get the power that they need.

That’s part of what B.C. Hydro is doing, I think. Part of what I’ve been asked by the Premier is to ensure B.C. Hydro’s role as a province-building agency, as well as an extraordinary server of the public in terms of electricity. We have the lowest electricity rates — we had a discussion of this — really, in North America. Winnipeg is lower, Montreal is lower, but basically, as the lowest in North America, that’s an achievement of B.C. Hydro.

Incremental power costs more, so it provides some risk there. But B.C. Hydro also builds British Columbia. In that balance, B.C. Hydro is looking to aim towards a greater ability to move faster and in advance, for example, of major mining developments, to ensure that we take advantage of those, because electricity can be the key determining factor, once they decide to go, as to when a project can proceed and when it would be online.

[4:15 p.m.]

David Williams: My question to the minister. B.C. Hydro is moving away from a two-tiered hydro rate system. In my understanding, as we move away from that, will that not increase the total cost for the ratepayers?

Also, what is the projected revenue? Is it projected to go up?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it’s revenue-neutral, as you’d expect. The single tier is optional now, because there are some people who would like to see that and for whom it might be of some benefit. The tiers are coming together over time, but the effect will be revenue-neutral. It would go to the Utilities Commission to get rates approved, based on revenue requirements and rate requirements.

It’ll be revenue-neutral for the system, and we want to make sure, to the maximum extent possible, that people are protected. The single rate is an advantage for some people, and we’re giving it as an option now, under certain conditions. We’re also moving to close the differential rate so that eventually, you’re moving towards one rate, but the effect would be revenue-neutral.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Does this change, going from a two-tier system, not work counterproductively for people who currently conserve power? Having a lower rate actually encourages people to conserve energy. Would having a blended rate work counterproductively?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member is right that when the previous government put the two tiers into position, it was in part to encourage conservation. Some of the choices people make, however….

For example, it’s possible that it’s colder at some times of the year in Williams Lake or in Salmon Arm than it is in my East Vancouver apartment. That is possible. I’m looking for confirmation on that. If that’s the case, it might not be reasonably expected…. If someone’s in those circumstances or if they’re in a circumstance where they’re in a place that has less energy efficiency and they are not able to invest in that, or they’re renting the place, then a two-tier system, even though it might incent conservation, is not necessarily the only question.

We also, obviously, want to encourage people to reduce their own emissions, and people want to do that as well. So it’s a balance. There are a lot of people who are critical of it. I’ve heard a lot of criticism of two-tier systems, from different regions of the province, in my time as an MLA. We think that in the balance of things, it will be revenue-neutral and that we have to also assist in terms of conservation. When you conserve electricity, no matter what the price, you’re paying less.

We have such a variety of Power Smart and conservation programs, especially to support low-income households, to allow them to spend less on their electricity bills. I think in general, the public policy decision that was made in 2008 may have been the correct one, but providing options and bringing the rates together now is also the correct approach and probably the fairest approach.

We have to work to support people in conserving electricity at the same time, especially low-income people, and our programs do precisely that. At the same time, we have to give people the options they need to reduce emissions.

[4:20 p.m.]

If it’s the case, for example, that a person requires a fairly expensive, in electricity terms, air conditioner for their apartment in East Vancouver, like one of my neighbours might, and they end up in another tier because they’re using more electricity, that doesn’t mean they’ve increased their economic capacity to pay.

You have to balance these things out. It’s a difficult balance. I agree with the member. The member makes a very good point. It’s why the system was put in place to begin with in 2008. I think circumstances have changed, and there is also benefit in simplicity.

David Williams: I thank the minister.

My question to the minister is that currently a lot of people that are on tier 1 hydro rate live in smaller homes, or they’ve gone out and put out money to make their house energy efficient. Do you feel now, with going to tier 2, that it forces all ratepayers to pay the much higher tier 2 system that’s going to be in in place? Does the minister think that it’s fair for British Columbians to give them a 40 percent increase in their rates?

Hon. Adrian Dix: In B.C., these issues go to the B.C. Utilities Commission, and they are adjudicated for just the very issues the member talks about. But there is no 40 percent increase in rates.

David Williams: I thank the minister.

Moving on to the Site C dam, Site C dam has a capacity of 1.11 megawatts and can produce 5,100 gigawatt hours, which can power 450,000 homes. Really, that’s not a lot of homes.

The last public update on the cost was $16 billion and one year behind schedule. Then in 2017, the Minister of Energy at that time, Michelle Mungall, confirmed that the project was on time and on budget.

Anyways, my question is to confirm: is the Site C dam fully constructed and operational?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we said it would be $16 billion, and it’s $16 billion. How about that? And four of the six units are working. The other six are coming later this year. So what we said — B.C. Hydro is ahead of the schedule that it was at, at least when I became Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. Did a lot of work. I want to praise B.C. Hydro, praise Mr. Milburn, praise everyone who was involved in the project in ensuring that the project’s costs were kept under control.

Obviously, it cost way more than the initial expectation of the previous government when they went ahead with the project, but the project’s built now. I have to say, having been there, and I know the member for Peace River South has been there, that it’s impressive what our fellow citizens have built at Site C. It’s impressive.

The member says, “That’s not very many homes,” that 500,000 homes is not very many homes. I don’t know what a lot of homes is. I think 500,000 is a lot of homes. It’s 8 percent of our power supply. It’s going to be with us for — we’re advertising it — over 80 years. That’s its effective life. It’s a spectacular achievement of British Columbia workers.

There was a long debate, and we were part of that debate. Members on our side of the House were part of that debate. Everyone was part of the debate. I was part of that debate. I wrote first about the Site C dam in 1987, at university; I talked about the Site C dam. We have debated it over time, and there are people on both sides of that debate, whether it should have gone forward or whether it should not have gone forward.

But it is built now. It’s built by outstanding B.C. workers, unionized workers, that I’m very proud of. What they’ve done is exceptional in our province. They brought it in. All the units are going to be operating soon.

I recommend to people that they go and see it. I recommend to people that they go and see it because this is what we need to do in B.C. I think my colleague, the Minister of Infrastructure, is leading this effort. We’ve got to build things. We can do it in B.C. We can build them well. We can build them strong. We can build them for decades. They can contribute to addressing climate change. They can address our needs in hospitals and schools.

I am proud of the workers who built Site C, and I’m proud of the B.C. Hydro that built Site C, even though, over the years, I personally had different positions on it being built. Let’s acknowledge that, right?

But we’re here now. This government was faced with a decision to continue to proceed or to not proceed. Mr. Horgan, our Premier, also had even more positions than I did on Site C. I know that because he was my friend for 30 years, and we discussed it about 30,000 times.

We’re here now, we’ve built it, and we should be proud of it. Every member of this House should be proud of it, and we’re proud of it.

David Williams: Can I call a short recess?

The Chair: You certainly can. How about seven minutes. How does that sound?

David Williams: Thank you.

The Chair: This chamber will stand at recess.

The committee recessed from 4:25 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call the committee back to order.

Larry Neufeld: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on estimates of the Energy file, an increasingly critical portfolio for British Columbia’s economic future and energy security.

Noting the hour of the day…. The minister and I had a conversation in the break, and I’ll ask for his answer now. Do you want the dry administrative to finish off the day, or would you like the fun stuff?

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: All right.

With the Chair’s permission, I would like to make a statement before I begin.

As I’ve already mentioned, this is an incredibly important file for the economic future and energy security future of this province. B.C. has an opportunity to supply the world with some of the cleanest natural gas available, but investment confidence is slipping due to regulatory uncertainty and inconsistent messaging from this government.

While other jurisdictions are racing to meet global demand, B.C. has been left behind. We need clarity, not confusion, if we want to see LNG deliver jobs and revenue for British Columbians.

Today I’ll be asking about timelines, transparency and tangible progress, along with the budget implications for this file, because British Columbia deserves an energy strategy that works for workers, industry and future generations.

[4:35 p.m.]

I don’t want to chew up too much of my time, but there is a little bit more to the statement, if I may.

As someone that has been in the oil and gas industry for, probably, longer than I should admit, there are a few misnomers that I would like to put on the record and make clear to not only those in this House but those that are watching and those that may be reading this record.

Let’s be clear. British Columbia’s natural gas is not the same as raw methane. It is misleading when critics refer to it this way. The natural gas that we produce and export is a clean, refined energy product, not a raw emission.

Yes, methane is the primary component, typically up to 90 percent or more, but B.C. natural gas also contains small amounts of ethane, propane, butanes and trace gases, all of which are carefully separated and processed before the product ever reaches a pipeline or port. This is not the same thing as an uncontrolled methane leaking into the atmosphere, which is so reported by those without as much information in this area.

What makes B.C.’s natural gas stand out globally is not just its composition but the way that it is produced. From world-leading methane emissions controls to the use of hydroelectricity in our LNG terminals, B.C. sets the bar for clean production. LNG Canada, Coastal GasLink and other projects are proof that we can export energy to the world while maintaining the highest environmental standards right here at home.

When countries around the world are looking for alternatives to coal and Russian gas, British Columbia can provide one of the cleanest and most responsibly produced energy options on the planet. That is something we should be proud of.

Let’s start with hydrogen, now that we’ve talked about gas. In 2023, the minister responsible at the time spoke of 50 known hydrogen projects representing over $7 billion investment potential in the province. That’s up from 40 in 2022. My question to the minister is: how many current hydrogen projects are ongoing or scheduled in this province?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just to say a few things in response to the member’s opening remarks, what we’ve tried to do in B.C.… He talks about LNG and about the regulatory circumstances we’re in. Under our Premier and previously under Premier Horgan, we’ve taken a consistent approach to LNG.

That consistent approach has been to focus on the return to the province, on benefits to communities, on issues around First Nations and Indigenous people, yes, issues of climate change, yes, and overall community benefits, especially to the communities in question. For the LNG projects, that in particular is communities such as Kitimat but also, obviously, Squamish and other circumstances.

I’ll just say this to the member, because I think that consistent approach over time, which continues to be the consistent approach of the government, has borne fruit. Addressing issues of climate and return to the province has value, has value in the following ways. I mean, there was a lot of debate about LNG before this government came to office, but there were zero projects, and those zero projects had zero capital investments. All of them. That was the circumstance when we got here.

We now have three projects under construction. The first LNG shipments leaving Kitimat this summer are worth $36 billion. Now, that’s $36 billion to zero dollars. That’s three projects to zero projects. Those are just the facts. I think that an approach that looks at benefits to B.C., effects on the climate and involves First Nations has borne fruit for the province.

[4:40 p.m.]

I agree with the member that we need to be consistent. That has real value, and we should understand that. And focusing on those issues…. There’s always a debate around the issues of climate change, and people come talk to me on both sides of these issues. But I think what we have, in addition to three projects under construction, are the lowest-emission LNG projects in the world. That has value in the world economy. The member is a member of the oil and gas community, and he knows that. All of that is a real tribute to British Columbia, I think.

We’ve got to continue work to meet our climate responsibilities, but $36 billion in capital investment…. The first project was 24 to 28, depending on what you count. Hard to replace that when it’s private sector investment. When you have that level of private sector investment, it would be hard to replace that with 100 other projects, say. That’s a major investment in our province, and it has had real economic benefits in the construction phase. Different benefits in the rest of the phases, obviously not as dramatic, but different benefits. That consistent approach is our approach.

I heard a speech by the president of CGL today talking about these things. Well, I think that approach is the right approach for B.C., which is to focus on our strengths. I am so proud that the Haisla people have led a major project in B.C. It’s on the Premier’s list of 18 projects that are proceeding. That is an achievement for the Haisla Nation and an achievement that I think is going to have one of the….

I think an LNG project with a partnership with B.C. Hydro and all the work we’re doing will have some of the lowest impacts on the planet and will be a real value in the international marketplace. I know the member talked about hydrogen, to begin with, but he started with the LNG issue, so I thought I’d just respond to him, just to put the context around my view of what he had to say. As we’ve talked about it privately, I acknowledge his long experience in the industry as well.

With respect to hydrogen, it depends how you count. The projects that have contacted or expressed interest — that’s a large number, like the numbers used by the member. The number of projects that really are live for us now, that I would call live — it’s a different number. You can’t say we’ve gone from 60 to 20, but the number of projects live would be about 20, I think, that we’re working with right now around the province.

I would say that we’re making progress. We talked a little bit about the work, for example, of Powertech Labs earlier, at B.C. Hydro, and the work they’re doing in the hydrogen space. It’s important. I’m still optimistic and bullish about it. I think we’ve got great opportunity.

One of the things that we’ve done that’s similar to a bill that’s going to be debated in the Legislature…. I won’t speak about that bill at all, except to say that the hydrogen industry has essentially been put under the regulatory responsibility of the B.C. Energy Regulator as of April 1, 2025.

The member will know the outstanding work….

I just want to introduce Michelle Carr, who’s the CEO of the B.C. Energy Regulator.

He’ll also know, as someone living in the Peace region, how important it is to have a government agency where the largest group of workers is in the Peace region, is in Fort St. John, the difference that makes in terms of regulatory response.

I was meeting with First Nations here this week and last week, Treaty 8 First Nations, and their respect for the B.C. Energy Regulator — because they know them, because they’re in the neighbourhood, because their workers are there and dealing with them — is profound. I believe the B.C. Energy Regulator is setting an important standard for regulation in the province, and the manner in which it’s funded is of great assistance. We’ll talk about that maybe a little bit — it means it’s not a core function; it’s a different agency — and talk about how many people work for it.

[4:45 p.m.]

They’ve taken over as the main regulator in hydrogen. I think that assists as well. So we’re streamlining and bringing a very effective, strong but effective, regulatory model for hydrogen. These things always have ups and downs as they go forward, but I’m enthusiastic about the potential for hydrogen.

I could list off all the projects and everything else that we’re doing, and perhaps I will when the member asks his next question.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Minister.

Actually, I wasn’t able to find, through research, the 20 projects, so I would very much appreciate the list of those so that so that I can understand them better.

I would like to yield the floor to my colleague for a question or two.

Trevor Halford: I do think it’s important to be on the record here. The minister talks about capital investments and, specifically, the LNG industry. Is the minister 100 percent confident that no capital investments were made by proponents prior to an FID being made by LNG Canada? Is that what he’s stating?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I’m saying that there were zero projects on July 17, 2017, when the government took office. There were zero FIDs — none, zero, nada. You divide everything by zero, it’s still zero. That’s what I’m saying. That’s all I’m saying.

So it’s zero, and the main investments, of course, taking place in this government…. In the case of Woodfibre and Cedar, of course, they’re more recent projects in their approval stage. They’re going together now, they’re under construction, and it’s very interesting.

In the case of the LNG Canada project, which is exporting now, the main investments have been in recent years, as the member well knows.

Trevor Halford: Thanks to the minister for that answer.

It’s just not accurate. I don’t want to trivialize on this, but the fact is that those billions of dollars were spent pre-FID on areas such as capital for LNG.

I just want to be a little bit accurate. You know, we can have fun in here and play a little bit loose with the facts, but the facts are that it didn’t go from zero to 36.

I think the minister needs to understand that before companies get to an FID, they are sinking hundreds of millions of dollars — if not in the b’s, in billions — in terms of capital into the province, and that clock just doesn’t start running when they make an FID announcement.

I think we need to be clear on that. That’s not how investment works. I think the minister knows that. But to say there was no capital investment in British Columbia until somebody got up to a podium and said they were making a final investment decision is completely inaccurate.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I’m saying there were zero projects. That’s all. And that’s a fact.

I know that some people may be more sensitive about criticism of the previous government than others. But you know, that’s just the way it is. Some people may be more sensitive to criticism of the previous government than others.

All I can say is…. Let me acknowledge the superior campaigning of the B.C. Liberal Party on the question of LNG. They were great campaigners, but there were zero projects when we took office —zero, none, zero. There isn’t any less than zero, and there ain’t any dispute about those facts. Zero projects.

That doesn’t mean that they weren’t trying, that they weren’t doing things and everything else. Everyone would acknowledge they were. I’m just saying that our approach to LNG, which has focused on communities such as Kitimat, has focused on issues of climate, has focused on issues of First Nations, has focused on the return to the province, has yielded significant benefits, and it’s a consistent approach.

The member doesn’t have to be sensitive on that point. That’s just the way it is. It’s just…. Those three projects under construction that were put in place under this government, $36 billion in capital investment — that’s good news for B.C. You know, $36 billion and nothing — it’s just the way it goes.

Nonetheless, I think that where we have to continue to go and we have to continue to focus in the province is ensuring that those conditions and the importance of those conditions…. I’m sure we’ll talk about it more on Monday, the member and I, as we get more in the detail of the LNG discussion. I think issues of climate are very important to that. I think that the electrification of the Cedar project is really important to that. I think it has real value. It has real value in the international marketplace, and I’m proud of it.

That doesn’t mean the member for Skeena, the former member for Skeena, weren’t advocates for LNG. I wasn’t saying that, and I didn’t say that.

[4:50 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: I’m glad this is entertaining to the minister.

Listen, we can talk about this. The fact is that I’m not sensitive about it. I’m sensitive about facts. We can talk about the fact that companies, whether it’s PRGT or PNW or other proponents that came and went, invested hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, into this province.

We can talk about directives too that maybe past administrations gave on phase 2. We can talk about that. But the fact of the matter is that companies put a lot of investment prior to making a final investment decision.

The only thing I take exception with, the only thing I’m sensitive to, is for the minister, who’s had various positions on LNG and various positions on other energy projects, whether it’s Site C or TMX…. He’s talked about that openly…. I’m glad that this can be a bit of a therapy session for him.

At the end of the day, when we’re talking about companies coming in and investing billions of dollars pre-final investment decision, to say nobody invested anything until an FID was made is completely inaccurate. Completely inaccurate.

That is actually what gives people hesitation when they invest knowing that this government is in power, and not only because they move the goalposts every chance they get. We can talk about phase 2 and the challenges that maybe some people saw within that.

But at the end of the day, I’m glad that this minister has found support and love in his heart for the resource sector. I think that he should wholeheartedly embrace that and champion that. I’m glad to see that enthusiasm, but some reality and some context would be appreciated as well. That’s my point.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I won’t talk about therapy. You know, there are very few people who are still around to defend the B.C. Liberal Party. I won’t talk about the need to deal with those issues at all, except I’m glad to hear that, even as time has passed, there are some people out there making that case for the B.C. Liberal Party.

What I would say is that in 2017, when we took office, at Ksi Lisims, there were no FIDs. A lot of people worked hard on the file to address issues around climate change, including people at LNG Canada. People worked hard at Cedar, including them.

A lot of people in the government, as well, have done the same thing to ensure that as we diversify our markets for natural gas, we do it in a way that’s consistent with our international obligations around climate. I don’t take the credit for it. I was working as Minister of Health, so there you go.

I would say that I appreciate the determined effort to defend the legacy of B.C. Liberals. I don’t agree. It’s zero. It was zero. A lot of efforts were made, but not a lot of results happened.

The achievement of the workers, of the people who built these projects, who came together, including industry but also government…. The workers who came together and a lot of people who’ve been advocates on all sides of these issues, all of these projects ultimately are the benefit of all of that. I appreciate the contribution.

I hope that it provided assistance, as well, to the member for Surrey–White Rock.

[4:55 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: It seems like we’ve gotten a little off topic with respect to the hydrogen question, but let’s perhaps bring it back to there. We will get to LNG, I promise.

With respect to the 20 projects that I was unable to find during my research, I’m curious how many tax dollars the province has invested into promoting hydrogen projects since 2022. I’m curious as to a breakdown of how it was spent.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Our hydrogen strategy has a number of elements. I’ll lay it out, and because of the time, we’ll probably continue this discussion. I’d be happy to provide information about it.

It involves, for example, the creation of hydrogen hubs. In some cases, it’s collaboration with B.C. Hydro on specific projects that are being brought forward. Typically, like LNG, these are private sector initiatives, and the hydrogen strategy is designed to support those initiatives in different ways through investment in research, hydrogen hubs and other things.

The hydrogen strategy that’s been in place seeks to amplify that, but these are going to be private sector investments. There’s not a provincial Crown corporation doing hydrogen other than the work we discussed earlier with respect to Powertech, research and other things, though there are aspirations for that.

Where it becomes important, as well, when you’re talking about projects, is also the potential for electrification — the connection to the grid. Amongst those projects that are coming forward through the major projects office, those issues of access to electricity are also important issues — the hubs we’re putting in place in the research community as a support for the projects. But ultimately, this is private sector investment. Even though we sometimes see these things as direct lines, obviously, they go in fits and starts.

I think that the opportunity for hydrogen for B.C., though, is exceptional. It’s something we talk about with our neighbouring jurisdiction in Alberta. The hydrogen strategy seeks to improve regulation, to provide support for research, to provide hubs of activity, to work through B.C. Hydro with proponents as they come forward and to do the very real work, a lot of which is happening at the university level at UBC and at SFU, at BCIT right now, which is significant.

So that’s government’s role. Government’s role is research and regulation and support, perhaps access to electricity. Ultimately, projects, to be commercially viable, are going to be private sector projects. What we have to do is to create the circumstances for which they can succeed.

That’s not just hydrogen. I think, as the member will know, there’s lots of potential in many forms of energy right now, and sometimes that involves choices as to where one’s going to put one’s effort and support. We’re doing that, in this case, through the hydrogen strategy. It has significant advantages for the planet and for the economy.

Obviously, there are…. I don’t know how many baskets there are or how many eggs there are, but there are eggs in baskets involved, and we need to be making some choices as to where we’re going to align ourselves on technology.

Ultimately, it’s a combination of creating the atmosphere where things can succeed but then the investments happen. I think, in this case, what we may see is slow movement and then rapid movement, and we have to be prepared for the rapid movement.

[5:00 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: On April 3, 2023, the minister responsible at the time made the following statement, and I quote: “Hydrogen is something that will be required if the province is going to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” The minister goes on to state: “A very key strategy to reducing those emissions and reaching those CleanBC 2030 targets.”

My question to the minister is: given the current absence of viable hydrogen projects…. Although I’m told there are 20, which, again, I wasn’t unable to verify through research. I will admit, I may have missed them, but 20 of them seems like a big number to miss. Again, the question: given the current absence of viable hydrogen projects, have CleanBC 2030 targets been revised, and if so, in which way?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The quote the member read out was 2050, net zero by 2050. I think that’s the quote from the minister. At least, that’s what I heard him say, because the net zero is by 2050.

I don’t think the expectation would ever have been, or was, that hydrogen would be a major player in addressing 2030 targets, just because of the nature of the industry. He’ll know that. The goal of many jurisdictions is net zero by 2050. I think the former minister is correct in saying that hydrogen will play a significant role in that.

For us, that means working with industry partners to develop the regional industry hubs, working with academic institutions, supporting the use of hydrogen in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. That’s important for the potential that it holds, and like many things….

We sold more electric vehicles in North America last year than we did in all the years before 2017. So things move slowly, and then they take off. That, I believe, will be the case in this. And we have to be ready for that. We’ve established, as I said, the Energy Regulator. The hydrogen facility regulation is in place, and proponents and investors around the world are making different decisions about it.

We had a little bit of the discussion about what Fortescue might do in B.C., and they ultimately chose not to proceed. And there are lots of reasons for that. But I think that B.C. has real competitive advantages here. Our workforce is an advantage. Our location is an advantage as it is for other energy sources.

In the case of hydrogen, it is a future that will, I think, render B.C.’s economic future, but also the world’s future, possible. And we need to be on the cutting edge of it. We don’t need to be five years behind; we need to be five years ahead.

In terms of reaching 2050 goals in terms of climate, I think hydrogen will play an important role. We believe so, but we’re not there in 2025. and that’s obvious. We were never going to be there in 2025, and the strategy and the statements of the previous minister were not that.

Larry Neufeld: My question to the minister. What I’ve heard, then, is that…. Part of the reason….

I’ll back up for a second. The reason that I did read out those quotes really was to illustrate to the House that the Ministry of Environment has stated that it’s a key cornerstone to climate strategy in the province, and I’m not seeing or hearing what may have been or what is planned in the way of promoting it or specifically trying to attract those projects to this province.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the creation of hydrogen hubs; all the work that’s being done in research; the projects that are being supported; the regulation of hydrogen, which is now under the B.C. Energy Regulator; the regulatory; the academic; and the skills.

I recently opened a conference on hydrogen at BCIT, where we’re building out things. The industry is building out. There are lots of proponents and proposals out there, and what we have to do is be in the position to take advantage, because I think the technology is going to be there, and we have to do that.

Those are significant actions. These are the things government can do — research and supports and regulation and promotion and working with the industry and looking, eventually, at access to electricity. These are the things government can do. With our workforce and with our position in the world, we can be leaders in this space, leaders on climate change.

I think an important part of the progress we have to make on climate change has to be technological as well.

[5:05 p.m.]

EVs went from being nothing in B.C. ten years ago to being 22.65 percent of new car sales last year — zero to 22.65. That’s a significant achievement, and it’s important for B.C. because we produce electricity, and we don’t produce gasoline. So that’s import substitution as well. That’s a benefit to the B.C. economy that we’re doing that. We produce electricity. We tend to import gasoline either from Alberta or from the United States. This is a benefit to us.

That’s how technology works, and that’s what you do. If we’re just dealing with the economy of right now, one set of things…. We have to be positioned for the economies of the future. That’s important for climate change, but it’s also important for economic development.

Larry Neufeld: I’m very glad to hear talking about getting ahead of the curve, cutting-edge technology, not waiting for the world to do it for us. What I will say, though, is…. Having come from a background of natural gas, I can say 15 years ago we should have been on the cutting edge.

We have been left behind. We started at the same time as the United States, and we started at the same time as Australia, the two leading producers on the planet of LNG. Those easy, low-hanging-fruit markets are filled. We now have our job ahead of us to capture what’s left of that market and the depressed pricing from there.

But getting back to hydrogen…. I know we all want to talk about LNG, so I’m just going to tease you a little bit longer. Given that hydrogen typically is generated through electrolysis, a very energy-intensive process that results in one-third energy loss, followed by a further one-third energy loss in efficiency when converted to fuel cells….

Will this government allow for the promotion of creating hydrogen from natural gas, and if so, has a plan been put in place to do that?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member’s talking about blue hydrogen and green hydrogen. He’ll know, perhaps, about turquoise hydrogen. In the Hazer project that Fortis is leading, for example…. It has always been part of the hydrogen strategy, of course, with carbon capture, which is the notion. It’s certainly an issue that, for example, was discussed with Minister Jean in recent times and others in terms of what we can do together as provinces on these questions.

Obviously, development of hydrogen projects is significant, big and small. A lot of small projects right now, which is really positive, I think, and we need to nurture those projects and continue to do so. It is part of the strategy with carbon capture. It’s very important. Obviously, green hydrogen is at the centre of that strategy, and we’ve got to take the steps. We’re not there yet, but no one’s there anywhere in the world in investments in hydrogen that we’ve seen. And the promotion of hydrogen that we’ve seen has happened in other jurisdictions as well.

We believe we can be there. The hydrogen strategy is varied in that respect. What they’re doing at major B.C. companies, such as Fortis, is part of that. They’re just doing their own version on that hydrogen strategy.

I think as a potential for addressing issues of climate change and a potential for addressing energy needs in the province…. It has real potential, and it’s why all the measures we’ve put in place are so important.

Larry Neufeld: I heard about a hydrogen strategy. Is there a white paper or something with a lot more detail that I may have missed?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, I’m happy to share that with the member.

We have the good fortune, it appears, unless we’re going to go into overtime today, and I don’t feel there’s consensus in the House about going past 5:15 or 5:30 or whenever we adjourn…. There may not be consensus or unanimous consent to continue on now, so we’ll be able to deal with that on Monday.

Happy to share some background with the hon. member on hydrogen.

Larry Neufeld: I’m not sure. I would like to go a little bit further on that question, with respect to the minister.

We talked about the turquoise hydrogen. Given that we have an incredible amount of this precious resource, would the government, I wouldn’t necessarily say prioritize, but make that a priority to allow us to utilize that method, which will benefit more British Columbians?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As I said to the member, it’s part of the strategy, but there’s a real focus on green hydrogen. I’d say that one of the interesting aspects of it is the role that First Nations are placing and First Nations–led companies are taking in this marketplace, which is really interesting. I’ll just give the member one example.

Salish Elements is a majority Indigenous-owned company developing green hydrogen production and infrastructure for use in heavy-duty transport, remote community power ports and airports. In June ’24, they announced a plan to develop a 25-megawatt green hydrogen production facility — one example of many smaller projects, admittedly, but important projects that are taking place. They’re building development in B.C. This is a source of B.C. innovation.

I appreciate that the intent…. I know the member isn’t intending to say that these aren’t important contributions. I think they are, and that we have to be at this phase to get at the phase we want to be, which is going to be sometime in the future. But we’ve got to invest now to do that, support companies like this now in order to get there in all areas, right?

I’ll share the hydrogen strategy with the member. He’ll see that so-called blue hydrogen or turquoise hydrogen or other things are part of that, but green hydrogen is at the centre of it for obvious reasons. It has the largest benefit to the climate, and it has real potential to support us in a number of industries, including and especially the heavy transportation industry, which is a major source of emissions that we really haven’t got at yet technologically.

You know, there’s the option of EVs in lots of places. People have their own feelings about them, but the progress is real, and you can see it growing and taking off of its own momentum. When more than one in five car sales are EVs, that’s a good thing. I personally drive a very old car that dates from the Campbell administration, I say for my friend from Surrey–White Rock. He’ll feel very good about the car.

That technology is happening. You can see it building, and it’s going to continue to build. It just is. And that’s good news for B.C. because we produce lots of clean electricity.

Equally, in this area, we are at a different stage, a different moment technologically, but I think there’s real potential here. You see it in what’s happening in lots of B.C. companies and in academic institutions as well.

Larry Neufeld: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer.

I’ll move on to ammonia. What steps, if any, is the government taking to promote the creation of ammonia as a means to transport and sell hydrogen generated from natural gas to hungry overseas markets?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member will know that, for example, the CN Rail line, obviously, to Prince Rupert from Alberta falls under federal jurisdiction, but that issue we’ll continue to engage with the government of Canada after the little election they’re having. I don’t know how it’s going in his constituency.

[5:15 p.m.]

We can compare notes later on the ammonia-by-rail issue after the federal interregnum period. Obviously, B.C. has interests here. It’s also an issue that has been raised in my discussions with the province of Alberta. It’s a live issue for the federal government.

B.C. has a voice to be made in that discussion. We’re also talking to the province of Alberta. We want to, obviously, ensure that people in British Columbia are safe, including in the member’s constituency and in other places. It’s not a simple issue, but it’s one that we’re obviously engaged on with the federal government, as they look at it.

Larry Neufeld: I would accept that.

I would follow that up with the question of…. As the jurisdiction for highway transport is provincial, my question to the minister is: would the province support that initiative using highway transport to produce the ammonia and get it to port for export?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I didn’t do this earlier, and I’m not going to do this to the member now and say that that possibly could be in the jurisdiction of another minister.

I’d say the same safety concerns apply, obviously, and it’s something that we have to be live to if we want to promote that. The people of B.C. bear those safety risks, and that’s something that I know he’d be concerned with as much as I am.

I would say that on that question of ammonia by truck, if you will, or other forms of transportation, that would be another thing you’d look at, of course. The broader question of rail transport is a federal issue, but we have a voice to be heard in that as a place where the trains might be going through.

Equally, the same views would be taken in terms of regulation of other forms of transport. I think that’s a good enough answer for him, so I won’t refer him to the Minister of Transportation.

Larry Neufeld: My next line of questioning is going to move into a little bit of a different area.

As the minister is aware, I am a professional engineer. I’ve worked in various aspects of the oil and gas industry for about 30 years, ranging from academia, where my undergraduate thesis was based on steam-assisted gravity drainage, a tertiary or advanced form of hydrocarbon recovery, which was brand-new to Canada at that time…. Then I went on to working as a reservoir engineer for a major western Canadian producer, when I didn’t have white hair many, many years ago.

I went working in the environmental sector, culminating in starting my own environmental consulting firm 20-some years ago. During my tenure as CEO of this engineering firm, I’ve had the opportunity to travel and complete projects on the international stage. What I can say from my international experience, in addition to my experience in western Canada in the oil and gas industry, is that — I have said this worldwide — British Columbia has nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to be embarrassed of with how we operate our oil and gas industry. It is heads and shoulders above other jurisdictions that I’ve been to, and that is something that we should be proud of.

I can personally attest that the standards in British Columbia are, in some cases, orders of magnitude more stringent than other jurisdictions, to the point where I understand that the B.C. Energy Regulator is marketing B.C. oil as green oil, and presumably gas as well, due to the extremely high standards that are imposed on the industry.

While I’m certainly not one to argue that standards are unimportant, and that’s the livelihood I had for the last 20-odd years, I’m also aware that the standards and uncertainty in the province have pushed billions of investment dollars out of the province into jurisdictions with lower cost per production unit.

My question to the minister is: will this government commit to consulting with industry to find a balance between protecting the environment and providing a stable investment atmosphere whereby long-term investment is possible?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I appreciate the work that the member has done in the community. I think a debate between the member and the Minister of Infrastructure….

I think everybody in the House would like to see a debate between engineers. I’m not an engineer, so I’m not going to debate engineering, but that would be an interesting debate.

I want to say I’m looking forward to answering this question in detail in my remaining 14 minutes and 28 seconds that I have to answer it in the next session, when we get together again next Monday.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This session stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:20 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

George Anderson: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and reports progress on the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Statements

Clarification of Motion
to Adjourn the House

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Before the House adjourns, I would just like to clarify, for the benefit of members, that the motion adopted earlier this morning that the House stand adjourned until Monday, April 14, takes effect later today at daily adjournment, as Standing Order 2(2)(b) references the week of Good Friday.

Just to remind people when I moved the motion this morning, I said that it was because of that irregularity. I just want to make sure that everyone understands that.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday, April 14.

The House adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates for the Ministry of Forests.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $412,584,000 (continued).

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Lots that we didn’t get a chance to touch on before we had to break for lunch, so I’ve got a few things for the member to be able to touch on, and then we can take the questions wherever he’d like.

Maybe in terms of where I’ll start is specifically around some of the questions he had with regards to the forest service roads budget. Because we had a chance to break for lunch, we got some numbers for him. For the engineering program, there’s about $17.6 million for maintenance, $23.3 million set aside for capital. For B.C. Timber Sales, which were, I think, the numbers he was specifically looking for: $14.9 million for maintenance and $49 million set aside for capital.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that these are, obviously, large numbers, but in the context of 60,000 FSRs and the roads that B.C. Timber Sales has, as the member opposite noted, there are a lot of responsibilities — certainly with B.C. Timber Sales, one of the largest, if not the largest, licensee holder in the province.

The maintenance work that is being done is being done in a number of different areas. The maintenance includes brushing and vegetation control and the removal of dangerous trees. That was something the member noted prior to breaking for lunch. We talked about how, for B.C. Timber Sales, that kind of review is done annually and, I would also argue, as needed, too, in terms of the work necessary.

There is grading work that is done, ditch cleanout and shaping, ditch block repair, culvert inlet and outlet repairs, seeding, exposed soils, frost heave repairs, winter maintenance — so your general snowplowing and sanding just like what happens all across British Columbia, less so here on the Island; southern Island, I might add — spot surfacing, dust suppression and locating and constructing water bars and cross-ditches.

The capital dollars that I read out — the $14.9 million for maintenance; $49 million for capital, in the case of BCTS; for engineering, $17.6 million, $23.3 million — are used for major crossings. And any other major work under $100,000 in value in that lifespan for the 40 years could be a large project that includes elements that would not be considered capital if done separately, like a small culvert.

I just wanted to provide that information at the outset to start.

I think anytime I get an opportunity to be able to stand in the House and talk about tree planting and general reforestation is certainly very exciting for me.

[1:10 p.m.]

I’m not sure how much time we’re going to get a chance this afternoon to talk about reforestation, but I agree with the member opposite, before we broke for lunch. There is a huge, huge opportunity. We talked a bit yesterday around stewarding our land base and how there is an opportunity to create good-paying jobs in rural communities throughout British Columbia, in getting young people, Indigenous people out on the land and doing that good stewardship.

Tree planting is a part of that, and I would argue that here in British Columbia, we are doing a great job. We are exceeding the country. I would say we’re exceeding North America in terms of the work.

I want to acknowledge John Betts and so many others who have been leading this work over the course of the last number of years. I want to acknowledge so much work that’s happening within the ministry. B.C. Timber Sales, as the member can imagine, plants a lot of trees — millions, in fact.

It’s one thing to think about planting trees. I think the member obviously will agree. Just the concept of tree planting is very popular all over the place. People love the idea of just planting trees. But there are a number of reasons why we plant trees. One is just for the regenerative ecosystem that we are trying to build, and also, tree planting supports the long-term success of our forest sector. It’s about thinking 100 years ahead.

I shared with the member yesterday that a big priority for me, in terms of the work that I want to accomplish as Minister of Forests, is not thinking in four-year cycles. My mandate objectives that I’ve been given by the Premier are about taking us away from a boom-and-bust forest sector economy that has been a focus point of this province for quite a while and moving us towards stability and towards thinking 100 years ahead or in the case of many nations, seven generations ahead.

In fact, we have the Syilx First Nations, the Okanagan group that have come together and developed a seven-generations-ahead forestry plan that, I would argue, is provincial-leading in many ways and something that we’re excited to be able to work with them on.

As it relates to reforestation, I want to let the member know that there’s a lot of pride within the Ministry of Forests — within the forest service, in particular, and the office of the chief forester — on the work that we’ve done on reforestation.

As the member noted, provincial reforestation in 2024-2025 is estimated at about 281 million trees, compared to 246 million and 265 million trees in 2023-2024 and 2022-2023, respectively.

The breakdown of the 2024-2025 numbers, just for the member’s benefit, is…. For licensees, that was about 173 million. For B.C. Timber Sales, it was 34.5 million. For our forestry investment program — those are dollars that are operated out of the chief forester’s office: 52 million. Then section 108 and other was 21.6 million. We can get into the specifics that have to do predominantly with wildfire damage as well.

As of January 2025, the estimated planting request for the 2025 planting season is 221.5 million.

Again, I’ll give a bit of a rough breakdown, acknowledging that these sorts of numbers can change as we get into the season and that these are, of course, a couple months old: licensees, roughly 140 million of the 221.5 million; BCTS, 31 million. That similar program that I was referring to — the forest innovation program, FIP — is 42.1 million; and then the section 108 and other, being after fires, is 8.4 million.

The member will know well that reforestation in British Columbia has declined slightly because of the decrease in harvest levels. But I again want to reiterate that there is an opportunity for us to be able to work together to ensure that there is more reforestation work happening. I think there’s a role for the province, and I think there’s a role for the federal government as well.

The member across the way will know that last April British Columbia celebrated the ten-billionth tree planted since the reforestation programs began in the 1930s. Two billion of those trees were planted in the past seven years. That’s a sense of pride for us on this side of the House in making sure that we are leading in this effort. Again, I just want to reiterate that since the 1930s, ten billion trees planted in British Columbia, two billion of those ten billion planted since we formed government in 2017.

[1:15 p.m.]

As the member opposite likely experienced in his time working in forestry, the species listed as acceptable and preferred were fairly narrow and depended on the biogeoclimatic zone being reforested. We’ve made changes in the past number of years to modernize our forest legislation, which has allowed more species to be accepted in our recommended stocking standards.

We commonly plant about 13 different species across the province: three variants of spruce, interior and coastal Douglas fir, western red cedar, ponderosa and lodgepole pine, western white pine, western larch, western hemlock, trembling aspen, red alder.

We’re also starting to see more species being planted as we incorporate Indigenous knowledge into our reforestation practices. That is critical. The work that First Nations communities, Indigenous peoples have been doing since time immemorial needs to ensure that it’s reflected in our practices as a government. So we’re seeing cottonwood and birch, shrub and berry species, whitebark pine.

That one in particular, the whitebark pine…. This mountain ecosystem species is currently in decline, at the risk of extinction, so that’s obviously an area of importance for us.

I’ll also add that it’s really important for us to continue to partner across ministries to deliver more reforestation — as an example, planting for habitat restoration, work that’s done with the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship; and we’re also exploring ways to be able to grow this. The member, being at COFI, will have heard me talk about, and I’ve talked about it during estimates, the examples with the Cheslatta First Nations.

What we know about reforestation and planting is that this is an expensive venture. It’s required. It’s needed. I’d love to see a commitment from the federal government to invest more dollars into their program outside of just the program funding that they have set aside and the work that we have to do in terms of our legal obligations to planting trees. I’d love to see the federal government invest more dollars in this. I think this is an opportunity for us to be able to work with the federal government. British Columbia is a proven partner as it relates to that.

I would also add that there are some potential opportunities out there as it relates to carbon offsets for reforestation. If a billionaire company from the U.S. wants to come in and plant trees for offset purposes, then that’s something we’d be interested in having conversations on. Obviously, we would have checks and balances in place. I’ll let the member know that we’re just in the early days of exploring that, like many other jurisdictions, in regards to how we can do that work. I’m really excited and happy to chat more about tree planting if that’s of interest to the member.

As it relates to his comments on wildfire salvage, the impacts of recent wildfire and salvage progress is something that we’ve been doing a lot of work on. In 2024, wildfires damaged approximately 20.3 million cubic metres of valuable timber as part of our timber-harvesting land base, which obviously impacts that land base and, as I’ve touched on yesterday and earlier today, impacts the overall land base as well.

Of that amount that I had touched on, the 20.3 million cubic metres, only an estimated 2.9 million cubic metres, or about 14 percent, is considered available to harvest due to environmental and economic factors. Again, the member, working in forestry, will understand what I mean by that, and I’ll certainly touch on that in a bit.

The post-wildfire salvage harvesting is an important tool in both protecting the land base and community economic recovery as a whole. Wildfire salvage, when planned and conducted carefully, can contribute to repairing the damage caused by wildfires on soils, watersheds and ecosystems, accelerating reforestation and reducing forest health issues.

I’ll share with the member that we’re working with First Nations communities and other partners to be able to expedite this work. Of the trees that are identified as appropriate to salvage, it is important to maximize economic value and provide a source of much-needed fibre for primary and value-added wood manufacturers.

I think there are huge opportunities for us to continue doing this work. We’re moving harvesting operations away from non-burned forest and into burned dead stands, which also means less impact on healthy forests and the benefits that they can provide.

To expedite the planning work and administration of wildfire salvage, in 2023, we developed and established the wildfire salvage leadership committee in partnership with industry and the First Nations Forestry Council, which is led by Lenny Joe.

[1:20 p.m.]

The leadership this committee has developed since 2023 has led to some really great solutions. I’m going to try to see if I can get through as many of them as I can.

Publishing the new wildfire salvage planning and administration guide, which outlines five key phases of salvage to support a more consistent and efficient salvage process. New tools for process, for determining the net area available for harvest to better measure salvage progress and success rates, enabling better transparency on salvage operations. We’ve also expedited burn severity mapping as a tool to be able to provide critical information to better enable faster salvage planning.

The last piece I’ll share, as well, is kind of a combination of introducing wildfire salvage opportunity agreements, working with nations to be able to enable forest licences to be directly awarded to First Nations in fire-damaged areas which enable nations to actively manage salvage within their territories to provide that additional economic benefit.

We’re making several timber pricing changes to better reflect the reduced value, and the increased costs, of wildfire salvage.

We’re introducing the ability to use ribbonless boundaries to expedite salvage planning.

Forest Enhancement Society — 40,000 truckloads that were taken from British Columbia’s forests out to facilities, much of our pulp and paper and a whole host of other things.

We’re also doing great work as it relates to some areas. The member mentioned Adams Lake. I actually had an opportunity to be able to be at that community and actually walk through some of that forest and see some of those piles.

I think I’ve talked for too long, so I’ll sit down in the hope that I can get back up.

Macklin McCall: Thank you to my colleague for carving out some time for me to ask a few questions.

What I’d like to do is just ask some questions regarding wildfires, particularly before, during and after, so I’ll get right into it.

My question for the minister…. The Minister of Forests committed $1 million toward fuel mitigation efforts in West Kelowna–Peachland during meetings with local officials. Can the minister confirm if this funding is included in Budget 2025? If not, what role will this minister play in ensuring this commitment is delivered?

The same ministerial meetings also referenced the possibility of a provincial pilot project based in West Kelowna. What pilot project is being considered? What are its objectives, and how will this ministry be involved in coordinating or supporting it?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to the member opposite for the question.

I had an opportunity to be in his community maybe three or four weeks ago. I had an opportunity to meet with the Westbank First Nation. They were kind enough to be able to fly me over their community forest, much of the territory. I got a chance to see a bit of the impact of the MacDougall Creek fire as well. It was certainly a learning experience, not just for myself. A really good conversation ensued afterwards.

I just want to correct the record on a couple of things, and then I’ll touch on the member’s comments.

Firstly, there was no commitment to the $1 million that the member referred to. What I’ll share is the meeting that I had with his mayor, which was very positive, centred around acknowledgment of the fact that West Kelowna, because it’s had to, but also because…. The local government there has really stepped up, again, because they had to and also because they recognized how important this is to ensure that there are further funding opportunities for them in the future.

What I mean by that is that right now, much of our program is built around supporting communities in terms of where they’re at. The majority of communities, in terms of their wildfire mitigation work, are just in those early stages. The member should be proud that his community is not in that stage. They are very well advanced.

We made a commitment to want to work with West Kelowna to better ensure that our funding programs truly are meeting communities where they’re at, where it’s not just focused solely on communities that are developing their planning work but also moving towards ensuring that we’re supporting communities that are well advanced, have resources on the ground and have the ability to take on more work.

I think the member will agree that his community of West Kelowna is, in many cases, leading the province in those efforts. We made a commitment to the mayor to find ways to be able to support communities like his that are well advanced. We’re looking at investment opportunities.

I’ll share with the member that the community resiliency investment was a one-year program. You would apply every year for projects. We’ve made that now a multi-year initiative. That was in recognition, again, of communities like Kelowna that have done great work.

I’ll also share with the member the specific dollars as relate to Kelowna. The city of West Kelowna has been approved for $606,000 in funding since 2018. Of this approved amount, $91,932 has been used for fuels management.

I’ll share with him that I want to continue working with the mayor, the fire chief there, to be able to find solutions. I really enjoyed the conversations I had with the mayor and look forward to continuing those in the weeks ahead.

Macklin McCall: I have actually already completed my four-hour estimates with the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. I had several questions, quite a few, that I was specifically directed by that ministry to speak on to the Minister of Forests. In the interests of time, because I know we’re getting pretty short, I’d like to just submit questions to the minister in writing for response after the fact.

The following questions are submitted under advisement to the Minister of Forests for written response as part of the 2025 budget estimates for the Ministry of Forests. Submission made by Macklin McCall, MLA for West Kelowna–Peachland.

Interjection.

Macklin McCall: Is it possible to submit them to the Clerk? I don’t know what the procedure would be, but I just want to make sure I can minimize the time.

The Chair: It would be best if you could read them into the record.

Macklin McCall: I can do that. Thank you.

First, given that wildfires, since 2016, have burned an area larger than Vancouver Island, devastating timber supplies and ecosystems, why does Budget 2025 allocate only a modest $8 million increase for wildfire management? What is the ministry’s plan to bridge the gap, given the record-breaking costs of wildfires, over $1 billion spent in 2023?

[1:30 p.m.]

Two, how will the ministry ensure robust wildfire pre-season planning when Budget 2025 funds focus predominantly on reactive firefighting measures? Specifically, what proactive strategies — for example, firebreaks, equipment and training — are being funded to prevent mega-fires, rather than merely respond to them?

Three, with B.C. having spent a record $1.1 billion on fire management in 2023, exceeding the budget by $401 million, what safeguards does the ministry propose to avoid such under-budgeting in 2025? Does the ministry anticipate relying on the $10 billion contingency fund for wildfire costs, or will core budgets be adjusted to reflect true firefighting expenditures?

Four, Budget 2025 shows the Forests Ministry’s spending falling from $1.4 billion to $891 million, partly due to lower forecast wildfire expenses. How can the ministry justify this reduction after 2023’s worst wildfire season, and what risk assessments support the assumption of significantly lower firefighting costs in ’25-26?

Five, in light of year-round wildfire threats, how is B.C. wildfire service staffing and training being enhanced? Specifically, given record recruitment interest, 1,700 applicants for 200 crew jobs in 2025, will Budget 2025 accommodate more full-time positions or training programs to leverage this surge and improve wildfire response capacity?

Six, experts note B.C. must revolutionize forest practices by reinstating preventative burns and forest thinning. What dedicated funding in Budget 2025, beyond the $20 million per year noted for prevention, is earmarked for controlled burns, fuel management and cultural burning initiatives, especially near high-risk communities?

Seven, the Tyee highlighted that New Jersey, with less than 1 percent of B.C.’s area, conducts more preventative burns than B.C. How does the ministry intend to up its fire mitigation game in 2025? Are there new targets or interjurisdictional partnerships planned, to scale up prescribed burns and firebreak projects to match best practices in regions like Australia and the United States?

Eight, given that each dollar invested in wildfire mitigation can yield $7 in benefits, especially by protecting watersheds and communities, why does Budget 2025 continue underinvesting in prevention relative to suppression? How will the ministry measure the cost-effectiveness of any FireSmart and Crown land wildfire risk reduction, or CLWRR, projects funded this year?

Nine, after the catastrophic 2023 fire season, many communities have millions of dollars in unmet wildfire prevention needs. How is the ministry addressing the funding shortfall for local mitigation projects, such as fuel removal and prescribed burns? Will Budget 2025 increase community resiliency investment grants, given one fire chief’s comment that current funding covers only one-fifth of the needed work?

Ten, cultural bans are a proven tool to reduce wildfire risk and involve Indigenous expertise. What progress will Budget 2025 enable for the cultural and prescribed fire program? How many hectares are expected to be treated through cultural burns in 2025? Are any First Nations partnerships or training programs expanding to integrate these traditional practices more broadly?

Eleven, as major wildfires sterilize soil and increase erosion, reforestation becomes more urgent and complex. What earmarked funding or programs in Budget 2025 will tackle post-wildfire replanting, land rehabilitation and erosion control in severely burned areas? Please detail any specific allocations, or lack thereof, for such recovery work in response to the 2023 wildfires in places like the Okanagan, such as the Westside complex.

Twelve, experts warn that burned watersheds lead to debris torrents and sediment in drinking water. In Budget 2025, what resources are allocated to protect water quality after wildfires? Is there funding for catchment rehabilitation, such as reseeding ground cover or installing silt traps in areas such as the Shuswap and Cariboo, where community water systems are affected by the 2023 fires?

[1:35 p.m.]

Thirteen, given that smaller communities and First Nations without big filtration plants are starting to see post-fire boil-water advisories, how will the ministry work with Emergency Management and Health to address these risks? Are there interministerial funds or programs in 2025 to assist in upgrading water infrastructure or providing interim clean water supplies in wildfire-affected areas?

Fourteen, the Forests Ministry’s mandate includes land-based recovery. Does Budget 2025 fund any wildfire land-based recovery program pilots aimed at maintaining or restoring water quality — for instance, replanting stream buffers or stabilizing slopes to prevent ash runoff? If yes, please detail; if not, why was this critical aspect overlooked, despite known wildfire impacts on fisheries and drinking water?

Fifteen, in 2024, a one-time recovery uplift of $100,000 was offered to six local governments for post-wildfire debris clearing and rebuilding. Will this recovery uplift program continue or expand in 2025? Will its scope include measures to specifically safeguard water sources, like removing charred debris around reservoirs or repairing damaged water intakes?

Sixteen, with extensive staff demands from wildfire seasons, hundreds of B.C. wildfire service personnel and support staff in emergency operations, and simultaneous needs to advance policy — old-growth deferrals, landscape planning — is the ministry properly resourced in staffing levels? Did Budget 2025 authorize any increase in full-time-equivalents, or FTEs, for the Ministry of Forests or the B.C. wildfire service, to manage these dual pressures? If not, how will the ministry avoid burnout and ensure both emergency response and strategic planning mandates are met?

Seventeen, in summary, does the minister believe the 2025 NDP budget failed the Forests portfolio? Please address how this budget shortchanges the ministry’s ability to prepare for climate impacts, such as wildfires and floods, and to support an industry in crisis. What commitments can the Ministry of Forests make to British Columbians that, despite the limited new funding, it will innovatively leverage every tool available to protect communities, sustain our forests and preserve jobs in the year ahead?

Those are my questions, Clerk.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: If there’s one thing that I think we could take from those lines of questions, it’s how come we’re only talking about forestry for six hours? We should double it next year. We’re ready to go on this side of the House.

Good questions from the member opposite — lots there. I’d love to be able to dive into all of those. I’m not sure if his colleague would want me to do that, because it’ll probably take time away from his issues. But maybe next year we can spend a little bit more time on forestry and prioritize forestry and B.C. wildfire service as part of the overall estimates.

What I will say is that I am proud to be the minister responsible for the B.C. wildfire service. As the member opposite will know well, we have two votes, counts, as part of these estimates: one that pertains to the overall ministry budget and one specific to the B.C. wildfire service.

I want the member opposite, and all British Columbians, to know that we will spend whatever we need to, to keep British Columbians safe. We will spend whatever we need to, as we have in previous years, to ensure that we have the teams we need to be able to protect British Columbians in every part of this province. B.C. wildfire service makes that commitment to British Columbians each and every year. We continue to add resources.

I would encourage the member opposite to go back into the Hansard records over the last day and hear about some of those specifics. Again, I’m happy to touch on his questions and write back to him with some specifics on the work that we’re doing.

Macklin McCall: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that.

Ward Stamer: Yes, I ran into Keith Baldrey just a little bit earlier. He said that in the past they had a time when there were over 90 hours to forestry. He said it was a little bit carried away.

But I agree with the minister. Six hours isn’t enough.

[1:40 p.m.]

Now I’d like to spend a little bit of time, and I’m not going to dive into it too much, and I would request the opportunity…. There are a couple of things that I’m going to be asking, and if the minister isn’t able to answer them to what his satisfaction would be in the amount of information that is in that, in the questions — if we have the opportunity to have it in writing.

What it does is come back to what I mentioned yesterday. It’s this joint compilation of forest biodiversity principles that was released to industry back in, I believe, the middle of March. I don’t really want to get into it too much. There’s a lot of language. There are some assumptions made. There are things that I’m going to touch on a little bit, but I don’t really want to get into the meat and potatoes, because I don’t think we really have enough time, and I’d like the opportunity, in the future, to be able to have this conversation with the minister on some of the things that this is pertaining to.

I want to read this part of the summary that was made, just to put it into the context of, really, what we’re talking about. Again, it comes back to certainty of supply. It comes back to a sustainable supply of fibre in this province.

I think it’s important for us to realize that when the minister talks about forest landscape plans, we need to have everyone involved in this process from the beginning to the end and not just start having different segments being responsible for certain areas. I think that we need to have everyone at the table so we can come up with a collaborative approach. I think the minister would agree that that’s the proper way of doing it.

There are some things in here, again, with this document, and I believe it’s kind of a draft in as much as it’s going to look at some of the law around Bill 23 that was enacted on October 20 of 2021. Bill 23 was a bill that amended the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the forest practices code of British Columbia.

These amendments established a framework for an approach that is more focused on ecological and cultural values: “A key part of this will be replacing forest stewardship plans, which are currently developed by industry, with forest landscape plans developed by the province with First Nations, local communities and other partners, which will create new opportunities for shared decision-making between the province and First Nations.”

That’s the province of B.C. That’s right off the website.

Now, here’s a letter that I’d like to read to talk about some of the challenges that we can see, going forward, in implementing the joint stewardship plan.

When this plan was originally produced, it was basically a meeting. It was a meeting between the Ministry of Forests and licensees. So this plan had already been developed, this draft, without the input of any of the licensees or any of the companies involved. It was the Ministry of Forests and First Nations. That was what was explained to us at the beginning of the process. Even with FLPs, it was going to be government-to-government between the province of B.C. and our First Nations, and then there was going to be a process as we go through it.

This is what they had to say, and this is what I support:

“We understand that the province of B.C. is working together with First Nations to further reconciliation, and we support this initiative. Granted, the manner that these standards were rolled out is not really acceptable and contrary to the consultation-based regime that forest professionals uphold — forest professionals that are employed by our licensees in the province.

“By excluding these licensees and practitioners, it appears the province does not acknowledge the significant investment and employment that these companies contribute to our province. There’s also a concern about how the forest landscape planning process may unfold, where the province of B.C. and the First Nations develop a plan and then only bring the industry stakeholders to the table to inform them about how the plan will work when the ink is already dry.

“I, as many others are, am very proud of our professional foresters that work in the Kamloops region and all the regions in British Columbia, and they strive to implement complicated plans that manage all of the arrays of the values on the land base.

“It is my opinion that not engaging with these forest professionals that represent all of the various stakeholders is a significant missed opportunity.”

From that, Mr. Minister, I have three requests.

One, prior to implementation, invest the appropriate time and resources in a professional and defendable assessment of the timber-harvesting land base AAC impacts, including any potential socioeconomic impacts resulting from implementation of any plan. This is particularly relevant in our current and looming trade dispute with the U.S. Department of Commerce and has measurable impacts to our forest industry and our provincial economy.

[1:45 p.m.]

Two, develop an industry engagement process for the draft QSFBF standards, where we suggest two to three industry representatives have a seat at that table, along with QS, to redefine the standards which we intend to ensure the values of the importance of the QS that can be achieved, including the research and science to support the strategies to achieve the desired outcomes.

Three, in advance of the proposed implementation date, develop and approve timber pricing policies that support the QS objectives and adequately recognize the operating cost adjustments for this industry to continue to support and implement this plan.

Further, I’d like to ask the minister, when we start talking about the joint stewardship program and the understanding of how we’re going to be moving this forward…. I’m trying to understand how that’s supposed to work.

I’m going to have follow-up questions, but I’d like you to be able to respond to what I’ve asked so far.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks very much to the member opposite. I appreciate him and his team sharing a copy of the document over the break.

The biodiversity principles that the member refers to are in draft format, and I would share with the member opposite that the document is confidential in the nature that it’s now being shared with licensees, which is probably how he got his hands on it.

The principles were developed by First Nations and the forest service in a G2G setting and build on stewardship standards that many of the First Nations involved have already developed and have already been working with licensees on. The First Nations that we have been working with are very proud to have had the opportunity to be able to develop them, provide input and begin this important engagement work.

We are now in the process of sharing that with licensees only, and it has not been shared publicly. I’ll share with the member that we have had meetings over the last couple of weeks, including this week, with individual licensees. We are receiving comments on the draft principles. In fact, as we are meeting right now, there is a meeting occurring with licensees, the Ministry of Forests and First Nations on this.

I’ll also add that I want to provide clarity on the piece around FLPs that the member refers to. Forest landscape planning tables begin with a government-to-government conversation and led to all of the partners coming in. There are no intentions by my ministry to preclude and make decisions without industry, without local governments, without workers at the table.

Again, to reiterate, it starts with a G2G and then leads to everyone coming to the table and having these conversations, including modelling, which the member, I think, referred to in one of his questions.

I’ll share with the member that the work that is beginning as part of this is exactly the work that needs to happen G2G, bringing in licensees. Again, the member may have heard from one licensee. He referenced a letter. I don’t have a copy of the letter. If he feels comfortable sharing it — happy to. If he wants to ask that licensee to reach out to me, I’m happy to have a conversation with him.

This work is what FLPs are all about. It’s about bringing people together, and in no way is this ministry going to just go out and make agreements without having everyone at the table. That defeats the purpose of forest landscape planning tables.

Ward Stamer: Yes, I appreciate the minister’s commitment to the process and allowing that timeline and those opportunities for engagement, because I think we both agree it’s very important to not only get the buy-in from industry and all the stakeholders but for the public to understand that they’re part of the process.

That leads me to my next question. I’m hoping to get a little bit of clarity as we go forward with this, because again, it goes back to our certainty of supply and some of the challenges that we seem to be having with that.

[1:50 p.m.]

When we talked earlier about whether it’s 40 days or 25 days to actually get a cutting permit, we know there are so many other factors that are in play in developing those forest harvesting plans. And I think, from what we’ve heard…. I’ve heard, and I’m sure the minister has heard, as well, that those timelines are stretching out. Instead of shrinking, they’re stretching.

We’re hoping that as the minister alluded to in the last two days, this ministry is working and trying to speed up that process to make it less complicated and less onerous for everybody included, particularly when we’re talking about forest health or fire recovery, burnt timber, those kinds of situations where we need to be able to act as quickly as we can to get the maximum value out of that wood while the clock is ticking.

To get back a little bit on the joint stewardship, I just need to have a little bit more clarity from the minister. When I look at Bill 23…. I read it again last night. I’m trying to figure out, if we’re going to have joint stewardship going forward with our First Nations, what mechanism is in place if one of the two parties can’t agree as we move forward in situations.

As it is currently now, the chief forester has the authority through law to be able to make those decisions when it comes to authorization to cut. Now, if that is going to change, is there going to be a change in the law? Is there going to be another amendment to Bill 23?

How are we going to be able to get through that process where, for whatever reason, the two sides can’t come to an agreement? How are we supposed to have a mechanism to get through that? Who ultimately makes the decision, or do we just say: “No, it’s another protected area, and we’re not going to even think about harvesting”?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks again to the member for the question.

A couple things that I would add as it relates to the member’s comments and questions, specifically around the agreement. I just want to clarify, because I neglected to in my previous answer, that the documents the member refers to are just guidelines. They’re not legally binding documents by any means. And it’s all about a collaborative approach. That’s what FLPs are all about. It’s about getting people together to be able to have conversations and having a starting point.

As it relates to the member’s question around Bill 23 and the role of the chief forester, the member is right. Our work is to get to consensus, but currently the chief forester signs off on those forest landscape planning tables and the forest operation plans.

One of the things, as part of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, is section 7, as the member will know well, where there may be some nations that want to move towards a section 7 shared decision–making framework. One nation is doing that work right now, and there may be more in the future. Again, those will be broader conversations, nation by nation.

[1:55 p.m.]

We’re working, as I shared with the member yesterday, with over 90 First Nations right now at 15 FLPs.

Again, as it speaks to the member’s comments around these biodiversity principles, the draft document is about bringing people together. It’s about doing this in a collaborative approach, and it’s about making sure that those nations have an opportunity to be able to share their perspectives, their expectations, and then for industry and government to come in and have just as important conversations and for us to share our perspectives, as well, and try to reach consensus.

Ward Stamer: Thank you to the minister for that.

Just to expand a little bit on what he’s saying, I agree with the minister that these are frameworks and these are opportunities for us to be able to come up with partnership agreements and collaboration. Some of the challenges that many of the people that I’ve talked to see in this process are that when you have overlapping territories, you have overlapping jurisdictions. That is what’s creating some of the uncertainty in this industry.

Right now, today, the chief forester in the province of British Columbia has the authority, ultimately, on harvesting levels and where it’s being harvested. If there are going to be transfers of forest or there are going to be transfers of tenure to First Nations, which has already been described in the Forest Amendment Act of 2021, there is supposed to be compensation provided to any replaceable licences.

I believe the minister will remember the conversation at the Truck Loggers Association when it was specifically asked to the Premier, and there was a quip about: “Is it a replaceable or non-replaceable licence?” We’re not going to get into that today because I don’t think that was really a fair comment.

Having said that, there are mechanisms in place for compensation if there are licences or existing licensees that are going to be compensated or should be compensated for areas of fibre that are going to be transferred or changed or reduced, for a wide variety of issues, whether it’s our First Nations, protected areas, old-growth management strategies or whether they’re in the TSAs or not. Those are discussions that we should have.

My question is: as we work forward towards a joint stewardship, who ultimately makes these decisions? Who ultimately has the authority to be able to say…? Okay, if the two sides don’t agree, even though they’ve got written agreements and they’re working in collaboration, who ultimately is going to be making these decisions on behalf of the province of B.C.?

Are we going to have the same system in place where we have regulations, and we have environmental concerns…? We have the tightest regulations in the world, but ultimately, are we going to still have the chief forester responsible for the majority of the Crown lands in British Columbia, or as we work forward and we start transferring some of these rights to our forests, to our First Nations, does that change the parameters on who ultimately has the authorization? That’s my question to the minister.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I just want to clarify a couple of points that the member has raised as it relates to his question. As I touched on in my previous answer, the member is absolutely right, from a couple of questions ago. It is the chief forester. He, within legislation, has the authority to be able to ultimately approve and also establish forest landscape planning tables. Again, the exercise that….

I should add that with DRIPA, there is also the section 7 piece, but the nation has to ask for that. There’s a whole process you go through. Once that’s in place, it’s the chief forester from our side and whoever on a nation’s side. We don’t have any FLPs in place. We don’t have any section 7 agreements in place in the context of forestry. But there is a nation that has requested that, and we’re working our way through that.

The chief forester, in terms of being that statutory–decision maker, doesn’t referee, allows the table to be able to come together to get to consensus, get to what we can. The member will note — well, in his question — that when you bring people that make up the forest sector in a community together, not everyone agrees. There are some challenging conversations. As someone who has actually sat at a couple of FLP tables myself, I’ve seen a couple of nations express displeasure with the viewpoints of another nation, industry, you name it.

The reality is that that happens in everyone’s circles, at home, in the workplace, and I don’t mean that to make light of it. The important thing is that we’re coming to the table having these conversations.

To get to the premise of the member’s question, at the end of the day, it’s the chief forester that makes the final decision as it speaks to in the legislation that he referred to.

Ward Stamer: Thanks to the minister for answering those questions.

We only have half an hour left. I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground in this ministry. I think we can both appreciate the importance of this industry. I think people out there are starting to appreciate that there’s a reason why this is one of the four pillars of this province. We’ve been here for a very long period of time, and we want to be able to be here for, as you mentioned, at least seven generations to come.

We talked yesterday about some of the challenges with the tariff. We’ll talk about the duties first, because we don’t have a necessary tariff yet, but that could happen. I’d like to know a little bit more…. When we talked about some of the programs that have occurred in the past, particularly with the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund….

Again, as the minister alludes to, currently $97 million of taxpayers’ funds have actually been allocated to our forest industry. That’s through the Jobs and Innovation Ministry. That has encouraged more than $650 million of industry money. That is a significant leveraging tool, and it’s also a significant investment by the government. I will agree to that.

Having said that, what new policies is the ministry contemplating when we start looking at this uncertainty, knowing that we’ve got to be able to, as I mentioned at COFI, survive. Many of our industry partners are right on the brink. Many of them have not invested for many years. There have been arguments that when there were profits made, they invested in other jurisdictions.

[2:05 p.m.]

I would suggest that part of the reason for that was because of the uncertainty in this market and the fact that without investing in other markets, there may not even be that facility still remaining in British Columbia.

Having said that, going forward, what other programs have the minister and his ministry come up with when we talk about reduction in stumpage fees? We know that those fees are going to be going up. We know it’s a market-based system. Some of us in the room will agree that it’s a flawed system. It’s not working the way it should be working in relationship to the actual price of lumber.

Other jurisdictions in Canada, I believe, have better systems. I know the minister says we’ve gone to a monthly stumpage system now, but unfortunately, we don’t have enough volume coming through BCTS to really, actually have a proper way of determining what that number should be. When you’re not at 20 percent of the volume of the harvest, you have a skewed number. You don’t have a collection point of data that is more in tune with what the costings should be in this industry.

My question to the minister is: what other new programs are they planning in the next six months, knowing that we have a BCTS review coming? What other programs can the minister help this industry with to survive?

Can we look at stumpage reductions? Can we look at freezing some of the stumpage before those logs are being processed so if they don’t go across the scales, they can sit there without having to be paid until the time those logs get into the manufacturing facility and are made into lumber or plywood or whatever they’re making?

Are there any other cost saving methods? The minister mentioned about loan guarantees from the federal government. Are there any loan guarantees that the provincial government can offer to some of these companies?

I look forward to any other initiatives that the minister has to present to us.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Lots to be able to dive into. I appreciate the member bringing us back to the topics as it relates to the softwood lumber duties and tariffs. I think it’s important. We could spend just six hours on this topic, and I think we would be well served.

I also appreciate the member’s acknowledgement in support of the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund. It has been extremely successful. I think it’s shown how government can work with the federal government, other partners, other investors to be able to create and protect good-paying jobs here in British Columbia. I know that his community has benefited from that as well.

I also want to at the outset just remind the member that even in the challenges we face with the end of the pine beetle kill, wildfires, softwood lumber duties that are increasing and the threat of the Trump tariff, we are seeing investments in our communities.

[2:10 p.m.]

The member is right. There are some companies that have made strategic decisions based off of their shareholders to take resources down south. I would add that at the same time, there are companies, many of them family-based companies, that are making investments here.

I think of Tolko, which is investing nearly $90 million with the support of the B.C. manufacturing jobs fund in Heffley Creek. I can’t remember if that is in the member’s riding or maybe just outside, but that’s a pretty significant investment there by Tolko and a company that I’m proud to be working with.

I mentioned Stein Lumber in Salmon Arm. That’s a community where Teal-Jones closed their facility. Jack Gardner from Stein Lumber came in, opened it up, 30 years old, put everything on the line, and I’m really honoured to be working with him.

Last year in Fort St. James, Hampton Lumber invested in a brand-new mill that is the most brand-new mill in British Columbia. If the member opposite hasn’t had an opportunity to go and tour that mill, I highly recommend it. It’s not like your grandfather’s sawmill. It is high-tech, it is super clean, and it is very efficient.

Respect that companies have to make decisions based off of what their shareholders want.

I will give another example. Carrier Lumber spent $10 million paving their log sort yard. Bill from Carrier and the team there are outstanding people. They have outstanding relationships with First Nations. Those are the companies that I’ve got a lot of time for.

There are a lot of companies that have benefited from British Columbia, benefited from our resources, have made billions in profits and have made decisions to go down south. I’ll leave it to them to answer for that because, I’m sure the member opposite can agree, there are a lot of frustrated British Columbians out there that feel that the social licence has been broken and that decisions pertaining to their communities are made in boardrooms, not in communities. I’ve been a strong believer since day one that workers should always be at the table when we’re having these discussions.

As it relates to the programs that the member is talking about, there’s a number that I can touch on. The overall work that we’ve been doing on reducing raw log exports is critical, 60 percent reduction. Prior to that, they were climbing, under the previous government. It’s a big priority for us to be able to get the most value out of the logs that we have here in British Columbia.

This government has been leading not just British Columbia, not just Canada, not just North America but the world in mass timber. We have more mass timber buildings in British Columbia per capita than anywhere else in North America with more work to go.

My friend from Kootenay-Monashee’s riding benefits from that with Kalesnikoff Lumber. I’m looking forward to visiting Kalesnikoff in the weeks ahead and also making more investment opportunity announcements in the future, as it relates to supporting more value-added facilities through the manufacturing jobs fund.

One of the other things that I did was, as part of the B.C. Timber Sales review, on day one, I announced that the category 4 program which we had brought in just about a year prior, the B.C. Timber Sales value-added manufacturing program known as category 4, actually doubled it from 10 percent to 20 percent, which means that there’s more dedicated fibre going to value-added operators.

This is in line with the work that Premier Horgan had done previously, that the current Premier has carried, in terms of making sure that we are supporting our value-added sector with the value-added accelerator initiative in partnership with the First Nations Forestry Council, the Value Added Wood Coalition and the Council of Forest Industries.

As it pertains to the member’s question around stumpage, the member may know that the Premier touched on in his speech at COFI that we are actively exploring a stumpage billing pause. This is something similar to what we did during COVID.

We are exploring those options, and I’m getting advice from my Softwood Lumber Advisory Council on that and also engaged with the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, with COFI and other partners. And that’s obviously to be able to prepare for the initial shock.

I do want to go back to one of the calming points we talked about earlier this week and what we talked about in the main House in question period. Where is the federal government in all of this? It was nice for the Prime Minister to come here. It was nice for him to reference his housing plan and how mass timber is a huge opportunity, but our forest sector needs help right now. I think the member and I can both agree that it’s time for federal politicians to step up and make the commitments they need to. I haven’t seen a commitment from any of the federal parties.

You know, the leader of the Conservative Party federally, Pierre Poilievre, was in Nanaimo at a Western Forest Products mill, and it said “Stop crime” on his billboard that he was standing in front of. He was at a mill, and he didn’t talk about forestry in the context of just saying that he would get a softwood lumber deal. Well, how is he going to do that? How is he going to support forestry operations here in British Columbia?

[2:15 p.m.]

Again, same question to the Liberals; same question to the federal NDP as well. Here’s an opportunity, with the challenges we have, to be able to lay out your plan.

I’m actively listening. I’m sure the member opposite is actively listening, as well, for federal leadership on this.

We’ve made it very clear that we are looking for a loan guarantee program to be able to provide supports. We are looking for trade diversification dollars. We can never be put in this position again where we are just reliant on one jurisdiction in this significant amount. We have to look at growing the opportunities here at home and also in other jurisdictions. We’ll be leading trade missions in regards to that in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Of course, as it relates to the overall stumpage system, it adjusts to market conditions. But diversification is going to be a key piece, and I know that we in the province here are going to ensure that we get as much out of the feds as we can and complement their programming with whatever type of programming we need to be able to keep workers working and keep this sector going to the best of our collective abilities, because the member opposite is right. This sector has provided for the last 100 years. We are going to work our butts off to ensure that it provides for the next 100 years.

I would also welcome the opportunity, to the member, to see him stand up and condemn Donald Trump for the softwood lumber duties, for the threat of tariffs and the duties that he has increased. I’ve not seen that from the Conservative Party, and I would welcome the opportunity to hear the member stand up and say that.

Ward Stamer: Thanks very much to the minister.

Well, absolutely, I disagree wholeheartedly about what President Trump is doing not only to our province but also to our country and the rest of the world, with his flip-flopping on his economic policies and these tariffs that aren’t helping anyone, particularly our American cousins to the south.

To further what the minister had to say about some of our main licensees and the level of investment, I’m not going to speak for Tolko. We were a large, replaceable contract harvester with them many years ago. I’ve consulted with Tolko. They’re a strong company. I have deep admiration for the Thorlakson family, but I would not want to try to guess what they lost last year in capital versus what they’re planning on spending on investment this year.

I think it’s unfair to make that assertion that there’s nothing but money out there, because I know there’s not. Many of these companies are continuing to make investments in our industry knowing that they’ve been here for a long time. They see a future in this industry. But right now with some of the policies and things that are going on with our government, that isn’t happening.

I hope we can have the conversation, going forward, that the minister alluded to, looking for federal dollars for job support. Well, we should still be looking at provincial dollars as well.

He mentioned the stumpage freeze or a partial stumpage freeze. I look forward to an announcement of a timeline on that. That would be good news.

I agree with the minister that we should have a federal forest minister. I don’t know why we don’t. We should have, especially when you think of our First Nations across our country, how intricately they’re connected with the forests and the land. I think the minister and I would agree that one of the most important parts in this whole discussion is, when we move forward with economic reconciliation, that we actually mean it and don’t just say it.

I know Chief Lampreau has said before that action speaks louder than words. I would like to be able to move this forward in this province and make it something that we can all be proud of.

I’m just about out of time, but there are a couple of questions I’d like to go back to again with what COFI had to say with some of the investment side of things in our industry.

How confident is the minister…? When we start talking about fibre, start talking about a shrinking land base, we talk about the drive for 45. How confident is the minister that we’re actually going to be able to attain 45, allowing the marketplace to determine whether they can actually sell that fibre or not? We know that value-added is an important segment of our industry. They account for one out of two forest jobs now, but again, without our primary manufacturing facilities, we do not have value-added in this province.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’d like the minister to articulate a little bit more in detail how exactly we’re going to be able to speed up the process and certainty of supply, how we’re going to be able to cut through the red tape and the bureaucracy and some of the extra referrals that we didn’t have in the past and why we shouldn’t be able to tighten it down a whole lot tighter than it is right now.

Also, when we start looking at stumpage relief, is that something that’s going to happen in the next 30 to 60 to 90 days? Or is it something that’s just going to be fluid and we’re going to have to be just constantly reacting to what goes on in the world and not trying to…?

As my mom used to say: “Don’t worry about what somebody else is doing. Let’s worry about what we’re doing.”

I’d like the minister’s comments on that, if I may.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member will know very well my mandate letter speaks to ensuring that we’re enabling a sustainable timber-harvesting land base that gets us to 45 million cubic metres. Commercial thinning is one of the ways in which we will do that, just one of the tools of how we’ll do that.

We’ve talked, for some number of years, around these Nordic countries in terms of the practices that they have. Juan Carlos from Mercer talked a bit about that in the panel that I was on with him at COFI. We have an opportunity here in British Columbia to do that as well. That’s the commitment that the Premier has given to me over the course of my mandate, to be able to do that. And no surprise to anyone who’s been listening to us for the last few hours over the last couple of days, FLPs are going to be a way that we address that.

I recognize, and the member is absolutely right, we have to find ways to be able to expedite permits. It’s why the Premier has made this the 19th project in terms of the list of priority projects that he has — that it requires this not just be something that the forest service looks at, but this is an all-of-government approach.

A number of steps that we’ve taken that I’ve mentioned: bundling consultation for permits in the Skeena district office with archaeology and cutting permits, as an example, to try to speed things up; and that internal commitment, 40 to 25 days.

The member is right. There’s a lot of pre-work that happens. Here are some ways that we can address that.

FLPs are great. They’re the future. They also take too long. I recognize that, got to find ways to be able to streamline those. Our friend Chief Lampreau, I think, will give us some guidance on that. I think he can play a big role in regards to that. I’m looking forward to his leadership because I know that he is very keen on that.

One thing I didn’t get a chance to touch on when we first got back after lunch, related to wildfire salvage, is just some information for the member. One of the things that has been relatively new for our ministry is rapid ecological assessment teams that work as part of the B.C. wildfire service. We’re integrating this into our ministry operations through district offices as well. This is a situation in which you have a team that is on the ground immediately after a fire has happened, and their job, as part of that job, is to get that burnt fibre that is accessible economically, environmentally to where it needs to go. So they can be a part of wildfire salvage opportunity agreements, all of those different pieces.

The Cal Fire model has been quite successful. It’s a bit more challenging because California doesn’t really have much of a forest sector anymore. But there is, I think, a huge opportunity for us to be able to build this resiliency and land-based piece in where — the member’s absolutely right — when a fire occurs, we’re not going in six months later. We are actively assessing the land base immediately afterwards and building that system in with it.

Moms are awesome. I agree with your mom completely. We have to focus on what we can control. It’s clear to us the President may say something tomorrow. In fact, in the couple of hours that we’ve been up, he may have sent a tweet out that we’re not aware of.

We have to prepare for the increasing softwood lumber duties. We have to prepare for whatever the section 232 investigation will lead to. Again, it’s crazy to think that our softwood lumber industry here in Canada, here in British Columbia, could somehow be a national security risk. How ludicrous is that?

I want to thank the member for condemning the duties, because it’s important. What the President is doing is devastating to our sector here in British Columbia, here in Canada — Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, the east coast, other provinces that have a forest sector — and also the added costs that he’s putting on his own constituents. For someone who ran on a campaign of building more housing….

[2:30 p.m.]

How can you have a president who is basically adding a new tax on middle-class Americans — makes no sense to me — for those that are looking to build new homes and also for those who are simply looking to rebuild their homes after devastating wildfire seasons?

Being in California, chatting with lawmakers, I think they truly understand the challenges ahead. It was interesting. A lot of people that I spoke to…. It’s hard to imagine a large democracy like the United States where there were people…. There were industry organizations that were fearful of standing up because they didn’t want to get their head cut off by the President. How crazy is that?

Here in Canada, we are fairly critical of our politicians. The member opposite has been a local mayor. I’m sure he’s met some constituents that have maybe not been happy with the decision he’s made. Same here. We have email inboxes for that. We have community offices. We have opportunities to be able to have dialogue and conversation.

But to have heard in the United States that there are Americans, American organizations and businesses, that would love nothing more than to join us in making the case to stand up for the forest sector — for their building sector, rather, in the case of the Americans — but are afraid to do so because they’re afraid of what the Americans are going to say is deeply concerning, and I think something that…. I don’t know what to say.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

It doesn’t bode very well for the democracy down in the United States, but I hope that people will have an opportunity to stand up and make their case known, especially young people. Young people in the United States are not going to be better off than their parents are. They’re not going to be able to afford the homes that they need. They’re not going to be able to rebuild homes in communities in southern California, in North Carolina and elsewhere. Now more than ever, there is an opportunity for them to stand up and make their voices heard.

The President of the United States has a duty and an obligation to be able to represent the people of his country. I note that he was duly elected, but all the steps that he’s been taking over the course of the last number of weeks and months have been alienating his largest and most successful trading partner and friend, which makes absolutely no sense to me.

This entire battle, whatever you want to call it, on softwood lumber has been deeply frustrating to British Columbia. I want to ensure over the course of the next number of days and weeks, immediately leading to right after the federal election, that British Columbia is well positioned to have those conversations.

I was supposed to speak to my counterpart in Alberta today, but because of our estimates, I had to delay that conversation, I think, to later this week. I’m looking forward to meeting with the minister there. I’m looking forward to engaging with my counterparts all across the country.

I’ve actively reached out to people that have been working on the softwood lumber file for a number of years. It’s a bit of a unique time for us in British Columbia.

This allows me an opportunity to pay homage to the late John Allan, former deputy minister; former CEO of COFI, if I’m not mistaken; as well, former chair of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council; a gem of a guy. One of the first deputy ministers that I ever got a chance to work with, he was a bit intimidating. I don’t know if the member opposite ever had a chance to work with John, but he was always our softwood guy here in British Columbia.

We’ve got more resources. I think of the likes of Rick Doman, Ric Slaco and others that are now providing advice and guidance to us. I’m sure there are many more. I acknowledge James Gorman from West Fraser, who I think met with me on day 2 of my time as Minister of Forests to brief me on the softwood file. He’s a former deputy minister in government, vice-president of West Fraser and provided me some good insights and good advice in terms of the work that’s ahead. And obviously, Kurt Niquidet from the B.C. Lumber Trade Council is doing that work as well.

On the overall softwood lumber duty file, there is a lot of work ahead. I look forward to working with the member across the way on this important work. I look forward to working with members of the Softwood Lumber Advisory Council and the entire forest sector to make the case. I look forward to leading our efforts to be able to diversify our economy in terms of the forest sector.

The member will know well in question period and other conversations that we often talk about how we are less impacted here in British Columbia as it relates to diversification compared to other provinces. That’s true. Not exactly the case with our forest sector. It’s challenging because they’re right there. They’re right below us. Maybe there are opportunities to be able to find ways to use more value-added products. I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement in terms of prioritizing mass timber within the national housing plan.

[2:35 p.m.]

If I remember correctly, I think it’s about 500,000 housing starts every year. We’ll see. That’s a pretty lofty goal. Again, in order for us to be able to get there and be able to support that sector, we have to support the sector right now. We have to ensure that the same supports that are in place for our auto sector are in place for our forest sector. The federal government hasn’t stepped up. They need to step up. I encourage anyone watching at home to contact your local candidates and ask them what they’re thinking about as it relates to the forest sector.

What a great idea. I think we have a Minister of Natural Resources, but maybe it’s time that we had a minister…. I’m not sure if they…. I don’t think they have ministers of state federally. An associate minister of forestry — maybe it is its own item. I think that’s a really good point, and maybe that’s something we could work together on in terms of some advocacy.

Again, when you talk to some of these ministers, they’ll be first to talk to you about the auto sector, they’ll certainly talk about other natural resources, but sometimes it feels like forestry is not necessarily a priority in Ottawa. I hope to be able to change that.

I hope to be able to work with the member across the way to make the case to all Canadians of how valuable our forest sector is to the future of this province. We have world-class projects with made-in-B.C. wood manufacturing happening. In my community, we are building a brand-new post-secondary institution being built with mass timber from Kalesnikoff.

In fact, Kalesnikoff is represented in Langford twice because not only is there a brand-new university that’s being built; we’re also building a new elementary school — same thing. And what’s great about it is the project has been able to be streamlined because of the use of mass timber. It’s like putting Lego pieces together. It’s incredible the work that goes on in that space.

I want to just conclude with a couple of remarks as I know that we’re ending our time. The member opposite talked a bit about the work that we have before us in terms of certainty and predictability, the work that we have before us in terms of our cost structures. All of those pieces are on the table. All of those pieces are things we’re looking at.

We know that we need to ensure that our pricing and appraisal manuals reflect the challenges and opportunities that exist today. The forest service is doing incredible work to be able to meet this moment. I’m not doing this in a silo — involving industry, involving the sector.

I welcome any ideas and suggestions from the member opposite. I mean it when I say that his I hope to be able to change that. coming from the forest sector means something to me. I’ve got a lot more time for him than I do for his leader, who watched 45,000 jobs leave this province. But he didn’t; he wasn’t there. So if he’s got ideas, if he’s got suggestions, I welcome those.

This is a real, tough challenge that we have before us, and there’s a huge opportunity for us to be able to work together to be able to ensure that we are building for the next 100 years, building for the next seven generations ahead.

There is a strength that we are building from. We have the highest safety standards in British Columbia, protecting our workers each and every day. And we can’t stop there. We have to do more. I want to recognize the B.C. Forest Safety Council and so many other partners, our union partners that are doing the work in terms of that accountability.

We have the highest environmental standards. The member and I will agree both that there are groups out there that would love nothing more than to shut down this industry. He and I are not going to let that happen. We’re going to fight for this forest sector each and every day. We’re not going to let organizations that believe that we should just leave the trees be…. We are going to actively steward our lands.

Again, I didn’t get into politics to create provincial parks just to see them burn down. I didn’t get into politics to protect ancient trees just to see them burn down. We have a reputation here in British Columbia with high-quality wood products. We have a reputation of being the best in the world, best lumber you can find, and that’s something that I think we should be proud of.

So often when we talk about the challenges that we face in our forest sector, let’s not forget about the strengths that we have. We are not starting from zero. We are starting from a very strong point. We’ve got a lot of work to do, and I’m looking forward to working with the member on that.

Ward Stamer: Thank you very much to the minister.

I’d like to reserve the rest of my time to my caucus if that’s the procedure. My time is done here, so what is the process?

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if he’d like to make any closing remarks.

Ian Paton: Excuse me, just a point of order.

You wanted to pass on some more questions from some of your colleagues? Okay, that’s how I took it.

[2:40 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: If I may, Madam Chair, I was hoping that these were the minister’s closing remarks so that we could now go to the next set of estimates.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, Minister, are there any further closing remarks you’d like to make?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I was a little excited that the member for Delta South was going to pivot from Agriculture to Forestry there. Maybe next year.

I guess those remarks kind of were my closing remarks, but let me end by saying that I get the opportunity to stand up and answer questions, but it’s these people and those people back there and the literally thousands of members of the forest service that work for us not just today but have worked for us for hundreds of years that do the incredible work. There are so many people that I’ve met along the way in this role that I want to commend.

We have my former deputy, Rick Manwaring, who I just had a short amount of time to work with. I’m looking forward to working with my new deputy minister, Makenzie Leine, who’s starting in a couple of weeks, and the entire team.

The executive that we have here is such a great group of people to work with. They are committed; they are excited; they are innovative. I hope I am not exhausting them too much in terms of my expectations, but we’ve got a lot of work to do. We have an opportunity to do big things.

I just want to take this opportunity to be able to thank the hard-working people of the forest service for the work they do each and every day, whether you work as part of B.C. Timber Sales, whether you work here in Victoria as part of the executive team or whether you’re part of our natural resource service, formerly the compliance and enforcement officers, scalers.

I got asked a question in one of the district offices that I visited: “What job would you want?” And I feel like I would want to be a scaler. That’s a pretty cool job. I had a little bit of fun at RiverCity Fibre seeing how the operation works there, in terms of being a scaler. But there are so many things.

I think it should be a source of pride that we have so many hard-working men and women in the B.C. forest service and also the B.C. wildfire service that are working their butts off each and every day to meet the moment, to meet the obligations we have be able to serve British Columbians. It is an honour, a profound honour, for me to be the Minister of Forests and to work with this incredible team.

I’ll conclude by also thanking the member opposite. I’ve really enjoyed the conversation.

Obviously, in the big House in question period, things can be said. I think this is an opportunity, through estimates…. It’s my first time going through estimates, his first time going through estimates. I hope this can be a model for all of our colleagues, in terms of how you can have really positive dialogue, some disagreement from time to time, but good engagement.

I look forward to doing it again whenever we get an opportunity to do it again.

Thanks very much.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 30: ministry operations, $412,584,000 — approved.

Vote 31: fire management, $238,047,000 — approved.

Vote 53: Forest Practices Board, $4,162,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

And thank you again, Minister.

The committee will now take a ten-minute recess while we prepare for the next ministry. We will reconvene at 2:55 p.m.

The committee recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 2:57 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of
Mining and Critical Minerals

The Chair: Good afternoon. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $61,012,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I would like to start by acknowledging that we are all here today on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I am joined today by staff from the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals. It has been a real pleasure to get to know my executive team over the past few months. I am grateful for their dedication and hard work to ensure that British Columbia has a thriving mining sector.

Let me say this. I’m lucky that the Premier has given me the best ministry.

With me today, we have Tania Demchuk on my left, assistant deputy minister responsible for mining and competitive division. We have Laurel Nash, assistant deputy minister, southeast initiatives secretariat. We have Raman Dale, chief financial officer. We have Tejindar Parhar, executive lead on critical minerals office. We have Lowell Constable, chief permitting officer.

[3:00 p.m.]

Shortly I think Deputy Minister Nate Amann-Blake is going to join us as well.

It has been my honour to be appointed by Premier Eby as the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals. The Premier sent a clear message to industry and the international community by creating a stand-alone ministry to support economic growth in our province and reform B.C. as a tier 1 mining jurisdiction. We do this by continuing to advance reconciliation and upholding our strong environmental standards.

Over the past few months, I have had the opportunity to meet with the mining sector association and individual companies, from exploration to mining operations. My message has been simple. I want to be their champion to help the sector grow and be prosperous.

We need to do this together while we uphold our environmental stewardship priorities and continue to build our environmental, social and governance standards that set us apart from other competitors. It is a key focus for investors looking for jurisdictions with strong ESG principles.

Since 2017 employment in the mining sector has increased to 40,000 jobs, a 10 percent increase. They are good-paying, family-supporting jobs with an average annual salary of $130,000 — careers like heavy equipment operators, geological engineers, health and safety specialists, and more.

This isn’t just jobs and investment in the Interior or the North but across B.C. Each job at a mine or smelter in B.C. supports at least two jobs in supplies and services. The thriving supply chain is benefiting thousands of small and medium-sized businesses across the province, including a lot of people in my city of Surrey.

A ministry devoted to mining and critical minerals shows B.C.’s commitment to the sector. My mandate letter takes this further and gives clear direction to work with industry, First Nations and other ministries to establish fixed timelines for mining permit decisions.

Providing clarity and predictability related to the regulatory process is essential for the industry to feel confident and to attract investment.

Working with our northwest neighbouring provinces and territories to build a critical mineral strategy demonstrates integration and collaboration to promote growth from the upstream to downstream opportunities.

Lastly, we are working to ensure that mining permit decisions remain competitive and to reduce permit wait times for mining-related projects.

With rich mineral deposits and a thriving mining industry, B.C. has a generational opportunity to drive growth and create jobs for people across the entire value chain of critical minerals, from mining to manufacturing to recycling. Critical minerals such as copper, nickel, molybdenum and rare earth elements are essential components to products used for clean energy, like electric vehicles, solar panels, wind turbines, electrical transmission lines and batteries.

With the international demand for critical minerals expected to grow sixfold by 2050, attention is increasingly focused on the development of critical minerals resources and establishing secure, resilient value chains for the digital and low-carbon economy.

B.C. has the highest concentration of all of these minerals, including 54 percent of Canada’s copper. We are the highest producer of copper in the country. Metals and minerals are increasingly in demand globally. B.C. has a lot to offer and is taking action to direct investment and support good jobs for the people of British Columbia.

[3:05 p.m.]

B.C. will continue to invest in community while supporting a vibrant mining sector. Last summer we announced $195 million in joint funding to support updates to Highways 37 and 51. This will help ensure safe travel for people and better access for critical mineral development.

B.C. recently announced 18 resource projects that we’re working on as priorities, four of which are mining projects. B.C. will continue looking to expand, grow, develop and diversify our economy.

To meet this generational opportunity and meet the demand for our critical minerals, we must expand First Nations partnerships, shared decision-making and reconciliation. We have introduced new tools and guidance to support the changes to B.C.’s mineral tenure system required to address a 2023 court ruling.

The new mineral claims consultation framework, known as MCCF, ensures that the claim registration process includes consultation with First Nations while enabling mineral resource development opportunities. We are committed to working with First Nations and industry to align with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act while advancing key critical mineral projects and supporting sectoral competitiveness.

Now more than ever, our economy needs to adapt to new realities through expedited permitting, to make sure that our natural resource sector is competitive. On that front, we have already reduced permitting timelines for the major mine application review process by 35 percent.

Our efforts are showing results. Investment dollars in mineral resource development are up 50 percent over the ten-year average and are the second-highest in ten years. Total mineral sector employment has increased by 10 percent since 2017, now over 40,000 workers, and total mineral export value has increased by 41 percent, from around $12 billion in 2017 to $17 billion in 2023.

By diversifying our trade partners, making sure that we are in a position to respond and to replace U.S. customers that we may lose for our exports as a result of the tariffs, we will further widen the scope of our trade diversification strategy and build stronger economic partnerships globally to support the goals of B.C. businesses. We will also look at ways to enhance trade with other provinces to support B.C. businesses and Canada’s united approach in addressing additional tariffs.

To the member for Kootenay-Rockies, who belongs to a very important mining region of the province, congratulations for being appointed the critic for such an important ministry. Thank you in advance for your feedback and questions.

I look forward to having a fruitful and very meaningful dialogue.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Kootenay-Rockies. Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Pete Davis: I would.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Pete Davis: Before we dive into estimates today, I just wanted to take a moment to speak from the heart about something that’s very important to me: the region that I’m from in British Columbia and its really, really large mining industry. The Elk Valley brings in over $1 billion in revenue to this province every year. Mining is not just a sector in our economy; it’s the very bedrock upon which our province was built.

From the wild rush for the gold in the Cariboo to the coal seams in my home riding in the East Kootenays to the copper mines that have powered towns and paycheques for generations, mining is woven into the fabric of who we are as British Columbians. It’s a story of grit, perseverance and innovation.

It’s also a story about people, people who work long hours in tough conditions far from home so that we can all benefit from the materials that fuel our homes, our technology and our economy here in British Columbia. These workers — engineers, geologists, drillers, truck drivers, millwrights — are the unsung heroes of B.C.’s economy, and they deserve our full respect and our full support.

[3:10 p.m.]

Mining remains absolutely vital to British Columbia, not just for the jobs it creates and the revenues that it generates, but for our future. Critical minerals will define the 21st century. They are essential for everything from electric vehicles to semiconductors to clean energy technologies. If we want to build a strong, secure and sovereign future for Canada, it must begin with a strong and secure mining sector right here in British Columbia.

This industry feeds families, builds communities and keeps our province globally competitive. But it cannot thrive in uncertainty. It needs clarity. It needs predictability, and it needs respect for both the people who work in it and the communities that are affected by it.

Today, as we go through the ministry’s spending plans and some questions that we have, I’ll be asking questions not to score points with this minister but to make sure that we’re doing right by the people who depend on this industry: the workers, the innovators, First Nations partners, small-town mayors and entrepreneurs staking claims with hope in their hearts, the steel-toed boots on their feet.

Before we begin, I also want to thank the minister for his time today. I’m genuinely looking forward to spending the next four hours with him and having some good conversation with the minister. I think we’re going to have some fun and learn some great things today.

Let’s ensure we keep B.C.’s mining sector not just surviving. Together we can do this and make sure that it thrives.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. Would you like to proceed with a question?

Pete Davis: Let’s start with an easy one, just to get us going here.

As of today, how many projects are being reviewed for mine permits?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: It was not as simple as you thought.

First of all, I want to clarify this. You, of course, know this, being right in the area where a lot of mining is taking place. In the mining cycle, there’s not one permit; there are different permits.

At this point in time, when we talk about the regional permits, which are exploration permits, and also the sand and gravel permits, that number is 479. When it comes to major mine applications, at any given time, there are roughly 50 applications. We don’t have the exact number right now, but I will be happy to get back to you with the exact number on that one.

I want to highlight, though, that we have four major mine projects right now that are on the priority list of 18. That includes Highland Valley Copper mine, Red Chris mine, Eskay Creek mine and Mount Milligan mine. Those are the four on the priority list of 18 projects we have.

The Chair: A reminder to all to please direct remarks through the Chair.

Pete Davis: Since you were talking about those four mines, I just want to get a little bit of clarity from them.

We’ve got the Eskay Creek gold-silver project. We’ve got the Highland Valley Copper expansion. We’ve got the Red Chris expansion. Then we have the Mount Milligan copper and gold in Fort St. James. My question to the minister is: why was Mount Milligan included in the list, as it’s already fully permitted?

What’s the measurable outcome the minister hopes to achieve by including that in your report?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Mine expansion is as important sometimes as a new mine.

This project, when we talk about the Mount Milligan, would increase the operational mine life by seven years, until 2035. The mine currently sustains 575 full-time jobs, 56 percent of them from local communities and 17 percent self-identified Indigenous community members.

To create a more efficient and streamlined approval process, the environmental assessment office, Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals and Ministry of Environment and Parks, in collaboration with Centerra and First Nations, developed a fully combined environmental assessment Mines Act and environmental act process led by the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

The fully combined process includes a single set of information requirements, one application and a single review and consultation process. The fully combined EA, MA and EMA approach is anticipated to cut the timeline in half, compared to the standard approach to EA and permitting, and the provincial agency continues to seek efficiencies throughout the application review process.

[3:25 p.m.]

The extensions sometimes bring or, of course, create or continue the jobs which are available in the area. Otherwise, if we don’t provide the extension, they will disappear, those jobs. And of course, that will impact the local community, big-time.

Pete Davis: Thank you for that answer. If they’re expanding that, that makes sense.

What I’m wondering is if you guys are saying that you’re expediting the process for these four mines. Is that going to be…?

I mean, right now we’re looking at 15 years to get a new mine approved. If these mines are being expedited and they’re being pushed through quickly, my question is: is this something that’s going to be…? Are these mines going to be approved by the end of our spring sitting or in the next six years?

Can you give us a timeline on when these are actually expected to be approved?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

We have reduced the overall permitting time by 35 percent. The last mine that went through the permitting process was Cariboo Gold, and Cariboo Gold received its environmental assessment certificate and its permit in less than five years.

We are projecting the Mount Milligan permitting process will take about 12 months. Let me tell you this. If the standard approach of completing the environmental assessment certificate amendment followed by the EMA amendment was followed, the project would have required at least three and a half years to all decisions. So in a standard process, if we could have gone through that way, it could have taken almost 3½ years, but now under the new streamlined process, it will take, I’m saying, about 12 months.

Pete Davis: You just mentioned the Cariboo Gold mine.

Can the minister confirm that they’re not still waiting for a permit under the Environmental Management Act?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

I can confirm that the Environmental Management Act certificate was issued on December 11, 2024, but I will be happy to check with the Ministry of Environment if there’s any other outstanding issue around it.

Pete Davis: Thank you for that answer.

I’d like to pass it on to the member for Prince George–North Cariboo for a couple of questions.

Sheldon Clare: This question is regarding timelines for claim decisions and permitting.

The Premier, on December 10, 2024, at an event hosted by the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce stated: “So specifically on mining, we have committed to work with the sector to deliver guaranteed timeline for a permit review and decision.”

This week, on April 8, 2025, the minister, addressing the Kamloops Exploration Group Conference, again committed to “firm permitting timelines.” Yet the understanding of industry is that under the new mineral claims consultation framework, the ministry is offering flexible targets, not firm guaranteed timelines.

Can the minister clarify if the ministry has shifted from guaranteed timelines for claims decisions and permitting to unfixed timeline targets?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

I want to start by saying that the mining and mineral exploration sector is a foundational part of British Columbia’s economy. There would be no mines without the exceptional work of free miners, and there will be no stability in the mining sector without true reconciliation. That’s why we are supporting a responsible, sustainable and globally competitive mining sector.

[3:40 p.m.]

The member is talking about the new mineral claims consultation framework. We have developed the new framework in response to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The court gave us 18 months, and we have subsequently worked with the First Nations and also consulted the industry, particularly the membership of the Association for Mineral Exploration.

I’m pleased to say to the member that we were able to incorporate several of the recommendations made by the leadership of AME. We will continue to review that and make improvements.

In that one, Member, we have targeted a timeline, which is 90 days to 120. This is a complete new process than the fixed timelines we are talking about.

On the other side, the Premier has given me a responsibility in my mandate letter to provide exactly what the member is saying — the fixed timelines to provide more certainty to the industry, more stability to the industry.

We are working on that, Member. The government has made a full commitment to working with the industry, First Nations and across ministries to establish fixed timelines for mining approval permits across British Columbia, including for mineral exploration projects.

Permitting improvements such as this will enhance competitiveness and help provide clarity to attract more investment from the global community. My ministry staff, at this point in time, are having regular meetings with the industry associations to share permitting information and data, providing permitting workshops at industry events to remain accessible and transparent about the process, developing digital tools to share information about the location of applications with the public and with Indigenous nations. That work is on.

When we talk about the fixed timelines, we will continue working on that. We are committed to providing the fixed timelines when it comes to permitting process to create stability and certainty to the industry so that we can have more investment. We can create more jobs for the people of British Columbia and grow the economy.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for your answer to the question.

It has been noted by First Nations leaders, including Regional Chief Terry Teegee of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, that “under the framework, mining companies can no longer simply register large swaths of land for mineral exploration. They must now notify First Nations of their intentions and allow a 30-day period for responses. This shift may result in an influx of approximately 10,000 additional placer and mineral applications annually, overwhelming often understaffed and under-resourced First Nations offices.”

How much funding is committed to First Nations to help with their lack of capacity to consult with the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals on placer and mineral applications? In the absence of funding to do this, will the minister hold to a fixed timeline of 30 days for that process to take place?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Member, once again, I want to make it absolutely clear that the new framework has been developed in response to our B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The court gave us 18 months, and we consulted First Nations as well as the industry. I am pleased to see that we were able to incorporate several of the recommendations made by the industry to us. We will continue to review and make improvements as we go forward, consulting both First Nations as well as the industry.

Historically, Member, for your question, we get about 5,000 to 8,000 claim applications. At this point in time, it’s too early as to what the impact of the new framework will be. It is speculative, but we have a checkpoint after six months. We are going to review the commitment we made, both to the industry as well as to the First Nations, and we will see, at that time, the impact and how many applications there are. We have received modest capacity funding, and we are working with the impacted First Nations to help them in this process.

Pete Davis: Thank you for the answer.

To the minister: your government has had 18 months to develop a comprehensive consultation framework for confirming mineral claims. Yet during that period, your administration controversially attempted to align the Mineral Tenure Act with the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples or DRIPA before ultimately retracting. According to documents released by your ministry, you are now planning to push forward with this alignment by 2026.

Why is there such a persistent push to align with DRIPA in a manner that industry experts have expressed concern about, and how does this proposed alignment serve the interest of attracting and retaining investment in British Columbia’s mining sector?

Is this aggressive pursuit of alignment with DRIPA contributing to the growing perception that B.C. is becoming a less attractive jurisdiction for mining investment?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: A strong mining sector is achieved through certainty and stability. We are all very clear about that, and that’s what the industry has been asking for. It brings the industry and First Nations together. It brings more investment to the province. It’s good for the people of British Columbia and, of course, helps us create more jobs.

My mandate letter from the Premier outlines his expectation that I progress on updating the Mineral Tenure Act, as you mentioned, in a manner that engages directly with and is respectful of First Nations rights and interests and also protects mineral resource development at the same time, opportunities in the province to deliver prosperity for all British Columbians.

[3:55 p.m.]

That process is going on. My staff is having a meeting. I’m having a meeting with both the industry and First Nations. We want to bring everybody together so that we can move forward on this one.

I’m very certain about that — that we can move forward on the mining sector to bring together the First Nations as well as the industry and we can create certainty by doing that and stability in the sector. That way we can of course lift more mines and lift more mines faster than we are doing otherwise and also create more jobs for the people of British Columbia and grow our economy, moving forward.

Pete Davis: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Since we’re talking about the mineral claims consultation framework and the new way that the minister, and this ministry, is looking at doing business…. In the documentation your government provided during the introduction of the mineral claim consultation framework, there is a statement buried within the details suggesting that consultation requirements now apply to private property in addition to Crown land.

Could you provide further clarification as to whether this implies that your government now intends to require consultation for all mineral claims on private property? How do you envision these policy changes affecting private land owners and their ability to engage in mining activities?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member once again for the question.

Member, first I want to clarify that the private land question you asked…. It’s not a new thing. It has been going on before. And it’s not a secret thing. In the Q and A we provided on the same website you saw the information, one of the questions on that one actually addressed this question. I’m going to read that question.

It says: “Are private land claims subject to consultation?” This is on the website.

[4:00 p.m.]

The answer is:

“Yes, courts have indicated that the duty to consult applies to Crown decisions that can adversely affect First Nations rights and title on private lands. Given that claim registration can impact surface and subsurface aspect within a claim area, consultation is required before registering claims on both private and public land. This is in line with consultation that occurs for other proposed activities on private land, such as under notice-of-work applications.”

So this is not new, and this is not secret.

Sheldon Clare: Businesses and investors require certainty in timelines, and it’s very clear that short durations of permits do not attract investment. I’ve experienced this with miners in my own riding who’ve told me that they’re taking their business elsewhere, going to the Yukon or to other provinces or to other jurisdictions elsewhere in the world. I’m thinking of a major mine that just is leaving, likely.

Will the minister commit to increasing the length that permits are valid, for placer and mineral operations, up to 20 years, from what they are now?

[4:05 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: For regional permits at this point in time, the duration is generally about five years. I appreciate the suggestion the member made. We will take this suggestion back and consider it, with a six-month review at that time.

I really appreciate your suggestion.

We have to, of course, talk to the industry and talk to other stakeholders as to what kind of support there is, but thanks for the suggestion, and we will consider it at the time of review.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the forthright answer to the question. I much appreciate it; so will the miners.

British Columbia is seeing, year-over-year, double-digit decreases in mineral exploration expenditures, decreases in investment in junior mining exploration companies and projects and in metres drilled in this province.

Due in no small part to the development of the MCCF, from a peak exploration expenditure of $740 million in 2022, exploration expenditures fell to $552 million in 2024, representing a 25 percent loss in an environment of favourable, high commodity prices. The ministry’s own data, from the MCCF news release on March 26, states that mineral claims fell by 190 between 2023 and 2024, and placer claims fell by 384 between 2023 and 2024.

How is the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals planning to address capital flight from the province?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

The first thing I want to say to the member is that the new mineral exploration consultation framework has nothing to do with the exploration expenditure going down. It was introduced just a few weeks ago.

There are reasons as to why we have the exploration expenditure down. One is, of course, that it’s a global trend. Because of inflation, it has gone down everywhere. It’s not only in the province of British Columbia; it’s every province. Other provinces are facing the same situation. Even other counties are facing the same situation when we talk about exploration.

[4:15 p.m.]

There are also localized factors that we have. A couple of flagship projects have actually moved on from exploration to mining construction. So they are not spending money now on the exploration side. They’re spending money on the construction side — like Blackwater mine, for example. Similarly, Eskay mine of Skeena, the same thing for them. When a flagship big project moves to the next level, of course the exploration expenditures go down in that situation.

I just want to say that even today, our exploration expenditures are still pretty strong. If we compare it to 2017, in 2017, it was only $246 million. Today we have $552 million, more than double, when it comes to these expenses.

Pete Davis: In 2024, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation was split into the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions and the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals.

The 2025 ministry service plan for the Ministry of Mines and Critical Minerals does not have any clear targets or goals. It does not include targets for permitting timelines, number of projects approved or any deadlines for the ministry itself. As opposed, the 2024 service plan for Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation had Canadian mineral resources development, they had number of mines inspections and relative annual investments, and they had all these other things. I’m wondering why….

Can the minister please explain why the service plan does not include any numerical targets or specific timelines, in contrast to the 2024 service plan that had all the information?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Once again, thanks to the member for the question. I’m pleased that the member has actually read the service plan very carefully.

The Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals is a new ministry with a new mandate. Having said that, the annual inspection number is 1,600. On page 7 of the ministry service plan, this is what the ministry service plan states: “Our ministry will continue to develop specific objectives and performance measures for inclusion in our 2026-27 service plan for Budget 2026. As this work proceeds, the ministry will maintain its inspection targets,” which is 1,600, “and advance work to attract more investment to B.C. for mineral exploration and mining.” That’s on page 7 of the current service plan.

Pete Davis: The current budget does not specifically allocate for additional staffing or resources aimed to ensure the timely process of mineral claims under the newly implemented mineral claims consultation framework.

To the minister: can you confirm how many staff members will be dedicated to the MCCF to ensure that the consultation and claim processing are conducted efficiently and without unnecessary delays? What measures are being put in place to ensure that the system has the capacity to handle the anticipated increase in workload without adversely affecting the pace of processing new claims?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The member raises a good question.

What I want to say to the member is that, keeping in mind that we are going through a very tough budgetary situation at this point in time, we are fully committed within our ministry to reallocate the existing staff to support implementation of the MCCF, with the focus on reassigning staff where permitting will not be impacted.

We will continue to bring efficiencies in, of course, and reallocate the staffing to manage this change. In an ideal world, I would have requested more of a budget for this. But we are going through a very tough situation right now. Keeping in mind the budgetary situation, we made the commitment to reallocate staff members and to manage this in a responsible way.

Sheldon Clare: Is the minister advocating with federal counterparts to ensure that mineral exploration tax credits, recently announced to extend to two years, become permanent? What does it mean for British Columbia if the mineral exploration tax credit does not receive federal support following the outcome of the ongoing federal election, which is a concern in many mining areas?

[4:30 p.m. - 4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

British Columbia has its own, of course, incentive programs to encourage more exploration in the province of British Columbia. British Columbia’s mineral exploration incentive program includes the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit and the B.C. mining exploration tax credit. Both programs are designed to encourage investment in mineral exploration, which is a critical part of discovering new mineral deposits that can lead to the development of new mines throughout the province.

Of course, the federal mineral tax program is very important to make it even more competitive. The only way the mining sector can succeed in this province or in this country is if it’s globally competitive. We would welcome the support from the federal government. I will be happy…. We continue to advocate to make that mineral tax, federal tax, permanent. I will continue to do that with the incoming government after the next election.

Pete Davis: The implementation of the mineral claims consultation framework, or MCCF, on March 26 has raised considerable concerns within the mining sector, particularly from AME, or Association for Mineral Exploration. They’ve pointed out that the publication of prospectors’ names as part of the framework exposes intellectual property before a claim has been confirmed.

Given the industry’s clear concerns regarding confidentiality and the potential harm this could cause, why did your government proceed with a process that industry representatives have identified as detrimental to the interest of mineral explorers and developers?

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

We have been having discussion about this issue for some time. I just want to say to the member again that the new mineral claim consultation framework has been developed in response to a B.C. Supreme Court ruling. The court gave us 18 months to develop the new framework. And we have, of course, had consultation with the First Nations as well as with the industry and, specifically, a member with the leadership of the Association for Mineral Exploration. I’m very pleased to say that we were able to incorporate several of the recommendations made by the leadership of the AME in this process.

At the same time, I want to say this to you that this is not the end of this process. We will continue to monitor and make improvements as we move forward. Protecting private property of the prospectors is a key priority for us. That’s why we put checks and balances in this new framework, to make sure the property of the prospectors is protected. At this point in time, Member, we’re only providing the name of the company. The name of the company is going to be provided.

[4:40 p.m.]

Nevertheless, we will continue to monitor and make improvements, working with the AME and of course with the First Nations to make sure the new framework is fair and transparent and also protects the intellectual property of the prospectors.

Gavin Dew: Steelmaking metallurgical coal contributed $4.6 billion to the province. It accounts for 13,000 jobs. Will the minister commit today to supporting B.C.’s metallurgical coal production by adding met coal to our critical minerals list?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: The member raised an interesting question. B.C. has chosen to rely on the Canadian critical minerals list at this point in time, but that does not take away from the significance of metallurgical coal in British Columbia’s economy.

Steelmaking and coal mining in the southeast sustain more than 12,000 family-supporting jobs in B.C., with 3,600 direct jobs and 7,200 indirect jobs. We will continue to support this sector, moving forward.

Gavin Dew: I certainly appreciate the deference to the Canadian standard, but I hope that the province will look at creating its own approach that puts B.C. first — B.C. jobs first and B.C. opportunities first.

On that note, Minister, precious metals play a vital role in B.C.’s economy. The long-term economic impact of precious metals is projected at $29.5 billion for B.C. and almost 100,000 jobs.

Will the minister, putting B.C. first, commit to adding precious metals to our critical minerals list and fast-tracking precious metal project permits?

The Chair: Members, I would remind you that you’re not to be eating in the chamber — specifically, the member for Surrey South.

Member. Member, Surrey South?

Brent Chapman: Yes.

The Chair: There is no eating in the chamber.

Brent Chapman: Okay, sorry.

The Chair: Thank you.

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

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

I would agree with the member that mining is more than critical minerals. That’s why I’m the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals.

I would like to inform the member that I’m pleased to say that the first mine that received their permit after I became the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals was a gold mine, Cariboo Gold. The first mine I visited as the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals was also a gold mine, Blackwater, which had just completed construction and was ready to pour.

We will continue to support precious-metal mining and critical minerals at the same time. Also, we need to look at the geology of the province. Sometimes we find both critical minerals and precious metals in the same deposit. That happens too. At the same time, I want to say that we need to continue to support the mining sector — critical minerals and, of course, precious metals.

Critical minerals, as I said earlier, are important at this point in time because they provide minerals to support the low-carbon, green economy, moving forward — that’s the transition we’re going through — and create good jobs for the people of British Columbia. It’s the same as with precious-metal mining, which also creates good jobs for the people of British Columbia.

We will continue to support both, not one. We are, of course, working hard to make B.C. a key province when it comes to critical minerals.

Gavin Dew: This government has often struggled to reconcile the conflicting poles of reconciliation, environmental responsibility and organized labour. Several leading First Nations mining projects have noted that they do not consent to the government’s preference for a community benefits agreement model, and they prefer an open-shop model.

Does the minister support Indigenous peoples’ consent when it comes to their preference for an open shop?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member once again.

Mining provides 40,000 good, family-supporting jobs to the people of British Columbia, across the province. Critical minerals are critical to the low-carbon economy, moving forward. Therefore, the mining and mineral exploration sector is a foundational part of British Columbia’s economy.

There would be no mining without the exceptional work done by the prospectors. There will be no stability in the mining sector without true reconciliation. That’s why we are supporting a responsible, sustainable and globally competitive mining sector to create good jobs for the people of British Columbia and to grow the economy, particularly the green economy.

[5:05 p.m.]

Having said that, Member, mining, of course, involves reconciliation, climate protection and labour issues. It’s complex work. I’m prepared to do that work. I’m actually excited to do that work, because that’s important work to do for the industry.

Industry is looking for…. I have had numerous meetings with industry, whether it’s the AME or the B.C. Mining Association or others, and they are looking for certainty and stability. The only path to the certainty and stability is that we need to move forward on reconciliation. We need to protect the environment, and we need to work with labour. That’s what we are doing, and that’s what we will continue to do.

I want to say to you that we will work with the industry, and the industry is willing to work with us to create that certainty and stability so that we have the best mining sector in the province to create good jobs for the people of British Columbia and grow the economy for the people of British Columbia.

Gavin Dew: I didn’t hear an answer to the question, but I did hear a commitment to working with industry.

I do want to flag the very serious concern of mixed signals being sent to industry by this government and by this and other ministries. I recall the Premier talking about wanting to hit the reset button with the business community after a near-death political experience.

I have seen lots of talk, lots of language about the need to hit a reset button, the need to work with industry, the need to be collaborative, yet mere months after that and hours after the release of the new MTA framework, many people in industry were, frankly, shocked and offended when the Minister for Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation posted a report that they had slammed in the preceding days as deeply flawed and made the assertion that red tape was not a factor, or not “the” factor, in mining.

In subsequent days, I would note the minister then deleted that social media post after receiving very strong feedback from industry, yet the minister then proceeded to the Natural Resources Forum, where she continued to make repeated assertions that red tape is not the problem in mining.

A very simple question in order to provide clarity to industry. Does the minister agree or disagree with his colleague the Minister for Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, who has a role to play in mining and who sends a signal through what she says, loud and clear to industry? Does the minister agree or disagree with his colleague the Minister for Jobs that red tape is not the problem in mining, yes or no?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

I want to say that the Premier has appointed me the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals. It’s a new ministry, and I am the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals. I am working with this team to make sure we create stability and certainty for the industry, to make sure we bring in fixed timelines for the industry permitting process. I am in touch with the industry on a regular basis. I am in touch with the First Nations. I am in touch with labour in this sector.

I want to say to the member that our actions, our efforts, are showing the results. Investment dollars in mineral resource development are up by 50 percent over ten years, average, and are the second highest in ten years. Total mineral sector employment has increased by 10 percent since 2017, now over 40,000 workers. Total mineral export value has increased by 41 percent, from around $12 billion in 2017 to around $17 billion in 2023.

I will continue to do this. We are bringing efficiencies in the system to reduce timelines. We have already reduced the major mine application review timeline by 35 percent. We have also reduced the regional backlog by 52 percent, and we will continue to do so, moving forward.

Gavin Dew: I’m shocked to hear the minister throw his colleague under the bus like that. Historically the Ministry of Jobs had a role in expediting major mining projects. It sounds like he’s written his colleague out of that process.

Quick question: was it the minister’s office or the Premier’s office who encouraged the minister to delete her LinkedIn post?

The Chair: Members, I’d request that only the person asking questions ask their question and the minister be given the opportunity to respond. Thank you.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Thanks to the member for the question.

I want to make it very clear that I am the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals. I will be happy to answer any question that is related to mining and critical minerals. I just want to say that to the member.

Having said that, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and report progress on the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:16 p.m.

Contents