The House met at 1:01 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

M211 — Consumer Choice
(Zero-Emission Vehicles)
Repeal Act, 2025

Hon Chan presented a bill intituled Consumer Choice (Zero-Emission Vehicles) Repeal Act, 2025.

Hon Chan: I move that the bill, the Consumer Choice (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 Vehicle 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.

And 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. McLaren 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. And that’s where we are today.

[1:15 p.m.]

Pete Davis: Thank you, Minister. Since you said, yeah, 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? And 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 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. And 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, power X 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 that 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’ve 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 Corporation.

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, but 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?

To the minister: 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. And 20 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 Corporation, which gave the region more resources and more authority to make decisions about economic development in the region.

So as 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, that started these negotiations in 2016.

Pete Davis: To the minister: 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, but 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.

And 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 that 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 — and 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. To the minister: 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. To the minister: the ministry’s operating budget has increased from $109,867,000 in 2024 to $112,095,000 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 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 2.5s, it’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, and 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 Powerexand 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? 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 Gravity Storm 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 other 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.

I would say, in terms of travel, that as a minister of the Crown in the last seven years and 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: To the minister: 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 $1.0 million, he meant $1.0 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, skillful 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. — but 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 nine 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 and 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, 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, and 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 that 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, six 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 nine percent or a ten 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.

And so 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, and 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.

So 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.

And 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’re 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; 8 percent on the new projects; new calls for power coming. I can tell, sir, 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.

But 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 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 — and 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.

My question to the minister is: 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.

But 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, who 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 when you 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 members 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. Obviously…. B.C. Hydro has a way, because income can vary in a present year, of balancing out that income over time using deferral accounts. So 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 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. In other words — this is ‘25-26 and ‘26-27. 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.

[L. 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, a 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.

But 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, and 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.

But 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, you know, 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. Forty 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, and 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.

So 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. And 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’s always worked and 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.

But 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: 2005, 2006 and 2007 were net import years in the range from 4,526 gigawatt hours in 2006 to 7,560 in 2005. So 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 it 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 grades 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’s 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. So 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.

But 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’re 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. 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.

And 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 — because 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 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 traveled through Brentwood recently, you know the transformation of that neighbourhood, which is almost Surrey-like in its growth in population in that neighbourhood.

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 and 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. Right now 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 that 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 dollars, 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.

So again to the minister, 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. So 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, 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 sizable…. 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 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 we want to buy B.C., we want to build B.C., we want to do all this — and I support it wholeheartedly — but 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, and he had previously been working on other elements that are important city of Surrey, but this is vitally important. So 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, 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, and 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. So 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. And so 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.

So 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, and 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 — and 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.

But 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 — with First Nations, in particular, 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.

But 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.

So 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’s 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.]

So I appreciate the minister sharing that 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’re 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 time 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 that 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” — 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 because 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.

[4:25 p.m.]

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. But 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 and 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 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. And as we’ve talked about it privately as well, 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, kind of, 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 and 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 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. And, you know, $36 billion and nothing — it’s just the way it goes.

But 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 that 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 and he’s talked about that openly…. I’m glad that this can be a bit of a therapy session for him.

But 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.

But 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, that 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 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, provide support for research, 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 — which, 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 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. And 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: What I’ve heard then is that…. And part of the reason…. I’ll back up for a second. But 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 on BCIT where we’re building out things. So 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.

And so 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.

But 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; 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. But, 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.

But 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. But 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?

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

[5:10 p.m.]

And 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’re 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 — that’s the livelihood that 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….

[5:20 p.m.]

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.

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.