Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:29 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Energy and Climate Solutions
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions.

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

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: If I may, I have a number of follow-up questions that were asked by different members, including my colleagues from Peace River South and Salmon Arm–Shuswap. I’ll be sharing some information, as well, with the member for Peace River South.

The member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap asked about

Hon. Adrian Dix: If I may, I have a number of follow-up questions that were asked by different members, including my colleagues for Peace River South and Salmon Arm–Shuswap. I’ll be sharing some information, as well, with the member for Peace River South.

The member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap asked about an amount that the ministry spent on Gravity Storm Ltd. The response is that neither of these expenses relate to the work of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions. They appear to be expenses related to the work of the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals, so I’d encourage the member to reach out to the minister of that area for answers to his questions, and I encourage him to do so.

The member for Peace River South asked a series of questions about hydrogen projects, and I committed to bringing him a list of projects under active consideration. It’s not a full list. There are other projects, but what I will do is share this information with the member, and he may wish to follow up in estimates after the lunch hour with some of the questions.

Further, he asked a series of questions about hydrogen projects, about the B.C. hydrogen strategy. I’ll also share information with him that he’ll be able to review at noon hour. If he has follow-up questions, certainly, we’ll be able to deal with those this afternoon.

Larry Neufeld: The minister and I spoke, in the interim before we started today, and it’s with a pretty heavy heart that we’re all here today doing the work of the people. I just want to recognize the tragedy that’s befallen our beautiful province and the incredible citizens that were affected.

That being said, we will get on with the work of the people. Thank you for the information, Minister, with respect to…. That was actually my first line of questioning, so I’m going to skip ahead.

When I did have the opportunity to go back and review our last interaction on April 10, reviewing the Hansard — which, again, great work by our good friends at Hansard — at three hours 48 minutes, approximately, the minister had indicated that the province required a strong and diverse amount of base power augmented by other sources.

My question to the minister: would the minister consider thorium molten salt reactors as part of that solution?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think the member is quite right. It’s my view that we need to build out our electricity capacity, our clean energy capacity in B.C. We saw the start of that, with the decisions that went forward on our call for power and the decisions that were made subsequent to that.

It’s my expectation that we will continue in doing more calls for power, including looking through requests for information at options for base power, as well, renewable base power.

The member will know, and I think really what he’s asking is sometimes called small nuclear. It’s what he’s asking about. Those will not be considered in this process for a couple of reasons.

One, in our view, and in my view, the technology is not nearly ready yet. Other jurisdictions are reviewing it. I think, in this area, sometimes it’s good to be first; sometimes it’s good to see proof of concept. There is lots of talk and promotion. There’s very little proof of concept. What we know is that this will be well beyond the cost of other potential sources of power, one.

Two, many of us live on fault lines, and, given the myriad of options available for renewable energy in B.C., it is not needed in that call.

[11:35 a.m.]

What I did say and what I believe is that we have to produce both the base energy and sometimes the intermittent energy to drive B.C.’s clean energy future, to drive our economic future. We are going to seek widely, as the member will know, I would add

we have to produce both the base energy and sometimes the intermittent energy to drive B.C.’s clean energy future, to drive our economic future. We are going to seek widely.

As the member will know, I would add that consideration of that would actually be contrary to the Clean Energy Act as it stands, put in place by the previous government. But we are going to be looking widely at renewable options for energy, including base energy, because I think it’s critically important for the economic future of the province.

These aren’t final decisions about anything, but I think in the present context, because we’re talking about immediate calls, I don’t see there being a role in those calls for small nuclear.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer.

What I would like to put on the record, though, is that the mention was made that the technology is not ready. I would suggest that, doing research, it was relatively easy to uncover that there’s been an extensive amount of research done by the United States back in the ‘50s and ‘60s on this exact technology and that there actually is an active plant that has started up in China.

Further, what I would like to put on the record…. Everyone is scared of that concept, and perhaps for correct reason, for the simple fact of things that have gone wrong in the past. If we as professionals in this area understand what a thorium molten salt reactor actually is…. The fuel acts as the coolant. It needs to be activated to run, so if something goes wrong, it shuts itself down.

The reason that I mention that is…. I guess my question back to the minister is: would you reconsider that stance?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think the member shouldn’t get me wrong. Canada and the world have been heavily involved in nuclear technology for a long time. We all remember the central part — including many political debates in the country — that Candu reactors played in our political debate, mostly nationally, and mostly not here.

My point is twofold. It’s true that other jurisdictions, including China and potentially American jurisdictions, and other Canadian jurisdictions, may be looking in this area. As they develop that, more information and proof-of-concept will be developed. But regardless, I would say, on the economics of it: not close to being competitive, contrary to the current act; and not needed, given the many other options we have at this time.

I appreciate that there may be a difference of opinion on those things. I don’t think there can be a difference of opinion, really, on the question of cost at the moment. There can’t be a difference of opinion on the law, and there can’t be a difference of opinion that other jurisdictions are very actively considering it, including Canadian jurisdictions, I would say, including Ontario and, I believe, New Brunswick — and some American jurisdictions are looking at this.

My point is that because they’re doing that, in part, we of course should have our eyes open to what they’re doing and reviewing it. I’m just saying that right now, as we deal with the energy needs of the province on broad issues of safety — we’re in an earthquake zone — but also, I would argue, issues of cost and an efficiency of approach, we have many better options, and we need to consider those options in the next short while.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for your answer, Minister.

I would follow that up with: in the absence of using that technology or similar technology, offering a very solid 24-7 base load power, how would the minister plan to address gaps in energy supply from intermittent renewables like solar and wind, perhaps outside of something like the shortage of hydro that we may be experiencing?

Hon. Adrian Dix: To the member, I’d say that we have options aplenty here in British Columbia for renewable energy resources. We need to explore those in formal processes — in other words, ask both B.C. Hydro and proponents to come forward with proposals in a process — and that’s exactly what we intend to do.

[11:40 a.m.]

I think if you look at some of the options around batteries, some of the options around geothermal, some of the options and continuing options around hydroelectric power and many others, they’re real options for us to address. I think it’s not just a question of what I may believe, but a question of seeking that

around batteries, some of the options around geothermal, some of the options and continuing options around hydroelectric power, and many others. They’re real options for us to address.

I think it’s not just a question of what I may believe but a question of seeking that out and providing a way for that to come forward, because I think the options are considerable for us — both traditional options that have been part of B.C., which include hydroelectric power, of course, dams, and also new forms of power which are increasingly demonstrating their viability in the world.

I think this is a period of opportunity. I believe in our province. I believe we can become a clean energy superpower and that this will drive economic growth in regions such as the northwest but also regions such as the northeast and allow us, in fact, to do and to support traditional oil and gas industries with cleaner technology and develop products in B.C. that nobody else in the world has, or very few.

This is an opportunity for our province, and I think we need to lean in to the possibility of renewable electricity. We need to lean in as some people are going in another direction, including the U.S. president.

I think where the market is going in the United States is towards renewable. We see it in jurisdictions as varied as Texas and Iowa and all other jurisdictions in the United States. I believe that this is a fundamental opportunity. And the contribution of B.C. Hydro over the years, and the people of B.C., in building our hydro system creates an extraordinary support for that effort.

We have great opportunity here, and we need to pursue it.

Larry Neufeld: I’m going to jump back to LNG at this point and where we had left off when we last had the opportunity to have this conversation. I had asked the question: will the government commit to consulting with industry to find a balance between protecting the environment and providing a stable business atmosphere whereby long-term investment is possible, and, if so, what is the plan in doing that?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I love the fact that the member for Peace River South has raised the issue of LNG three minutes before adjournment. I think that’s a higher level of estimates strategy than I’m usually aware of.

What I may do is just give a brief answer and then ask the House to report progress.

I think we had a little bit of this discussion last time. I think the member for Surrey South even became quite animated in that discussion. I don’t want to inspire him here today, so I will be blander in my response.

But I would say that there are significant opportunities. We’ve seen that in B.C. We have, through electrification, projects that are the lowest-emission LNG in the world that are proceeding, that are under construction — three of them under construction. The first LNG will be exported from British Columbia this summer. I think that will be a significant moment for our province.

The province’s policy and strategy — and we talked about this before — focused on course returns to the province, on local communities such as Kitimat, on climate change objectives, on the role and the involvement of First Nations in those processes.

I think that policy continues to be in place, and it’s proven itself to be successful. When we instituted that policy under former Premier Horgan, there were no approved LNG projects, no FIDs, and now we have three. The quantum of investment — I was told I underestimated in our discussions a couple of weeks ago — is about $42 billion, which is significant for our province and leaves us with the lowest-emission LNG in the world.

[11:45 a.m.]

We believe that the approach that we’ve taken, balancing off all those considerations, including jobs, including jobs for people in B.C., including returns to community, including climate change and including a significant role for First Nations, continues to be the right approach as we approach further investment decisions — for example, by LNG Canada but also in other projects. We’re going to continue

including returns to community, including climate change, and including a significant role for First Nations, continues to be the right approach as we approach further investment decisions — for example, by LNG Canada but also in other projects.

We're going to continue to pursue that approach, that balanced approach that we believe is working for people in B.C.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.