Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Energy and Climate Solutions
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the 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).

Larry Neufeld: When we left off before the break, the minister was considering, perhaps, a longer term response or a longer form response to the question: “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 more tenable?”

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think, maybe, it would be useful to reflect on the ways the government consults with industry now to give the member some context in response.

First of all, on planning, in response to the Yahey decision, the government has entered into an agreement with the Blueberry River First Nation and other Treaty 8 nations to address concerns raised through the courts. This work seeks to develop plans with the nations and industry to provide long-term certainty.

[1:35 p.m.]

The member will know from his area and community the importance of those discussions. B.C. has been engaging deeply with those companies directly implicated in landscape level planning to ensure that their development interests are incorporated and operational feasibility of plan considerations is

with the nations and industry to provide long-term certainty. The member will know from his area and community the importance of those discussions.

B.C. has been engaging deeply with those companies directly implicated in landscape-level planning to ensure that their development interests are incorporated and operational feasibility of plan considerations is well understood. An industry technical advisory committee is being stood up to ensure that industry can more formally inform the ongoing agreement implementation and planning efforts. That’s one significant set of issues.

The B.C. Energy Regulator meets biweekly with all the major oil and gas proponents to prioritize applications and build clear lines of sight to critical applications and overall development project pathways.

One of the great advantages of the B.C. Energy Regulator is the location of many of its staff in the Peace region, which I think has led to a lot of support but also a deep connection between the energy regulator and the region, in big ways and in small — on parent advisory committees as well as in, obviously, all the work that’s been done together. I think it allows the B.C. Energy Regulator…. I get this both from people working in the industry but also people working in the environment, people working with First Nations — just the close relationships and the support and the understanding and the work that’s done by the B.C. Energy Regulator.

In terms of the B.C. Energy Regulator’s process improvement, there are lots of…. It considers the long-term certainty needs of energy often. For example, since fall of 2024, in the period we’re talking about — leading out of — the backlog of inactive applications in the system following the Yahey decision has now been eliminated.

Any remaining applications are actively being worked on and tracked. The number of monthly decisions made has increased by 84 percent. March marked the fourth month in a row that statutory decision-makers maintained an increase in decisions.

The number of consultations closed with Treaty 8 First Nations increased by 34 percent. Greater than 80 percent of all decisions are made in less than three weeks, and the decisions that are taking longer are complex and require, obviously, additional engagement with the parties. The average time an application spent in consultation decreased by 51 days.

In terms of engagement on new policies and approaches to ensure industry interests are considered, the new royalty framework…. Industry was most recently engaged on March 14, 2025, with feedback being considered in the policy design — so in advance, if you will. A new approach to regulating renewable energy projects, of course…. Industry has been engaged regularly in that, including two formal sessions this calendar year. The next one is scheduled in the next two weeks.

The dedicated clean energy and major projects office is available to support industry in navigating government on an ongoing basis. There’s significant discussion around the output-based pricing system, and we continue to engage industry on that question. I’ve committed to annual reviews of the program that will include industry to ensure we got the balance right.

Finally, on the restoration framework, which is, again, critically important in the member’s region, B.C. is committed to working with Treaty 8 nations to develop and implement a restoration framework to address the findings in Yahey. Industry will be engaged on the framework as it is developed and plays a critical role in advancing restoration activities on the land base.

All of that is more, shall we say, day-to-day than the discussion we had before lunch. But I think it indicates that there is, in fact, a working relationship. That doesn’t mean that the B.C. Energy Regulator isn’t a regulator — it is — but also, people need to be heard, and the most important thing is not a yes or no on a decision, often, but the timeframe in which the decision is made. If you’re in a regulatory process, you have to accept yes or no, I think — or maybe, or yes with conditions.

But I think an important thing is to ensure the natural justice involved in decisions occurs in an expeditious way.

Larry Neufeld: I thank the minister for the thorough answer. With respect to the upstream, midstream and downstream LNG components of the natural gas industry — and in that I would include liquids, including condensates and hydrocarbon within this context — what I’m hearing constantly is concern around long-term stability and being able to make investment decisions.

[1:40 p.m.]

With respect to the thorough answer that the minister did just provide, my question would be: would the minister consider developing and presenting a framework or a long-term mechanism whereby companies could make large investment decisions? I’m thinking in terms here of what Australia has done with their national

developing and presenting a framework or a mechanism, a long-term mechanism whereby companies could make large investment decisions. and I’m thinking in terms here of what Australia has done with their natural gas decision or natural gas process.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think what’s most important — the member may not agree with this, but he probably agrees with it — is taking action. And that’s what’s happening here. I think that plans are important if they provide certainty. But what I believe, why with treaty First Nations, for example, in their cases, but also with industry…. Why it’s important to take direct action is that we need to make progress, because some of the issues are not large issues. They may be a particular permit or a particular issue, which becomes a symbol for other investment decisions.

What I was describing was engagement that happens not in a plan or development of a big plan that you post on the internet, and then if you don’t meet with success, you talk about it the next year in estimates maybe, but an approach which really is focused on resolving issues as they emerge. You see that with the B.C. Energy Regulator. You see that with the ministry. And we are committed to doing that, because I think this year — and we’ll be meeting again in estimates next year, maybe about this time — it’s my expectation that we’re going to make progress, we’re going to make progress by action.

What industry, when I talk to industry, wants is a demonstration of that on the ground. And sometimes putting together processes that have larger plans is an alternative to taking action in the present, and I think we have to do both, but I think the demonstration of our commitment, with a lot of the plans that are in place, is moving quickly to resolve issues as they emerge, and that builds the confidence in investment in that industry.

That’s the general approach. We talked about the LNG part of that. I think in terms of upstream that the key question is doing exactly what we said, which is resolving issues, reducing wait times, working closely with all sides to make sure that the values that everyone supports in the region as communities but also as industry and in support of the natural environment…. I don’t need to tell the member how much people care about that in his region. They care about it a great, great deal — and of course the significant role of First Nations to achieve.

We are on the ground working every day on this question. That has been my direction, which is not a…. It may be nice to have a big press conference with a big plan. My direction is to work every day for action on the ground.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

My question was more around the willingness to have a provincial strategy, an overall strategy for the long-term development of the upstream, midstream natural gas industry that again would provide an overall structure for industry to attract the very large dollars that I know have left this province.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think that the important thing — and I want to reiterate it because it’s the answer I gave before — is action and decision-making that builds confidence, because there have been a lot of plans, I think I would say to the member. And we need that.

It’s a complex environment. It is. We’d acknowledge that. We’ve got long linear transmission, which has been, in some cases, challenging to build. We have federal jurisdiction at Tidewater, which is sometimes

I would say to the member. And we need that.

It’s a complex environment. It is. We acknowledge that. We’ve got long linear transmission, which has been, in some cases, challenging to build. We have federal jurisdiction at Tidewater, which is sometimes challenging to deal with, sometimes not. We’re hopeful to be addressing those problems with the federal government.

And then lots of issues in the region that need resolution. So there is significant work underway, for example, on electrification, significant work underway on reducing permitting time, work underway with Treaty 8 Nations. We’ve got to do that work. I think we know what we want to get at, and everyone does, which is to make sure that this is a good place to invest and investment comes.

I believe, and this is the message that I’ve received from industry, but also from First Nations, also from other groups, is that we need to get to decisions and take action. And I think the action is evidence, not a new plan.

Obviously, all of those circumstances I’ve talked about are more complicated than, for example, the circumstances in Australia, and they would be probably reflected in a longer plan. I think the member knows it as well as I do, that the circumstances in the region are different than the kind of planning one could do in Australia.

We’ve got to deal with all of those issues. Planning on the pipeline side, upstream planning at Tidewater, and of course, the planning for LNG. So it’s…. My preference and my approach and my direction has been that we move to take action. We’ve added one of our outstanding ADMs, Viva Wolf, who has really taken charge and been given particular responsibilities for making progress in the region.

But it’s my expectation to be personally involved in that as well, and I think it’s that effort which will yield results in terms of investment because they see that we are committed to bringing change and addressing some of those issues. There’s evidence of success in the recent period, but we got to do more, and I think the member would agree with that.

Larry Neufeld: Thanks to the minister for that answer. With respect, I would suggest that we could have both — that we can have the action on the ground, which I’m very glad to hear about, in addition to doing that within a large structured framework that would allow for confidence of large-scale investors.

And I will get to my question. Thank you for the indulgence. I do reference one of the proponents who I met with that was quite uncomfortable that an $88 billion investment left northeast B.C. and went to the Middle East and my understanding is it was a lack of faith in the process or the uncomfortableness around the lack of a plan.

That being said, I will move on. Given the undeniable fact that air is shared across the planet…. I’d like to give an example here where…. I’m fortunate enough that I have a recreation property at a beautiful place called Powder King. I can tell you for a fact I’ve lived in northern Canada my entire life. I’ve lived in northern British Columbia for the last 30 years. There are plants that grow in my backyard there that do not belong in Canada. They are of Asian origin. I’ve never seen anything like them in my life.

So to me, if I can indulge for just another moment here, the way that when you sit on our deck in Powder King and you watch the clouds hit the mountain…. They go straight up, all the precipitation comes out, and presumably everything with it comes out as well. That, in my mind, is a very clear example that Asian plants landing in the middle of British Columbia is a shared ecosystem.

Will the government make allowances in climate abatement planning that clean B.C. natural gas used in Eastern nations to replace thermal coal-fired plants represents a significant global reduction in CO2 emissions?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I appreciate the member’s story and his personal experience. I would say we all have personal experiences. I live near the Joyce SkyTrain station in Vancouver. In June of 2021, I was Minister of Health. Surely the worst weekend of those entire periods — and we had some bad weekends, I think it’s fair to say, in B.C. — was around the heat dome that occurred in our

In June of 2021, I was Minister of Health. Surely the worst weekend of those entire periods — and we had some bad weekends, I think it’s fair to say, in B.C. — was around the heat dome that occurred in our province. Its consequences in economic terms are massive, but its consequences in personal terms are profound.

I knew people who passed away. They lived in our neighbourhood. This is something that had never occurred before. It was, in my apartment, 36 degrees at 2 a.m. in the morning. We are not, as creatures, able to rationalize that or deal with that very well.

In addition to that, of course, all those people died. We know people are differently vulnerable. People over 50 represented. Really. all the people who passed away. They disproportionately passed away in the Kingsway corridor, which I represent.

Sufficient to say that climate change, whether it’s through extraordinary things or just the everyday effect that the member describes in his cottage and in his recreational property, is having a profound economic, social and, as well, significant impact on our personal health and our health as a community. So we have to take action. We have to take action to do our share.

I believe, because of the position of British Columbia, that we are absolutely able to address that in ways that other people aren’t. We have unlimited capacity for clean energy. We’re taking advantage of that. You see some of the projects we’re developing. We have more opportunity, including on the firm side, to be leaders in the world, to create jobs and to have the clean electricity we need. I think we should pursue that.

I think with respect to LNG, for example — that’s principally what the member’s question is about, I think — the actions we’ve taken…. I laid out the principles that we’ve used, or the guidelines we’ve used, to assess LNG projects in B.C., that have led to LNG projects occurring, in that discussion, but they have. There weren’t any, and now there are three, and they’re worth $42 billion.

That’s a massive thing for the B.C. economy, and we’re going to be exporting that LNG starting this summer. The decisions reflect positively on B.C. They create market opportunities for us around the world. The Cedar project, which will be electrified, will be the lowest-emission LNG in the world. I’m telling you that people will be interested in that.

There’s often this debate about LNG versus coal, and it causes lots of frustration for people on all sides of the debate, I think. But what’s interesting about, say, the Cedar project is…. What we know it displaces is other LNG projects, higher-emission LNG projects. So we have a project that is an achievement of the First Nation, of many people in the community, of all of the workers.

That project and LNG1, slightly differently and not as low emission, and Woodfibre LNG — all these projects are low-emission LNG projects. They displace higher-emission LNG projects.

We’ve heard the President of the United States speak about LNG in Alaska. Well, it doesn’t compare. It doesn’t compare to what we can do because of the quality of our natural gas, which is exceptional here in B.C., I’d say, and because of the actions we’ve taken. So I think that it’s not a reason, necessarily, to not take action on climate change in other areas. But I think it’s an advantage to us. It reflects the approach the government has taken to those issues. It’s a real opportunity for British Columbia in a world market that’s complicated for LNG, where there’s a lot of supply coming on, including ours, this year, but lots of other places as well.

I think it’s a real advantage to us. I think if you’re looking into the long term, it will be a market advantage for us in Asia. It’ll be a market advantage for us in Europe. It’ll be a market advantage for us. So our task, I think, as reasonably as possible, is to have low-emission LNG.

[1:55 p.m.]

When we do that, we really succeed as a province. If we, for example, are able to electrify and then electrify more in the Montney as well, for example, this would itself improve the efficiency of our industry. I think what’s not understood sometimes

and when we do that, we really succeed as a province. If we, for example, are able to electrify and then electrify more in the Montney as well, which would itself improve the efficiency of our industry….

I think what’s not understood sometimes is how effective the work of the oil and gas industry has been, for example, on the methane question, where we’ve reduced emissions by 43 percent. I think in that case, there is an advantage to us if Canada applies those rules equally — our rules and our standards, our targets, equally. First of all, there’s the advantage for us, competitively, I guess. But also there’s an advantage for the actions we take on climate change.

I think some of this issue…. I mean, I think people may wish to seek ways not to do as much. I think it’s important that we have, and that we do have, an LNG industry that’s the best in the world. And I think, objectively, when you look at the issue of emissions and everything else and the involvement of First Nations, these are the best projects in the world. I think we have to speak about that. And we don’t have to give ourselves a reduction in our own obligations in order to get there.

I think that’s why the consistent approach we’ve tried to take is important for the reasons the member described earlier. People know where they stand, they know where we’re going, they know what the rules are in British Columbia and they’re able to proceed. Climate’s a big part of that; but we’ve also obviously got to be competitive.

Larry Neufeld: Much of what the minister did have in his response is certainly what I would agree with. What I would say, though, is — and on to my next question — given that we’ve recognized the importance of how clean and how efficient and how well done our LNG process is, will a form of carbon credit be available for producers when they are shipping to these much higher emitting areas?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I want to just go through and give a thorough answer because we thought of this and I expected the member to ask the question. So I asked for a thorough response to come through by people much smarter than I am to assist me in that task. And what they say and the advice I get is that, according to the International Energy Agency, the demand for coal was projected to grow by 1 percent, setting a new all-time high for global consumption — something that is not well understood.

In other words, we’re seeing that occur. And it’s not just because of the various and unusual statements of the President of the United States that it’s occurring; it’s occurring in the world. Coal power produces roughly one fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, with approximately 8,500 power plants and operations worldwide, and more being constructed — 8,500.

Some parts of the world have at times seen a push to substitute natural gas for coal: for example, China, through their Blue Skies policy, and the United States, where the rise of shale gas pushed down natural gas prices. That had an effect, as the member will know.

However, the direct evidence that the global emissions benefits of coal to gas switching have been elusive. That’s fair to say.

[2:00 p.m.]

If the member has read two opinions on this question, there are certainly two different opinions. If he’s read ten, there are probably ten different opinions. But there are very strong and different views on both sides, at least in my experience reading on this question. So I don’t know if it’s the central question.

Moreover, for British Columbia to receive recognition and perhaps the transfer of emission reduction as a result of coal to gas

probably ten different opinions, but there are very strong and different views on both sides, at least in my experience reading on this question. So I don’t know if it’s the central question.

Moreover, for British Columbia to receive recognition and perhaps the transfer of emission reduction as a result of coal-to-gas switching, we would require an internationally transferred mitigation outcome, or ITMO. This is an agreement to be signed between two jurisdictions. Another country, let’s say South Korea, would need to prove the emission reduction from coal-to-gas switching, have an ITMO agreement in place with Canada, and be willing to not fully recognize those emission reductions in their own jurisdiction. That’s what would occur for that to occur.

While the mechanisms to facilitate such transactions are included as part of the Paris agreement — that’s article 6 — since that agreement was put in place a decade ago, bilateral agreements have been few and far between. So that would be the process for that.

I don’t think, however, it changes the fact that British Columbia has potentially a huge market opportunity in the efforts that we’ve made together to electrify LNG projects and even, potentially, to the extent it’s happened now. What we’re doing in the member’s region is something no one else in North America is doing in terms of electrification. It’s a real credit to everybody involved. There’s a tendency not to praise or to see this as a sort of fight between people. That has not been the case. We’ve seen real progress.

I think there are some opportunities there, but that would be the way in which that would happen. There is some mechanism for it, but I think it’s not the deciding factor in how we proceed.

Larry Neufeld: My next question to the minister is: what are the expectations going forward with respect to power requirements relative to pipeline compressors?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think it’s part of the discussion with B.C. Hydro. I don’t think there is a significant need here. I would say just generally that the issue is managed but it’s also one we engage on with proponents and with providers on a regular basis.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to regulatory agencies would be my next question. What steps are being taken to prevent duplication between regulating agencies? In here I’m referring to two different regulators potentially giving two different answers with respect to an LNG project.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Far be it from me to talk about legislation that will be coming in, possibly tomorrow. We’re innovating on these questions.

We believe that the B.C. Energy Regulator does an excellent job. There is, of course, environmental assessment, if a project requires environmental assessment, and the permitting process. But by, on renewable projects, moving that to the B.C. Energy Regulator and, really, for oil and gas projects, having done that some time ago, we have, I think, a remarkable level of one-window regulation and also a financing mechanism that allows us to ensure that the resources are in place. In other words, it’s not dependent on the kind of budgetary allocations that inevitably are debates between ministries. They’re there.

With respect to LNG projects that are before us now, the member will be aware that the LNG 2, if we call it, or LNG Canada 2 is fully permitted. That’s not really an issue in that case.

[2:05 p.m.]

Really, what we’ve done in a general sense is…. Most regulations outside of the environmental assessment process, which is its own process, are in the one-window regulation of the B.C. Energy Regulator. I think that innovation has made a positive difference both in maintaining the highest possible standards as well as administrative efficiency.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Minister.

The Chair: A reminder to please direct your comments

the B.C. Energy Regulator, and I think, that innovation has made a positive difference, both in maintaining the highest possible standards and, as well, in administrative efficiency.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Minister.

The Chair: A reminder to please direct your comments via the Chair.

Larry Neufeld: Yes, thank you.

Through the Chair, my next question to the minister is…. We spoke of the Cedar LNG project earlier. Are there any issues projected, moving forward, toward getting this permit finalized? Sorry. Through Cedar LNG.

Hon. Adrian Dix: No issues.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for the very succinct answer.

My next question to the minister is: with respect to the cedar link pipeline, are there any permit delays or anything that would be expected to cause delay in substantial start of that project?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m not aware of anything.

Larry Neufeld: I will say, I did skip ahead, thinking I was running out of time, but at this rate, I think we might actually get somewhere. Thank you.

My next question is…. Ksi Lisims — what are the timelines with respect to substantial start?

Hon. Adrian Dix: So we’ll make the distinction, and the member may…. I may be anticipating his follow-up question, but you know, we’re working hard at administrative efficiency here.

As he knows, the pipeline decision is before environmental assessment on a decision we’re at with respect to substantial start of the process of the project, and that’s occurring. With respect to Ksi Lisims, the project is in environmental assessment, as well, and the expectation would be that those decisions through environmental assessment would be made imminently, certainly it’s our expectation, over the summer.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

With respect to the project that we’ve just mentioned, is there sufficient government capacity for permitting this, as well as additional projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The answer is yes. It’s before environmental assessment, so there’s decisions to be made on these questions, including by the companies themselves and the people involved — the proponents of the project themselves. But yes, the capacity is there to make decisions. But what those decisions are, obviously, hasn’t been decided yet.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister.

My last question in this direct line would be: is the B.C. Energy Regulator proactively engaging First Nations with respect to the PRDT corridor?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, they engage through the…. I think he meant PRGT. I think he said PRDT, but I just want to make sure. I understood what was being asked, but I just want to make sure. And the answer is yes, the Energy Regulator regularly consults with First Nations.

[2:10 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: Looking at the amount of remaining time that I have, I did want to jump ahead to some financial questions.

Korky Neufeld: Looking at the amount of remaining time that I have, I did want to jump ahead to some financial questions. My question is the budget does cite that the government expects natural gas prices to increase from $0.61 to $1.30 this year, increasing further to $1.75 in 2027: do existing budget numbers reflect current production or assume additional production brought on? And if so, what volumes?

Hon. Adrian Dix: These are two things, and these are Ministry of Finance things, but I’m happy to answer them. The estimated price is an assessment made by our experts on those questions and obviously reflect advice that’s around the world. This is a widely understood and discussed area. In terms of the amount, it reflects things that are certified and in the process. So that’s the calculation that’s made to determine both the revenue, in terms of revenues to the province, but also in terms of the economic development that comes from that production.

Korky Neufeld: Budget 2025 table A5 uses a Canadian-U.S. dollar exchange rate of $0.73. That number is significantly different than what we’ve seen previously, although it is certainly catching up. As the fiscal numbers for this file are significantly affected by exchange rate, I would suggest that this number may be optimistic. In fact, on page 100 of Budget 2025 under the bullet of monetary policy, it states, and I quote: “The Canadian dollar is assumed to depreciate as demand for currency falls.”

My question is given the government’s own assumptions that the Canadian dollar will depreciate, will this government introduce a revised economic model for the revenue that it expects to receive from natural gas revenues beyond ’25-26.

Hon. Adrian Dix: If there are adjustments to those questions, you’ll see them reflected in the first quarterly update by the Minister of Finance.

Korky Neufeld: Table A5 on page 139 of Budget 2025 indicates the budget is developed by projecting a natural gas sales cost of $1.30 per gigajoule. The well-known accounting firm Deloitte has forecast the 2025 sales cost of $1 per gigajoule.

My question is can the minister identify where the province obtained a forecast number 30 percent higher than provided by a well-known accounting firm?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’d refer the member to page 143 of the budget. We take quite a prudent approach on these questions of natural gas forecasts of 20 percent below the average, and you see that reflected in the numbers on page 143.

[2:15 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: Just to be clear, am I understanding that the 30 percent difference between the budget number and the Deloitte number is not accurate?

difference between the budget number and the Deloitte number is not accurate?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think the point is that you don’t take just one thing. You take an average — as you’ll see reflected on that page — of a number of numbers. Then in addition to that, because the average gives you a better estimate, more reflective of a variety of views…. On top of that, what the government has done and what the Ministry of Finance has done is apply a further prudency method by taking 20 percent below the average.

All of that is intended to ensure that the budget document is credible and prudent.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister. When I did review the previous two years of budget estimates, I couldn’t help but notice that a budget shortfall in natural gas revenue was noted in both years. I’m wondering, perhaps….

My question to the minister is: is there any particular reason for that or is that a tendency? I’m curious as to why that’s a tendency.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member will know from his time in the industry that there is some variability. When you’re making an estimate a year in advance, it can sometimes be an underestimation and sometimes be an overestimation. I think if you go back one further, you find a pretty dramatic increase in revenue from these sources.

If you look at the last number of years, you would see that if you took the average estimates against the average outcomes, we’d be doing very well. But in any individual year, you’re going to be under or over. Obviously, you keep making adjustments on that basis.

But I wouldn’t say two years is a tendency. There would be other years, including the fiscal year, I’m thinking, ending in 2022, when we did dramatically better.

Larry Neufeld: As I’m quickly running out of time here, I’ll be very succinct on my last several questions.

To the minister: is the minister prepared, under the regulation of CleanBC, to approve LNG Canada phase 2 or other LNG plants that burn natural gas for cooling to be built?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, thank you, and I’d say to the member that as estimates go along, if he has other questions and he wants to provide those in writing, he’ll receive responses in writing. Because I understand these are short processes, and I’m blessed with four critics. I say that delicately. So I appreciate that.

LNG 2 is permitted in B.C., and it’s permitted as gas-fired. So that’s already occurred.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you, Minister. I will ask my final question. I’ll give a very easy one for this one.

Can the minister confirm that U.S. tariffs will not affect natural gas exports from B.C.?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you. Of course, I’d just say, generally, that this tariff war has been one of the most unpredictable that I’ve, certainly, dealt with in my time in this Legislature.

[2:20 p.m.]

What I would say though is…. I had a lengthy public discussion of this with respect to our hydro resources. In the case of our hydro resources, the question was asked: “Well, in some ways, would you not sell into the U.S. market, or would you take back the downstream benefits?”

I had a lengthy public discussion of this with respect to our hydro resources. In the case of our hydro resources, the question was asked, well, in some ways: would you not sell into the U.S. market, or would you take back the downstream benefits, or would you do this, that and the other thing?

We benefit enormously…. We had this discussion with his colleague critic from Salmon Arm–Shuswap. We benefit enormously in the hydro market from the ability to sell electricity in the United States. So the use of that benefit as a tool by Canada or by British Columbia in a trade war would not benefit Canada or British Columbia. And you don’t win a war with anybody on any subject by punching yourself in the face, right? Equally, we don’t see the utility of that other than, as you’d expect, retaliatory measures that the government of Canada might take. We don’t see that as happening with respect to natural gas.

But I say this with a strong caveat to the member that this is an unpredictable set of circumstances. We’ve seen tariffs come on and go off with Canada and with multiple other countries in hours, days. Sometimes the long decisions are weeks these days. So we can’t predict everything. But we note, and I note, that the largest export in terms of goods to the United States is natural gas. But one of the arguments for diversifying our markets, because it’s what we do and what they do. In terms of what we do, we have to maximize the benefit of people of B.C. and to meet other goals that we have. With respect to what they do, it’s always required — in this and in every other area, I think, these days — to diversify our markets. And we need to continue to do that.

It’s the member’s last question. I want to express my appreciation of him and reiterate if there are questions that he or other critics would like to see answered on paper that they can’t get to in the estimates, we’d absolutely be prepared to take those as estimates questions and respond to the member in writing.

Larry Neufeld: I would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister and his staff. It’s greatly appreciated to take the time and effort and energy and answer thoroughly. I do appreciate that. I’d also like to thank the Chair, and at that time, I’m going to yield the floor to my esteemed colleague.

Hon Chan: I just want to thank the minister and the staff that he has here. Even though we have four critics here, you do also have a very talented group here. So thanks to the staff in advance.

Interjection.

Hon Chan: Exactly.

All right. So, two weeks ago, or three weeks ago now, the minister listed B.C. energy import and export data since 2009, which was awesome, saying we were not the net importers some years and some net exporters in others. But let’s be honest, 2009? Even though it’s good to have that data, that’s 15 years ago, and that’s a long time ago.

Since then, B.C. population has grown, our industry has changed, and energy efficiency is now built into our homes: LED lightings, wind draft stoppers, three layers windows, heat pumps, you name it. Yet in the last three years, we’re consistently seeing a net import of electricity. And that’s just not a statistic; it’s a warning sign.

I would like to also appreciate the minister pointing out real-time flow data that is available to the public. I just took a look this morning. We are actually…. In the past two weeks, 95 percent of the time we are net importers. In fact, a negative of 1.57 million megawatts with the U.S. and negative 240,000 megawatts with Alberta as of this morning.

So is that why, exactly why, B.C. Hydro launched the call for power campaign and asked the public, industries and investors to help generate more electricity? So my question is a simple one as well, to start off: Will the Minister confirm that B.C. is projected to face a energy deficit over the next 10 years?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m reliving my extensive discussion with his colleague a couple of weeks ago. What I tried to provide with that information to the opposition was numbers from 2009 to 2024. But we understand the most recent years have been drought years. The member will have read that discussion in Hansard, and he knows that’s occurred. So what’s interesting about British Columbia, one of the reasons

information to the opposition was numbers from 2009 to 2024. But we understand the most recent years have been drought years, and the member will have read that discussion in Hansard, and he knows that’s occurred.

What’s interesting about British Columbia, one of the reasons why we have — with Manitoba and Quebec, but we’re kind of in the same space — the lowest electricity prices in the world is the extraordinary flexibility of our system. And what we do in our system is we’re able to hold water behind dams, both to use it when we need it most, to purchase other forms of energy when we need it, and then to benefit from that for the ratepayers of B.C.

So over a period of time, as we’ve seen in the numbers, except that the last two years have been drought years, and that was the explanation for the last two years, and we’re recovering from that, but we’re still in that period, although this year appears to be better than last year.

We import and export on a consistent basis. The one thing that’s true…. And that’s why the net revenue of Powerex is so high every year, $550 million roughly, on average, the last five years, because the value of our exports is greater than the value of our imports, even when the total amount of our imports is greater than the amount of our exports. And that’s how we use our system.

With respect to renewable energy projects, we need more energy in B.C. If you look at that same period, if you chart that same period, we’ve seen very significant population growth over time, especially in the last three years. In my last three years as Minister of Health….

I’ll try not to mention that too much. I did estimates for a few years as Minister of Health — I think eight times — so I’m moving on from that. But in the last three years as Minister of Health, we added about 540,000 people to MSP, and that obviously creates consumer demand for electricity that’s significant, not just for us but for other providers such as Fortis, in both the natural gas and the electricity on their hydro side.

The short answer is I believe we need more power. If we look at the projections leading out, we put forward a detailed resource plan to the BCUC that has been reviewed and approved by them that says that. The only thing that has changed, I would say…. And you’re going to see and be happy…. We’ll be, as we move forward with these initiatives, absolutely willing to brief the opposition — because sometimes estimates doesn’t exactly coincide with when announcements are made, and you feel like you’ve missed the opportunity for 11 months and three weeks when that happens — as we move forward.

I believe the announcement we made is just the first of many. We need to build out our capacity for electricity, that it’s a huge advantage for our province. We’ve got economic development opportunities, particularly in the northwest but other regions that are significant, and we have a growing population. I think a clean, renewable electricity makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense with respect to climate change, and it makes a lot of sense with respect to growing our province.

If you look at that period from the ‘01 period — you can even go further back —to the period we’re at now, there was a period where we approved a bunch of commercially quite unsuccessful run-of-the-river projects. I won’t give you my speech on that. I’ll save you. I’ll spare you that.

But in general, past the call for power, say, in 2009 and with the development of Site C in place, which was just coming online, we had relative stability in energy demand. It’s our belief that that demand is now growing, and we’re going to rise to meet that demand, and that includes this call for power and others that are to come that will involve all kinds of renewable energy.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

My question was: is B.C. going to be projected to face an energy deficit? And the minister told us that we do need more power. So I’m guessing that’s actually the answer — that we are facing an energy deficit. And I’m glad to hear that we’re earning money through Powerex.

[2:30 p.m.]

But the minister mentioned that in the previous few years, there were drought years, not to mention there was also COVID. So the power requirement was actually lower.

However, I just got a briefing about it last week. We are also still facing…. B.C. is still in a drought year right now, as well as other provinces.

year, not to mention there was also COVID. So the power requirement was actually lower.

However, I just got a briefing about it last week. We are also still facing…. B.C. is still in a drought year right now, as well as other provinces. Since we are always in a drought year, it seems like, are we asking for more power? Do you still think in recent years we will be short of power?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think I mentioned in my first response that we continue to be in drought, but that the situation has improved with respect to this year and last year.

What we do during drought years is we build up our reservoirs. We need to build up our reservoirs, and we do that work. So there is a variability, and when I laid out the export-import net data over 15 years, it showed that variability. Some years are good years and some are not.

But what’s apparent to us — we have the ability to buy and sell power, and that’s very useful to us — is that there’s a number of steps that we can take together. We can improve our relationship with our neighbours. By that, I mean our Canadian neighbours. We’re taking action to do that and doing work together with them. Because I think it makes sense that in these times that we work together.

You’ve heard federal parties of all descriptions. I don’t want to describe their participation in the election campaign on this issue as entirely thoughtful, but it was participation in any event. I don’t think any of them get any prizes for their analysis, but the desire in Canada for what’s sometimes called a national grid…. We build up our ability to trade and support one another. Sometimes good years for us are not good years for some of our neighbours and vice versa. So we work together on that.

So there’s no question of shortage of electricity. But we need to have more electricity. We’re a growing province. Our economy is growing. We’re leading the country in economic growth over recent times. We were the fastest coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of economic growth. We need to be able to meet that with clean energy resources, which, by the way, themselves create jobs in our province and help us address our climate goals besides.

I think all of that is a positive response to the situation. But we have all we’ve done…. We have flexibility of our system. We just brought Site C online. Four of six units are online, a couple more coming in the relatively near future, certainly in this calendar year. We have this request for proposal and we have others that take advantage of the economic growth that can be generated in B.C. by clean electricity.

Hon Chan: Thank you for the minister. Since we’re talking about a power campaign, we see that when First Nations or private business must hold 51 percent ownership of those projects…. How much is that going to cost taxpayers? More importantly, if we don’t own the majority share, do we still have control over our own electricity supply?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The price of electricity, which is a key question on the electricity project agreements, the average levelized price is $74. Quebec did a recent call and it was $80.

So the involvement of First Nations…. You say a mandatory 51 percent. The member will know…. I think he may have misspoken. That’s not accurate. The call for power was for a minimum of 25 percent. In other words, to involve First Nations.

And the local benefit of a major project. So the project in a particular region, where it’s 51 percent and ownership is there…. Often the proponent is a large international company. In this case, that revenue’s returning to the region, which I think, generally speaking, is good news. It’s good news in every other part of what we try and do, and it’s good news in this case.

I think it has real advantages in engaging in what we might broadly call economic reconciliation — in other words, involving and building partnerships with First Nations. It has huge benefits for us.

[2:35 p.m.]

We had significant support in doing that from a couple of things: fall tax credits for clean energy projects, which were a kind of federal matching of similar tax credits put in place by the Biden administration. In addition to that, the role of the Canadian Infrastructure Bank, which provides financing, and provided financing for these

of things: fall tax credits for clean energy projects that are federal, which were kind of a federal matching of the similar tax credits put in place by the Biden administration. In addition to that, the role of the Canadian Infrastructure Bank, which provides financing and provided financing for these projects, which benefited us….

So we did have significant federal support. But the benefit to B.C. Hydro of these clean energy projects…. Economic development, diversity of supply, 45 percent lower than the 2009 call for wind power projects and that call for power — all of that is beneficial to British Columbia.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

I understand there are about nine wind turbine projects planned for now and set to be complete in about ten years’ time. These projects are being exempted from environmental assessment because the minister mentioned that, by definition, they’re environmental projects. Well, hydroelectric dams were also clean energy. So are geothermal projects. Yet they always have to go through full assessments.

So why are these nine wind projects being exempted when hundreds of other clean energy projects are not exempt?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, with respect to wind projects, we’ve gone through environmental assessments with wind projects in B.C. before, so we know what their effects are. They all are required and will be required to go through extensive permitting processes under the B.C. Energy Regulator.

There will be a very significant chance, I’d just say to the member — he knows this through the throne speech — to discuss these issues when the legislation is brought forward, let’s call it, imminently. And we’ll have an opportunity to debate this at length at that time, because it’ll be legislation before the House.

But it makes sense when we know the effects of the process, when we have a permanent process in place. We need the power, and we can prepare. The member said ten years. It’s not going to be ten years, thankfully. But when I was first briefed on this question, I asked: what’s an environmental assessment on a wind project? They said, well, that’s three years. The question is, in this case, knowing what we’ve known already, whether that has value when you also have a permitting process which will have a positive effect.

I think we need to proceed and get these projects going, because I don’t want to have EPAs, electricity purchase agreements, to show. I don’t want to have press releases to show. I want to be able to say: “Look over there. There’s a turbine turning.” That’s what I’d like to see.

The permitting process will significantly protect the values that we want to provide, give people an opportunity to express those values. But it seems to me it makes sense on these environmental projects, which will provide clean electricity to B.C., to proceed in this way. We’ll have an opportunity to debate this at length, I know, the member and I, when the legislation comes forward.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

Since the minister actually brought up Site C quite a few times…. Site C — very happy you see it coming online, a new project to provide us about 8 percent of our electricity, clean electricity.

But I recall this government, when in opposition, actually strongly opposed Site C, so strongly that they actually wanted to cancel it, even if it meant wasting billions of taxpayer moneys. Back then, they mentioned the environment was a concern, but now less than a decade later, this minister and the Premier are very proudly boasting that Site C is delivering 8 percent of B.C. electricity.

So here’s the question. Are they now admitting they were wrong or shortsighted in 2017?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The Site C project, as people will know, when first presented to the people of B.C., was estimated to be at a cost of $8.335 billion or so. It was presented in that way by the Christy Clark government. The project itself has been before…. There have been significant studies of the project that recommended not proceeding back in the early 1980s. So it has had a long and historic period.

When the New Democratic Party….

I’m not sure this is entirely estimates at the moment, but I’m just going to proceed because the member asked, and it’s always good to answer when you can.

[2:40 p.m.]

In 2017, we said we were going to review the project, and we did. We reviewed the project. We had significant people review the project. And Premier Horgan, at the time, made the decision, along with the cabinet, that we were going to proceed — that the project was under significant construction and that we were going to proceed. And we did. And I suppose

and to review the project, and we did. We reviewed the project. We had significant people review the project.

Premier Horgan, at the time, made the decision, along with the cabinet, that we were going to proceed. The project was under significant construction, and we were going to proceed, and we did. I suppose if one were sentimental about these things, one might not acknowledge that something has been built, like a $16 billion engineering achievement by workers in B.C. Well, that’s not my approach. It’s been built.

Just because we wanted to review the project in 2017 — and we did, and we decided to proceed — doesn’t mean we can’t celebrate what is a success for British Columbia: a project that’s going to deliver energy for the next 80 years, at least; a project that is a remarkable effort by anyone.

I’m not sure what the question is. As minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, should I pretend it doesn’t exist? I don’t think so. I think I should celebrate the people who built it, celebrate what it can do for us, celebrate the jobs it’s going to create for us and has created for us, and use that as a way of saying that here in B.C., we are following an electricity plan and electricity requirement that makes us the envy of many jurisdictions in the world.

Hon Chan: I think we should celebrate Site C being completed, but what my question was, was regarding when the NDP was in opposition and first in power. They actually opposed Site C. I just want to put that fact out. The late Premier Hogan actually mentioned….

The Chair: Member, I would like to remind you that the committee is discussing Vote 23 and just encourage you to ensure that your questions are clearly relevant to the vote.

Hon Chan: Yes, I’m actually going in there. Thank you, Chair.

I’m just asking about flip-flops because…. Why I would ask this question is for the next question and not a flip-flop.

The government mentioned loud and clear that even if Ottawa cancelled the carbon tax, B.C. would not. And here’s the thing. In September 2024, the B.C. NDP themselves made a campaign promise that they would cancel the carbon tax as long as their federal counterpart cancelled it. That’s before any elections in the U.S., so don’t blame Donald Trump for that.

To the minister: why is there such a flip-flop on carbon tax?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The Premier said before the election that if Ottawa got rid of the consumer-facing carbon tax, we’d get rid of it in B.C. They got rid of it, and we did. In fact, as I recall, we did it with some legislative efficiency.

Hon Chan: I think my question was actually quite clear. It’s because their government mentioned that they would not cancel the carbon tax, even if the federal government would cancel it. But now they actually followed and cancelled it.

So I just want to know: why is there a flip-flop on carbon tax?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, as I answered, the Premier of B.C., before people voted, said if Ottawa got rid of the federal carbon tax, consumer-facing carbon tax, and it did, essentially…. I mean, they’ll be taking more action, presumably, but they brought it to zero. So let’s just not have a repeat of the Carney-Poilievre debate. And if they did that, we would get rid of the consumer-facing carbon tax.

In this legislative session, at the first opportunity after the federal government announced its decision, we came forward and introduced legislation that was passed by this Legislature to get rid of the consumer-facing carbon tax.

Hon Chan: Even though I asked a second time, I think the minister did not answer the question about flip-flop. But anyway, let’s move on to another topic. Let’s do carbon tax.

The carbon tax was actually revenue-neutral before this government took power. Can the minister tell us why, when they came in power, they cancelled that revenue-neutral policy? How does this change actually reduce GHG emissions more effectively than the revenue-neutral model?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think that the member will know that these are Finance questions, and there’ll be an extensive opportunity for him and other members to discuss this. Given the wide range of issues that I have, I would say, in a general sense, that that would be the right thing. I’m not in the opposition caucus, but I suspect some questions will come forward on the carbon tax to the Minister of Finance when the hon. member and his colleagues are asking questions — all those questions around revenue and taxation policies.

His first question was a political question. I took it as such. I think I could tell it was a political question by the use of the term “flip-flop.” I could tell immediately. I was able to be discerning that that was a political question. But in terms of the taxation questions and those issues, obviously those are issues under the purview of the Minister of Finance. I look forward to that debate because she’s outstanding.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister. I don’t think that flip-flop is a political question, because flip-flop…. We are understanding what the policy is that our government is making. British Columbians need to know the policies that this government is keeping or not. So I don’t think flip-flop is actually a question of politics. It’s actually understanding the policy that this government is going to implement.

Also the minister did not answer my question. Even though carbon tax revenue might be under the Ministry of Finance, my question was: can you tell us, how does this change reduce the GHG emission?

Maybe I should also ask this question. B.C. also set an interim GHG emission target of 16 percent below 2007 levels by 2025. Can the minister confirm whether we have met this target as of today?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member asked a specific question; I’ll give him a specific answer. The elimination of the consumer-facing carbon tax will have an impact of 1.2 megatonnes CO2 of forgone emissions.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister. I think it’s just a yes or no answer. Can you confirm if we have met the target? Is that yes or no?

Hon. Adrian Dix: With respect to the issue of targets, the member will know we tabled targets based on the 2022 data today. It’s our expectation that we won’t achieve the 16 percent target in 2025, and I made that clear to the public earlier today.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

Since we did not meet the target, despite that we had the most aggressive carbon tax in this country for the past many years, is this government going to take accountability by reducing all the carbon tax collected from…? Or actually, why don’t we refund all the carbon tax collected from British Columbians and return it to the household? Will the Premier resign or at least apologize to British Columbians for the fact that carbon tax did not work as intended?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: First of all, we’ve taken a number of measures going back to Mr. Campbell’s government and then through Ms. Clark’s government and through Premier Horgan’s government and our current Premier’s government to meet targets. There are a multitude of measures we’re going to discuss. There’s not one measure.

The carbon tax as introduced by the previous B.C. Liberal government had

and our current Premier’s government to meet targets. There is a multitude of measures we’re going to discuss. There’s not one measure.

The carbon tax, as introduced by the previous B.C. Liberal government, had a positive impact, and that’s reflected in the answer I gave to his question, to us meeting emission targets. It was never going to be a single measure that was going to do that. And no one ever said it was. No one of any party ever said it was. Not the Leader of the Opposition, when he voted for it multiple times, and not anyone in this government. It’s one measure, and it has a specific impact.

Over time, I think it’s fair to say the carbon tax, and the debate around the carbon tax, had a negative impact on the overall support for climate change policies, of which there are many. We can go through them, and I’m sure we will in the debate.

But it’s one measure. And I’m not…. I find that…. And the member obviously knows this. So I find the question not that serious a question, but that’s OK. I don’t get to ask the questions. I only get to give the answers.

But I’ll just say that it’s one of a whole series of measures that multiple governments have taken to address the issue of climate change and to address it in a way that benefits people in British Columbia. It’s been determined now — and it’s the policy of our government, the policy of the national government, which imposed a national carbon tax a number of years ago — that it’s not the most effective path to achieve the goals that we want to achieve, which is to meet mission targets and to take action against climate change. So that’s what’s happened.

The Premier announced this, his intention to do this, before the election. Of course, the New Democratic Party won the election. Mr. Carney announced this before he ran in his election and implemented it, and he won his election. That’s what happens in an accountable society. We have elections, and they were both very close elections, I think it’s fair to say. But people had a chance to judge, and they did, favourably, for both governments.

The Chair: Please be seated for a moment.

I just have a quick comment that all members will know that a wide degree of latitude is provided for questions in estimates debates. It is important that questions should be relevant to the vote under consideration, which is to provide appropriations to the ministry for the year ahead. The Chair requests that the Member makes it clear, please, how the current line of questions is relevant to vote 23. Thank you.

Now I recognize the Member for Richmond Centre.

Hon Chan: Thank you, Chair.

I would like to make it clear that asking questions about carbon tax, which British Columbians are paying for the past few years…. They have the right to know if carbon tax is actually working for our B.C. because that’s our hard-earning money that is paying taxes on every single item that we also basically purchase.

So asking the question about the effectiveness of carbon tax is extremely important in this House, and I will continue asking if a carbon tax is actually reducing our GHG emissions. And also, I believe GHG emission is actually under this ministry. So I think I will continue asking this question, respectfully.

I’m asking because I mentioned it seems like that we’re not going to meet the 2025 GHG emission target by reducing 16 percent. This government also committed in reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent below 2007 levels by 2030.

My question: are we currently on track to meet this target? And if we are not, is there any accountability that will be in place? Thank you, Chair.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, there’s significant accountability. Today, we tabled in the Legislature our climate accountability report. We are required…. We do this every year, because it forces and ensures just that accountability. What the report showed is that emissions per capita in B.C. have been reduced in the period, which is 2007 to the present, by 21 percent. The emissions against levels of GDP have gone down 31 percent. These are real achievements for the people of B.C.

[2:55 p.m.]

We also reported, because 2030 obviously hasn’t happened yet, that it’s our expectation under current circumstances, given population rise and other questions that were about, that we’re going to achieve on present policies about a 20 percent reduction

which these are real achievements for the people of B.C.

We also reported — because 2030 obviously hasn’t happened yet — that it’s our expectation under current circumstances, given population rise and other questions, that we’re going to achieve on present policies about a 20 percent reduction, which is below that, and that we have work to do to meet those requirements.

The reason…. You talk about accountability. The reason we have legislation in place is to ensure that’s reported — that the public knows it, the member knows it, everyone knows it — and we know the steps we need to continue to take to meet our goals and, also, to achieve what we want to achieve, which is a productive, clean economy that is good for everybody. And that’s what we’re going to continue to work for.

I think on the broader question of climate change that we also have to connect more effectively. If I may reflect on issues of taxation, which are generally the role of the Minister of Finance, I gave the member very specific numbers of the positive effect on climate change of carbon taxes. But they have other effects.

Policies are never singular, and they have other consequences for people. The decision was taken. And we had a full debate in the Legislature — as I recall, some of it in this room — to address that question, and we did. I think that what we have now are very effective policies. And our annual reports show this.

The low-carbon fuel standard, which has had an extraordinary and effective and, will have in the coming years, a very significant positive effect on both emissions and on economic development…. Note the continuing of the work being done in Prince George by Tidewater on that question on renewable diesel in our province that the low-carbon fuel standard supports. We’re in favour of it; the hon. member’s party is against it. It’s fair enough.

The electricity requirement. We’re in favour of it; the hon. member is against it. The North Coast transmission line. We’re in favour of it; the hon. member’s party is against it. These are all measures. The wind projects, we’ll see. We’ll have a discussion of that shortly in the Legislature, but we’re in favour of them. We’re in favour of a number of other significant actions, for example, the methane regulations on the oil and gas industry that have seen a very significant cut in methane emissions in oil and gas. We’re in favour of them. The opposition is against them.

So there are differences between us on some of these questions, but I think these steps and working with the federal government show that we can make progress on these issues. A 20 percent reduction is not where we want to be, but it’s significant, and it will reflect an even more dramatic reduction in per capita emissions and emissions against GDP.

It is one of the challenges in B.C. in meeting targets that we have such a fast-growing economy over time and so many people net who want to come to our province. But these realities have other benefits to us.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

It’s interesting that the minister mentioned many projects that they are in favour of and we’re opposed to it, but I just want to make it clear, as well, that the House also rejected the Site C, but now they’re celebrating it.

So my question, in the previous two questions, was regarding the GHG emissions. Now that we will not meet the target in 2025 and it seems like we will not be on track in meeting the 2030 emission target…. And there’s another target: 60 percent below 2007 levels by 2040. So I don’t even want to ask this question. Are we on track to meet this target? It seems like we’re not. And if we’re not, is this government going to adjust their target to reflect a more realistic goal?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Between the present and 2040 is 15 years. I suspect B.C., for example, leads the country in EV sales, is leading the country anyways in heat pumps, leading the country in clean electricity along with Quebec.

I’m optimistic about the future. Nobody said the road to a clean economy would go in a straight line. It doesn’t. We’ve got to take measures now that allow us to meet targets.

[3:00 p.m.]

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

And I think the 2040 targets and then, eventually, 2050 targets, which were set by the world, not just by British Columbia…. They were set by the world in Paris and in other international agreements. They are targets that we can achieve over those times — targets we can achieve because technology will improve, targets we can achieve because there’s a profound commitment to action on climate change in B.C., targets we can achieve because of

in Paris and in other international agreements are targets that we can achieve over those times — targets we can achieve because technology will improve, targets we can achieve because there’s a profound commitment to action on climate change in B.C., targets we can achieve because of our goals and our capacity in terms of clean electricity.

I think that looking forward 15 years and suggesting that we can’t make our targets is incorrect. What we are doing — and what we want to do and what I’m insistent on doing — is being as clear as possible when we aren’t making our targets, so that we understand that, understand the things we may need to do to achieve our goals, collectively, and understand that there are other circumstances involved as well, including issues of affordability and economic development, which we’ll have to address.

The Chair: Member for Richmond Centre.

Hon Chan: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to this role. Thank you, Minister, as well.

It seems like the target will not be met, since we are 15 years away from 2040. The minister mentioned that because it’s so far ahead, it’s very difficult to say if we’re going to meet the target or not. So again, the problem, why I’m asking this question, is that we did not meet this year’s target, and we’re not on track to meet the target five years later.

Can this minister actually tell us: if this target is not going to be met, how are we going to tell British Columbians that we are on track? Why are we doing this target, then, if we can’t even ask this question? I want to ask this minister: what kinds of targets are we looking at, and what kinds of answers can we tell British Columbians? How much emission reduction are we looking at, then?

The Chair: Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s great to see you, hon. Chair. It’s great to see you here.

You know, sometimes I look in the mirror and I ask myself that question as well. But the purpose of the targets, I think, amongst other things, is to give us a goal to go after. British Columbia, over time, and particularly since 2017, but not just 2017…. The previous government had its own successes in that regard that we should acknowledge.

The reason we set targets is to put policies in place to achieve them. I went through some of the measures that the government is taking — there’s a long list — that address climate change but also address issues of affordability, economic development and clean economic development.

I think that I would just say to the hon. member that had those actions not been taken, the situation would obviously be significantly worse. The current projection of 20 percent reduction in GHGs for the fastest-growing province in the country over the period is an achievement, if not the achievement and the full target that we want to achieve.

As for what the public should know, the public should be informed every year about this: where we are, what we’re doing, what action has been taken, how the money has been spent. That’s why we put in the law a requirement to have just that. I think that’s a very positive thing. That’s a very positive example. There’s no hiding, right? We’re here. We announce it. We don’t say: “Oh, something may happen in the next few years.” This is where we believe we are now.

Obviously, the estimates around 2030, even around 2026, are matters of projection. The hard data that we released today was 2022, and what we’ll release in November is 2023. But that said, we need to be accountable for that, and that’s why the law was written in the way it was written.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

The Climate Change Accountability Act established a legal requirement for the government to produce an annual report on climate change accountability. The report is due by the end of June each year, yet the most recent one available was from 2022. Why does it take so long to publish such a report?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The current report was delayed because of some of the discussion of those very projections and the information that largely comes from the federal government. In November this year, during the session in November, we’ll be tabling the next round of the report. It will be based on

projections and the information which largely comes from the federal government.

And so in November this year, during the session in November, we’ll be tabling the next round of the report. It will be based on outcomes, actuals, to the end of year 2023 and will bring us back fully up to date to where we should be. You need to have the information to report on the information and then project from that information where you are. And that’s why there’s…. The report was this year’s report, or the 2024 report, that we tabled; it will be 2025 in November on track. That’s based on numbers we received and are modeled both by the climate action secretariat of the government of B.C. and by the federal government.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister. So 3.5 years — that’s the wait time that we have to wait for this government to get a report that’s actually established under this act, and it’s a legal requirement.

So can the ministry tell us: if a legal requirement is not being met for 3.5 years, why is there such a legal requirement? And if this legal requirement doesn’t have to be respected, then why are we having such a legal requirement then?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, what the member has said is totally inaccurate. I mean, it’s just totally inaccurate.

What it’s based on…. What the report — for this year and for this coming year, the one in November — will be based on is for the end of the fiscal year 2023. So a period is taken by serious people to assess where we are at that time and then provide information about that set in the fiscal year 2023, which is always the intention. What you have…. You can’t…. These are not immediate things.

To say it’s a three and a half year delay is just false. The report was delayed, though. Ordinarily, it would be done in tabled in November. It will be tabled this November. And it’s based on the information that’s received that has to be tabulated accurately into the past and then produced. And then there are projections into the future that go through a similar rigorous approach. So you have….

So to say that it’s been delayed three and a half years, as if you produce an instant report every day, is not true. This is what’s been done over the last number of years, this is what will be done this year, and the 2025 report will be based on the end of the calendar year 2023.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

The government’s greenhouse gas emission inventory is also out of date. And so when can the public expect these data points to be updated?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The provincial report follows the National Inventory Report. It lags it by a couple months. So we do the analysis, but not for that long. It may be that the National Inventory Report is delayed because of their recent election. I think we could really call it a recent election today anyway. It’s based on that. We don’t need every jurisdiction preparing the base information. In Canada, the federal government does this. And then we follow their providing of that national inventory information with our own provincial inventory.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

From the most recent data, B.C. is nearly 20 megatons of CO2 away from its 2025 targets. So we already established that this government failed to reduce the emissions. Now that the effective consumer carbon tax portion is essentially gone, how is this government going to meet this target then?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’ll just give the member an example. The greenhouse gas reduction impact of the low-carbon fuel standard, which I remind the member his party opposes, between 2011 and 2023 actions to comply with the standard resulted in 20.44 million tons avoided in B.C., including 3.3 million tons avoided in 2023.

[3:10 p.m.]

You do it by having a CleanBC plan — initiatives that make sense for action against climate change, make sense for people, make sense for the economy, support businesses like Tidewater in Prince George, for example, but other businesses, including agricultural businesses in Delta South and other places that have…. In Richmond and other places that have a positive effect. In other words, the CleanBC plan isn’t one program; it’s many programs. And we can see, for example, in the case of the low-carbon fuel standard,

but other businesses including agricultural businesses in Delta South and in Richmond and other places that have a positive effect.

In other words, the CleanBC plan isn’t one program; it’s many programs. And we can see, for example, in the case of the low carbon fuel standard, its positive impact.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister. I will let this minister actually bring up Trump for once.

Facing increased pressure from the tariff, our economy is at risk. Will this ministry allow our economy to grow while relaxing the GHG emission target, especially considering we weren’t even able to meet them anyway, it looks like, so that we don’t restrict our economic growth, such as pipeline expansion, LNG exports, and critical mineral exploration?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I don’t know if I mentioned Trump, but I’m happy that the hon. member has raised President Trump. It’s true that the Trump administration has proposed policies and policy reversals that would have a negative effect on the climate. This is true. And that he is taking steps, for example, to reverse the Green New Deal policies, especially with respect to electricity of the Biden administration.

I don’t think the president is on the right path. I don’t think he’s on the right path. By the way, I don’t think the world thinks he’s on the right path. We believe, here in B.C., that you can achieve environmental goals and grow the economy. That’s why we’ve approved the ten energy projects and are taking steps to make sure that they are built expeditiously.

We believe, and other governments believe, that this is the time to lean in. But it’s not just our government. It’s private investment in the United States, which is up in terms of renewables in the United States and not up with respect to oil and gas investments. We had this discussion with his colleague a couple of weeks ago. I won’t repeat it, even though it was so much fun.

So I believe that building a dynamic, clean economy in British Columbia that supports industry in British Columbia makes…. It is a competitive advantage for British Columbia. And to go back from that path, to go back from the path of investing in a clean economy, of the extraordinary measures our businesses have taken to reduce emissions, including in the oil and gas sector, but in others…. What we need in B.C., it seems to me, is a balanced policy.

The member talks about LNG. Well, I don’t know. There was a government in place for a long time before this, and there are all the LNG projects in the world, and zero of them were done here. Zero.

We put in a policy that focuses on investment in B.C., on revenue to the province, on climate change, on First Nations participation, on benefits to communities like Kitimat, and three projects have gone ahead. The first exports are happening this year. Not in the future; they’re happening this year. That shows the value of a balanced economic policy, and that sees the necessity of action of climate change, and linking that action to economic development, which is one of our advantages in this world.

I think the bet being made in the United States is not the right bet. But it’s not the only bet being made in the United States. The private sector investment of companies like Xcel Energy, which is doubling its investment in renewables this year, shows where they’re going in their marketplace. You don’t have to read regularly the Wall Street Journal or New York Times to see article after article showing investment in places like Texas and Iowa and other places in renewable energy in the United States.

So I think the world is going in this direction, that we’re doing it together. We’re doing it because the consequences of climate change are profound, not just for people but for our economy.

[3:15 p.m.]

I appreciate that members of the opposition are opposed to the low carbon fuel standard, opposed to some of these investments, opposed to this, opposed to that, opposed to this. But we’re in favour of action on climate change on this side of the House, and we are in favour of economic growth that a clean energy superpower will bring.

Hon Chan: I think we have to make it very clear that we are actually in favour of growing our economy, not like what the minister mentioned.

change on this side of the House, and we are in favour of economic growth that a clean energy superpower will bring.

Hon Chan: I think we have to make it very clear that we are actually in favour of growing our economy, not like what the minister mentioned.

But anyway, let’s talk about electrification. As mentioned before, the government has allowed B.C. to become quite dependent on imported electricity. Even though, yes, we might be earning some money trading with our counterparts, we’re still importing electricity in recent years. For example, last year, I mentioned, we imported 20 percent of our electricity. Yet, those new nine windmill projects combined will only generate about 8 percent to 10 percent of our electricity use.

As we expand heat pumps initiatives, EV adoptions and electrifying everything in the name of climate solutions, these projects won’t be ready for close to ten years later. And these nine windmills will not even meet last year’s target of our electrical needs. So can this minister confirm that they are quite shortsighted and that their ten-year plan will not even meet last year’s demand?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the capital plan of B.C. Hydro is $36 billion. It’s the most…. It’s an ambitious plan. In addition to that, we’re taking more action to create and to build energy projects in B.C. that are renewable in our province.

The member who is, I think, suggesting he’s opposed to the wind projects, the member whose party is opposed to the North Coast transmission line, opposed to a line that will bring economic development to the northwest…. We’re in favour of it; they’re opposed. We’re in favour of it; they’re opposed. Who said they were opposed? Well, the Leader of the Opposition. So I have some faith in that. I have some faith in that.

Over the last 15 years, we had this discussion — eight years exporters, seven years importers. When there are drought years, and those are variable things, that changes. So we benefit from it.

The member talks about a little bit of profit; $550 million a year, 9 percent on a hydro bill is a little bit of profit? It is an example of B.C. excellence. By the way, not NDP excellence, just B.C. excellence in what we do.

Yes, we need to build projects.

Finally, he says it’s going to take ten years. Well, it’s not going to take ten years. No one said it was going to take ten years except the opposition member. I hope he supports the legislation before the House that will see that happen even quicker than it otherwise will do. We’ll see when it comes down to actual projects whether they’re in favour of economic growth or not.

In any event, I think the actions we’re taking, which are detailed in detailed and constant engagement and plans and filings with the BCUC, are the right actions to take.

Hon Chan: I want to make clear that my question was actually asking…. Last year we imported 20 percent of our electricity. These wind projects, nine combined, can only give us 8 percent and would take close to ten years — not ten years. We don’t know how many years. Maybe the minister can tell us the exact date or exact year that they can be finished building.

Even eight or nine or ten years later, when all these projects are online, it would just give us 8 percent. Last year in 2024 or 2023, we already imported 20 percent. Ten years later, we will need more electricity, as the minister mentioned. So if a project that takes about eight years to complete can’t even meet the last year target or demand, why are they talking about all this electrification?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’ve had this discussion on multiple occasions that whether we’re in net export or net import is highly variable. How do we know that? Well, the last 15 years, eight times we’ve been net export and seven times we’ve been net import, which is about as variable as it could get, right? If it’s the case that we’re importing more this year, it’ll be eight and eight. So it’s about as variable as it could get in terms of a result.

We prepare our resources requirements in detail to the BCUC. I’d be happy to share those with the members, although they’re publicly available.

[3:20 p.m.]

Those projects that he refers to, which we hope to come forward as quickly as possible…. I can’t wait. I just can’t wait for the debate on those projects. I can’t wait for the vote on those projects and on the legislation that advances those projects. I can’t wait for it, because it’s good news. It’ll be good news for everyone for us to be

those projects that he refers to, which we hope to come forward as quickly as possible. I can’t wait. I just can’t wait for the debate on those projects. I can’t wait for the vote on those projects and on the legislation that advances those projects. I can’t wait for it.

It’s good news, and it will be good news for everyone, for us to be clear in this House as to the position of the opposition on these questions. But regardless, we have, in some years, net imports, and, in some years, net exports. It’s our view that we need to build out not just our capacity to produce electricity with renewable energy projects, but also to distribute it through transmission lines.

We’ve put forward the North Coast transmission line, which the opposition also opposes. I don’t know what the plan is that they’re suggesting. But they’re also opposed to the North Coast transmission line, which I think is a major investment in the economy of the province and a major benefit for our climate change objectives, which is good news for all of us.

Finally, as I suggested…. I also can’t wait for this. This isn’t the only call for power we’re going to do. We’re going to do more because we’ve got remarkable renewable energy resources, and we’ve got remarkable opportunities in our province. We don’t just need wind power, which is, to a degree, intermittent, especially onshore wind. Sometimes offshore wind has a slightly different shape, can be viewed slightly differently. But onshore wind…. We also need to invest — as I mentioned to his colleague from Peace River South a few hours ago — in firm power as well. So we’re building out our resources in B.C.

We’re in favour of these projects. I hope the members will change their mind and join us, because that would be wonderful. That would bring a smile to my face when that happens. But I’ll leave that to them.

Hon Chan: I would like to ask the minister this question. I think he still hasn’t answered me. But he called on me saying that it’s close to ten years to build this project. Maybe my question, which I asked already, is: how much time after this project, if approved, will it take to complete and actually go online?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The projects will be online between 2028 and 2031, so that’s not ten years. Even in the longest case, not ten years. I think the hon. member was going to help me call a friend or something, but it’s all good.

The specific answer to that is…. Part of the reason why I believe we need to take action to ensure that we have a robust permitting process, that we go through environmental assessment, that we exempt those projects from environmental assessment because of their value and because we…. The sooner they’re online, the sooner they’re producing revenue for the proponents and the sooner they’re producing energy for British Columbia.

Hon Chan: Finally, we know that. Actually, we kind of know that by 2031, we can expect a full 8 percent of electricity demand can be online, which is good, but not adequate, actually.

Let’s move on to CleanBC policies. To the minister: what specific programs in Budget 2025 are designed to mitigate the impact of CleanBC policies on rural and remote communities?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The wind projects that the opposition opposes are in communities all over the province. They’re in the Peace. They’re in the Nicola Valley. They’re in the northwest. They’re on the north of Vancouver Island. They produce jobs and economic development everywhere in the province.

The purpose of the North Coast transmission line, which…. Again, it seems hard to believe that the government supports and the opposition opposes, even though I think they represent all the communities on the line. But they’re against that economic development. It will benefit rural and remote communities and economic development in the northwest, and I, for one, am in favour of that.

[3:25 p.m.]

I, for one, think that the energy which is often produced in the North, especially in the Peace system…. The fact that it isn’t able to be directed to the northwest is a negative economic thing for the northwest. So these policies, which are part of building a clean economy by our 100 percent owned Crown corporation

which is often produced in the North, especially in the Peace system, that the fact that it isn’t able to be directed to the northwest is a negative economic thing for the northwest.

So these policies, which are part of building a clean economy by our 100 percent-owned Crown corporation, that we are putting in place this year and are going to be followed up with legislation this week to ensure that they’re built more quickly, and we’ll see….

I’m hopeful, from what the member has said, that he will be supporting that legislation and not opposing it and imposing more process on that process, but that will be up to the Conservative Party, I suppose.

But just those two initiatives are significant steps. They’re investments in every part of the province, not in the Lower Mainland, not in the lower Island, but in the north Island and the northeast and the northwest and the Nicola Valley and Kelowna. That’s where they are.

Hon Chan: My next question would be can the minister update the House on how many light-duty ZEV zero-emission vehicle sales have been sold for the calendar year of 2024?

Hon. Adrian Dix: In 2024, 44,656 new light-duty EVs were registered in B.C., representing 22.4 percent of the 199,580 new light-duty vehicle registrations in the province.

Hon Chan: Does the ministry expect to hit the provincial target of 26 percent by next calendar?

Hon. Adrian Dix: First of all, we need to acknowledge that we’re leading Canada, which is a good thing to be. I think number one, first place, that’s pretty good. We did it last year. We did it this year. There are obviously impacts. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but we’re moving in the right direction, I think generally. You see that by the actual results. You see that when you’re driving around.

I think a key role for the province, in addition to all that, will be building out charging stations and charging capacities in every place in the province. We made real progress there. Just as an example, we’re up to about 7,000 charging stations across the province and that’s up from 2,000 in 2019, so those are significant achievements going forward.

They help us achieve our goals. And also, the work we do with homeowners — with condominium owners, rental housing to ensure charging spaces there — are critical parts of that plan. We’re not in 2026, so there are no guarantees, but I think we’re making some progress.

We’re also working significantly with new car dealers, with car manufacturers, in what are really interesting and problematic times for them. We talked about…. The member mentioned Mr. Trump earlier, but obviously his actions are dramatically affecting, or he’s at least attempting to affect, the EV market.

We’ll see how all that goes, but what we need to do is continue to work together to build out our EV networks and to sell more EVs. I think that the technology that we see around the world, some which is technology that’s behind our own tariff wall, right, shows that EVs are going to become better, battery charging is going to become better, and I think the long-term impact is really positive.

I don’t know what’s going to happen in 2026. There’s lots of discussion about that. Certainly, we’ve met with new car dealers and others to discuss those issues, and I think we’re working hard together with them to see what steps we can take to get there together.

[3:30 p.m.]

I think there’s a huge appetite and demand for EVs in B.C. and that will grow as the product continues to improve and as the charging network is in place.

Hon Chan: While 26 percent is not too far from 22.6, which is kind of good news, but reaching 90 percent in just five years later, that’s a very, very bold move

and for EVs in B.C., and that will grow as the product continues to improve and as the charging network is in place.

Hon Chan: Well, 26 percent is not too far from 22.6, which is kind of good news, but reaching 90 percent just five years later is a very, very bold move. Consider that just a few years ago the percentage was about 10, and now it’s 22.6. It’s a good movement, but 90 percent in five years is very, very bold.

Does this government expect to hit the provincial target of 90 percent by 2030? Obviously, the minister will mention: “Oh, 2030 is five years later. I’m not a magician. I don’t know. I won’t know if we’re going to meet it.” But are you going to adjust this 90 percent target if it’s not realistic?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think this is one of the reasons why we are doing a review of CleanBC, of seeing what measures can help us make the best possible circumstances. We’re certainly looking at that with both the industry but also the many advocates of EVs in the community, with the environmentalists, with others, to achieve the maximum response.

I mean, the best response, regardless of the targets, is to have EVs on the road, because they benefit B.C. As a member has noted, we don’t make gasoline in B.C., generally, but we have a remarkable capacity for electricity. It’s an import substitution that positively affects the economy.

I think the member is correct to be skeptical about whether we could achieve a full 90 percent. But will we make a very significant contribution on that road? Absolutely we will. And we’re doing that, working with all our partners in the area.

Hon Chan: Ontario doesn’t have an EV rebate. And guess what. The EV adoption rate was 7.4 percent in 2021 and only 8.7 percent in Q3 of 2024. Without any incentive, EV sales in Ontario took three years to improve by just 1.3 percent. Now that the federal government cancelled their rebate earlier this year and B.C. lowered the incentive to our MSRP for new cars to below $50,000…. And now there’s another tax on the used EV.

How can B.C. be confident that we will reach 26 percent next year and 90 percent, under review, in the next five years?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, first of all, Ontario did have a rebate. It was a federal rebate that they had access to as well. There are different circumstances in Ontario. I’d say the adoption rate in B.C. is much higher. And that’s to the credit of the people of B.C. but also the government of B.C., successive governments of B.C. but particularly this government, because I think one of the reasons why you don’t have success is not just price sensitivity, that that gap is reducing, but also the charging network required to sustain the system. When you don’t believe or don’t have confidence in the charging network, it’s more difficult to sell yourself on the idea of an EV.

I’m not the best example of this, I say to the member. I own an old car, a 2003 Nissan Sentra. People are telling me about the EVs, and I’m learning about them. Also, I’m privileged to live near a SkyTrain station and enjoy SkyTrain. Not everyone is in that circumstance, although some people in the member’s constituency I know are users of SkyTrain.

I think that the evidence that B.C. is doing better than Ontario is found in those results. We grow our network 200,000 strong now of EVs every year in a remarkable way. I think one of the challenges in B.C. is….

We’re talking about new car sales. I mean, my own case is a small example of that. My car, I suspect, if I drove around Ontario…. That would never happen, but just in case, if I was driving that car around Ontario, it wouldn’t still be around 22 years later. I think that’s fair to say, because of the effect of weather in parts of Ontario on the car. So that affects the amount of new car sales in B.C., because our cars tend to last longer in southern B.C., not in northern B.C. but in southern B.C., and in Metro Vancouver where the member and I live.

[3:35 p.m.]

I think the support of the new car dealers…. And I think the member would have to agree with this. They’ve done an exceptional job on EV sales here. Their work with the government, our work together on these issues, our building out of the charging network and all the work we’ve done together makes B.C., explains in

But I think the support of the new car dealers…. And I think the member would have to agree with this. They’ve done an exceptional job on EV sales here. Their work with the government, our work together on these issues, our building out of the charging network and all the work we’ve done together makes B.C. and explains in part why B.C. is number one.

The other part that explains it are the people of B.C. who are clearly supportive of EVs. You see that in the vastly better results we get in other jurisdictions. I like to build on my confidence in the people of B.C.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

I think my question was actually…. I may not be clear enough. My question was mentioning Ontario does not have the provincial rebate, and hence, their EV adoption rate is so slow. Now the federal incentive is cancelled, and B.C. has lowered the incentive to below $50,000.

Would the minister think the adoption of EV will slow down compared to previous years in B.C.? Also, does that mean the EV rebate will continue for the next ten years so that people can actually buy EVs easier? And how much would that rebate cost us, since we have a $14 billion debt right now?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As the member knows, the money set aside for the EV program is capped, and so the last applications will come May 15.

I put this forward today, so the member is aware of this. It’s fair enough that he has me, through his questions, putting that on the record.

So that’s what we’re doing. I think, though, the member’s analysis isn’t correct. I think the charging network is critically important. I think charging capacity in both private homes and in multi-unit homes is very important. I think the views that people hold on these issues and the central importance of climate change are important, and it’s why B.C. and Quebec have done better than anything else.

I don’t think the issue is one provincial policy in Ontario that accounts for us doing basically three times as well as they are. I think it has to do with a suite of policies. We’re certainly going to work with the industry to support them.

The final thing is, I’d just say, with respect to mentions of the budget, the EV program is funded out of the credit system, not out of the consolidated revenue fund.

Hon Chan: Thank you to minister.

Again, since our grid is not ready for gas spend and for full EV adoption by 2030 or 2035 — and I heard two weeks ago and just now the minister has a very beautiful vintage vehicle that he loves — will this government relax the EV mandate by 2030 and 2035 and allow people to choose to keep their favourite cars?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, no one’s going to force me to give up my beautiful 2003 Nissan Sentra. And as you know, the mandate isn’t for cars people have. It’s new ones, right? So no one’s going to have to give up their car, and certainly not me. But I appreciate the hon. member is standing up for me in this House on this important question.

What we’re doing right now are two things. One, we’re reviewing all the programs. We’re going to have an independent review, because we want to do better. And besides, such a review is mandated for next year. So we’re moving that review forward one year to assess these programs.

Two, we’re working with environmentalists, with industry, to see what the best path forward is. Is it, for example, as the member says, a better path forward to invest even further in a charging network? Is that the more critical question for people making purchases? There’s now a significant number of EVs on the road, and sometimes used EVs even get brought up from other jurisdictions to come here.

So I think the question is: what’s the right approach? And that’s what we’re working right now. But one critical part of that approach will be the continuing buildup of our EV charging network and our investments in that charging network. I think that we continue to make progress, and that’s a big part of the difference between ourselves and other jurisdictions that are not doing nearly as well.

Hon Chan: Thank you, Minister.

[3:40 p.m.]

I mentioned about two weeks ago that I actually owned multiple EVs for nearly a decade. So I know how EVs work and how the charging infrastructure has grown since 2015, actually, to now, almost ten years. However, does this minister or ministry through you…? Have you guys evaluated the impact of the mandatory EV targets on the affordability, especially in rural B.C.?

grow since 2015 to now, almost 10 years. However, does this ministry for you…? Have you guys evaluated the impact of the mandatory EV targets on affordability, especially in rural B.C.?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, yeah, and for example…. So the answer is: yes, that’s why we allow for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

Hon Chan: That was a short answer, so I will ask more actually.

I personally experienced a significant drop in fast-charging performance during extreme cold, and my car has a heat pump, minus 20 and lower. Even with preconditioning my EV battery, it drops to 1/5 of the charging rate. Has this ministry provided complete EV solutions for communities that regularly face such extreme weather, like low temperature?

Hon. Adrian Dix: So first of all, I won’t go into detail. The members on the opposition side like it when I give shorter answers. I know members on the government side like the longer, more fulsome answers.

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix: That’s what I hear. That’s what I hear. My own recent survey of government members….

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I did a survey, and I had upwards of 51 percent support for that. It’s accurate, 19 times out of 20.

So the information in the report on page 26 details where EVs are registered in our province, and that’d be useful information to the hon. member. They’re, of course, driven in all regions of the province. Five percent of light-duty vehicle sales in northern B.C., which indicates some of what he’s saying, and some of that reflects, maybe, concerns like he’s expressing. Eleven percent in the Kootenay and Thompson-Okanagan regions, 22 percent on the Island and 26 percent in the Lower Mainland. Just as an example, in the Yukon, the number’s about 11.8 percent. So it’s a growing market everywhere, although it’s differently felt in different regions. I think that agrees.

EVs do lose, and the member is more expert as an owner than I am on these questions, so I accept the concerns he’s expressed. They do lose some range during extreme cold, and some studies have shown range loss to be no more than 30 percent and as low as 8 percent for some makes and models. However, studies of extreme cold, such as what he’s described, have found it to be between 30 and 50 percent.

Of course, internal combustion engines lose range as well, as the member will know. Cold weather can increase a car’s fuel consumption by up to 28 percent. So it’s not just the EV; that affects other cars. They have considerably more range than is required for most daily journeys. And most EVs available today deliver more than 400 kilometres on a single charge, including a number that the member will be aware of. I’m not going to do any product placement here, although I’d be happy to share that information with the member.

[3:45 p.m.]

And of course, in addition, most modern EVs have battery heating options that preheat the battery before driving to reduce range loss. Unlike a gas car, EVs don’t have problems starting in cold weather, which is another advantage for EVs.

So one of the reasons we have greater access to some CleanBC programs in the North is both to increase utilization, but also to support the very real conditions people face in the North. I think the member would agree though, over the time that he’s owned EVs, the technology

another advantage for EVs.

One of the reasons we have greater access to some CleanBC programs in the North is both to increase utilization but also to support the very real conditions people face in the North. I think the member would agree, though, that over the time he has owned EVs, the technology is improving, and there is absolutely no question it will continue to improve over time.

That will be the principal thing boosting EV sales over time, the inevitable improvement — both the reduction in the gap in price, which has come down considerably, as he’ll understand, and the improvement in the technologies. These are some of the most outstanding cars on the roads.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

I saw you actually reading off a paper about EVs, but there are some discrepancies. On paper, maybe it works for 400 kilometres, but in reality, it might not. But I’m not going to go into details or else we could talk for one hour on that.

Let’s move on to fuel cell vehicles. Yeah, he has a thumbs up. Fuel cells. How much has this government spent on fuel cell vehicles and related research? I just toured a UBC hydrogen production facility a few months ago, and there was some good work being done there.

However, despite receiving the EV rebates, the fuel cell vehicles now only have access to three refuelling stations in the entire Metro Vancouver area. It has been over ten years since this government began funding the fuel cell development. What kind of result has been achieved using taxpayer money?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you to the member. I know that members have lots of questions, and I like to answer them as quickly and as facetiously as possible. You’ll know that this is very much a nascent industry. We’ll get him the details on the expenditure as soon as I get them. I want him to just wait for the numbers.

But I think it’s fair to say that it’s also one that has great potential benefits for B.C. and for B.C. technology, and I think it’s absolutely worth us supporting and being involved in. Ultimately, the market does determine the success of these projects. You have to be prudent in how you deal with them, but you also have to visualise, I think, and support future development.

That’s what we’re doing in this area, as in others, and I’ll be happy to provide, as soon as I have them, in response to a future question, the detailed answers on expenditure that the member asked for.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

I understand you might not have the immediate answer, so I’ll just ask one more question about fuel cells, and then we’ll move on — even though I have a full list here.

With only three hydrogen-refuelling stations in Metro Vancouver, I actually seriously considered buying a fuel cell vehicle before but cancelled that idea because of lack of infrastructure. Can the minister tell us how much EV rebate funding has gone through to the fuel cell vehicles — not the EV but fuel cells — and how many of those vehicles are still on the road? How are they justifying this spending?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yeah, I mean the vast majority of our expenditures promoting EVs have gone to electric vehicles not to fuel cell vehicles. That’s the vast majority. We’ll get the detailed numbers and just provide them to the hon. member.

The Chair: The Chair will call a recess for ten minutes, and we’ll return at….

Interjections.

[3:50 p.m.]

The Chair: That’s acceptable.

Member for Richmond Centre.

Hon Chan: Thank you, Chair. Last question for my part. Recess, we need one.

The government is pushing widespread electrification in the province. Can the minister confirm whether B.C. Transit or TransLink fleet electrification projects are receiving separate provincial

That’s acceptable.

Hon Chan: Last question for my part.

Interjection.

Hon Chan: Recess, we need one.

The government is pushing widespread electrification in province. Can the minister confirm whether B.C. Transit or TransLink fleet electrification projects are receiving separate provincial capital grants or a fund through general operating transfers?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Really, in this case, I presume they get capital funding for B.C. Transit. That would be a question for the Minister of Transportation.

The Chair: The Chair will call a recess for 10 minutes. Everyone is directed to please return by 4 o’clock.

The committee recessed from 3:51 p.m. to 4:01 p.m.

The committee recessed from 3:51 p.m. to 4:01 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: We are just calling the committee back to order. We are in Section A, that is the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions, vote 23.

David Williams: My question to the minister…. First off, I’d like to clarify something. First off, we are not opposed to more power. We believe in self-sufficiency, reliability and affordability.

My question to the minister is that, going back to internal budget, previously the minister said: “There is a freeze on travel now, and the people won’t be travelling outside Canada in the near future.” Is this a specific directive from the head of public service or the Premier or just self-imposed within the ministry?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, there’s flexibility. There will be travel on, say, trade missions that you would expect the government to do in the public interest. But corporately, certainly in my ministry, the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions, we’re not travelling.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister. Can the minister please tell me: can this directive be tabled in this House?

Hon. Adrian Dix: International travel has to be approved, so that’s an easy way to control it. Obviously, I’ll be travelling within British Columbia, especially once the Legislature adjourns, especially to places I don’t get to ordinarily, I can’t get to or have a harder time getting to on the weekend, such as Fort St. John or Dawson Creek or Prince George. Those are all in the province, and that’s part of my travel as a member of the Legislature and a minister.

But in general, if you want to travel internationally, even if you’re a minister, that requires approval.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister. So if I understand this correctly, there are exemptions for interprovincial and international travel.

My example would be that COP 30 is going to be happening in Brazil this year. Can the minister please confirm that no one under his authority or his ministry is going to be using taxpayer dollars to attend an event such as this?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I won’t be going, and no one else will be going.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister, for your short snappy answers.

I also previously asked the minister if B.C. Hydro had hired Framepoint Public Affairs. When I reviewed the transcript, I didn’t get the answer to that question. So can the Minister please confirm that B.C. Hydro has hired this government relations firm?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: As I understand it, they had a short-term contract. They no longer are under contract, and they weren’t acting in government relations, which I think was the question the member asked the last time.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister. Can you please disclose to us what the term of the contract was and what the cost of the contract was?

Hon. Adrian Dix: If it’s okay with the member, I’ll seek to get that and provide it to him by…. I don’t know. What’s a good time? Noon tomorrow?

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister please explain why B.C. Hydro would need such a government relations firm?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, when I provide the contract, the member will see that. All I can say is there’s absolutely no need for government relations. When I need to talk to B.C. Hydro, I or the deputy minister or someone else can talk to the CEO, can talk to the chair of the board, who I know. I can talk to anyone we need to talk to, and they can talk to us.

It may be that B.C. Hydro requires advice on communications and other issues from time of time and contracts for that. I’ll be happy to share information about the contract, as said, to the member by tomorrow.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Previously I asked the minister about the hiring freeze, and the quote was: “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, they’re annualized contracts.” I assume that this is a term contract and there’ll be no further contracts. Is that correct?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We undertake contracts for specialized purposes. They’re not for staffing. That’s true throughout government, and that’s not starting today. That’s generally the rule around contracting, so there’s no contract freeze. But you can’t get around a hiring freeze through contracting, if the member will follow.

Just for the member for Richmond Centre, he asked this question, and I’m going to give him the answer before this. So $99,000 were provided for fuel cell passenger vehicles in all of 2024 and $8.2 million provided for eight hydrogen fueling stations in 2024. Six are operational and two are being built. So those are detailed answers. I just thought I’d take the opportunity to provide it. We can share more information with the member should he have more follow-up questions.

Just to make the same offer I made to the member for Peace River South, if there are questions that he couldn’t get to in his time and he would like an answer to, he can provide those to me in written form and I’ll provide an answer to him.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister, and thank you for your detailed explanation to my comrade here.

Now that we know about Framepoint Public Affairs, is the minister able to tell us how many new outside contracts have been signed since the hiring freeze was implemented?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We can endeavour to get that information, but the member would have to be more precise. Is he referring to…. That was a contract, I believe, with B.C. Hydro. So is his question about B.C. Hydro or is it about the Ministry of Energy?

Oh, and by the way, I’m delighted he calls his colleagues comrades.

[4:10 p.m.]

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Can the minister confirm that the contracts that have been signed are not a means to circumvent the hiring freeze, whether it be the ministry or B.C. Hydro?

Hon. Adrian Dix: That has not and would not happen.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

We’ll move on to something that’s probably near and dear to most of us. My understanding is that there are

Hon. Adrian Dix: That has not and would not happen.

David Williams: We’ll move on to something that’s probably near and dear to most of us. My understanding is that there are two transmission cables providing power to Vancouver Island from the mainland. Will the minister commit to tabling these contracts in the House before rising this spring?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, there is no contract to the extent… There are two lines. There’s the 500-kilowatt line that comes across Texada, and there’s the 230-kilowatt line that comes into Duncan, and those are B.C. Hydro lines.

David Williams: We are requesting those agreements because we believe the transmission lines are beyond their warranty and lifespan. It was also to our understanding that they nearly failed in the 2021 heat dome. Is the minister able to confirm those facts for the House?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just said there is no contract. These are B.C. Hydro lines. I would be happy, if the member is concerned about issues of B.C. Hydro infrastructure, to arrange a briefing for him on that question.

David Williams: Just to clarify, rather than contracts, can we see the warranty on the cable lines coming to the Island?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Hon. Speaker, these are B.C. Hydro lines that come to Vancouver Island, and so we got them. We own them. They’re ours. Of course, they have delivered extraordinary service over the years, and if the member would like a briefing on those lines…. It’s not like you’re buying a vacuum cleaner. This is a B.C. Hydro power line.

David Williams: Maybe I can be a little bit more clear. I believe, that those cable lines, the warranty has expired, and I just want to confirm the fact that we’re not going to be stuck here without power and being by candlelight on the Island here.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the answer is he can be so assured. There was damage to lines over times, including during the heat dome, and the damage was repaired. If the member reviews the capital plan of B.C. Hydro, he’ll see the replacement of those lines as part of the capital plan.

David Williams: Just to clarify does B.C. Hydro have any immediate plans to replace the existing transmission cable lines to Vancouver Island?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As noted, it’s in the capital plan.

David Williams: Should they fail, does B.C. Hydro have a backup plan for power for Vancouver Island?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, B.C. Hydro plans for redundancy, as the member would expect. There are cables in the north, cables in the south generating capacity on Vancouver Island. And obviously, over time, I have to say that there may, and there will, be an opportunity to have more capacity to use electricity on Vancouver Island.

But B.C. Hydro, obviously, plans for all circumstances, and that’s why the system is set up as it is, why this is an important priority, why it’s in the capital plan, and why we’re continuing to act to support the economy of Vancouver Island.

[4:15 p.m.]

David Williams: Island Generation provides power backup as equivalent to one third of Vancouver Island’s power needs. We are now passed halfway through the last contract

the economy of Vancouver Island.

David Williams: Going on, Island Generation provides a power backup as equivalent to one-third of Vancouver Island’s power needs. We are now past halfway through the last contract extension.

Can the minister confirm that this government is willing to extend the contract past its current term, especially in light of my previous questioning?

Hon. Adrian Dix: At the moment, B.C. Hydro is not planning to renew that contract in 2030.

David Williams: Can the minister please explain what the reasoning is behind not renewing the contract?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The short answer is that we have adequate redundancy.

David Williams: Can the minister please explain to me how there’s adequate redundancy and exactly where you’re getting the ultimate power source from?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s a combination of online, on-Island generation and the transmission line generation elsewhere.

David Williams: To the minister: my understanding is that there are a few public service providers for power generation in the Kootenays. Their contracts haven’t been renewed. My understanding is that there’s only been one that’s been renewed. A lot of the smaller dams actually use a weir system, which is totally environmentally friendly.

Can the minister please explain why their contracts haven’t been renewed?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member, I know, has a number of other questions. We’re going to seek an answer to that question, and I’ll provide it as soon as we have it from B.C. Hydro.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister. I look forward to seeing the report.

Maybe the minister could please inform me of how many biomass power generation projects or plants are currently in existence and how many of those have had their contracts renewed.

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C. Hydro currently has 16 electricity purchase agreements with IPP biomass facilities.

David Williams: The second part of that question was: how many of them had their contracts renewed?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m happy to provide the member with detailed information. We see biomass facilities as having an important role. For example, his colleague the member for Cariboo South — used to be Cariboo South, anyway; I think I got it right — worked with us on Atlantic

biomass facilities as having an important role.

For example, his colleague, the member for Cariboo South — used to be Cariboo South anyway, I think I got it right — worked with us on Atlantic Power in his constituency, and we made assessments, worked with B.C. Hydro, and that project didn’t require renewal.

These tend to be long-term contracts. In that case, they were in mid contract. I think the contract had been put in place around 2020 and it was going to 2030. But there were issues, challenges, around the contract both on the provider side and on the company side in terms of getting adequate access to fibre and their ability, therefore, to meet the terms of the contract. A contract at a certain level makes money, and if you don’t produce at that level, it doesn’t make money. So we engaged in the process with Atlantic Power. They were very open about their circumstances, their financial circumstances. We were able to come together and work on an agreement.

There are sometimes, as is case, a biomass provider, IPP provider, will itself withdraw because it’s not able…. Its core business maybe isn’t moving or is not able to provide adequate to fulfill the contracts. That can be the case. But in general, these are long-term contracts when you talk about renewal. That project, that contract renewal won’t come forward until 2029 or 2030. For example, in the case of Atlantic Power, it’s different with different biomass facilities. I’m happy to brief him, providing the list of the full number of facilities and where their contracts stand.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister. I’m glad to see that the minister sees the importance in these biomass projects because, fortunately, I have one in my riding as well, in Armstrong, the Tolko Mill.

Anyways, just to clarify, a couple of things about transmission: is the Glenannan and the Terrace to North Coast transmission line the same project?

Hon. Adrian Dix: So, one project, two phases: one to Glenannan, one to Terrace from there. Those are the two phases that make up what we call the North Coast transmission line project.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that and making it perfectly clear. Can the minister update the House on the timeline of the Glenannan to Terrace transmission project as well as its projected budget?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s just a very…. I think it’s going to be…. We’re hopeful and optimistic and working our way through it — an extraordinary project for the people of B.C. On the Glenannan to Terrace side of it, there’s a group of First Nations on the auspices of something called K’uul Power. I think that’s with a K. It’s a slightly different, structurally different, project being discussed on the first half of the line. We’re working through that, and we’ll have full public details when we make announcements around final agreements on that, on all the details of the project.

That said, I think that it’s going to be an exceptional project, an important one at this time, not just because of the importance of the project and what it opens up for the Northwest, the province and the economy; but the direct infusion of investment at this time is really important for that region of the province, which is…. As the member will know — though mentioning President Trump again — that the impact of President Trump’s actions against our forest industry, which build on other actions, have a profound impact on the region.

[4:25 p.m.]

So we’re full on working on that project now. It’s our expectation. We’d like to break ground on that project in 2026. And we’re working full on with First Nations and, certainly, led by B.C. Hydro on that project. We’ll have detailed information at the next phase of the announcements.

We’d like to break ground on that project in 2026, and we’re working full on with First Nations and certainly led by B.C. Hydro on that project, and we’ll have detailed information at the next phase of the announcements.

David Williams: I look forward to detailed information in the future.

Some have raised concerns that this project has not undergone environmental review. Can the minister outline how much time this will save before the project is in service?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s going to save time, but I think…. And again, we’re going to have an opportunity in this House to debate this very issue. I hesitate to predict the future. But I like tomorrow, if you’re taking track at home. I like tomorrow. We’ll provide more information on that.

But the short answer is that we’re twinning an existing transmission line. We’re twinning an existing transmission line. And so, well, it may be the case that we exempt it from environmental assessment. It’s not at all clear that it would undergo it in any event.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

The original timeline was 2030. By removing the environmental review, that should speed the process up, correct? And if that’s the case, we should expect that it would be online before 2030.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We will provide details on all that when we make our next announcement with respect to the project.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister.

Is there any concern that by removing the environmental assessment, it could set up a precedent for other larger projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, what we want to do is to make projects which build our province approved more quickly. That doesn’t mean that standards aren’t met. Quite the contrary, in this case. It’s our goal to ensure that the review of permitting is a single-window review conducted by the B.C. Energy Regulator, which is, I think, an effective way of proceeding. Reducing the time of permitting, reducing the regulatory requirements on projects — as in this case, a project that essentially twinned existing transmission line — really makes a lot of sense.

And so because the member, like me, and like all members of the House, wants to see projects that deliver clean energy and build economic development in the northwest go through as soon as possible, I’m sure the member will be supporting the legislation we’ve prepared in the House.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

The project…. Is it still planned to carry the 500 kilovolts from Gleneden to Terrace?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

David Williams: Thank you, and I’m glad to hear that.

How does this project compare to other large powerline projects in cost per kilometre to build and cost per kilovolt?

Hon. Adrian Dix: So we’ll be providing that information when we make our next announcement on the project. But I would say this. The North Coast transmission line…. And I know that there’s an approach on the other side on this question, and the Leader of the Opposition has expressed his opposition, which I have to say, I find baffling. But I’m here to learn. I’m here to learn from all my colleagues and their thinking about these matters.

But this project is critical for the development of the entire northwest region. It will empower local First Nations and First Nations along the length of the line. It will create jobs in its construction and more jobs after its construction. It will deliver clean electricity to an entire region of the province and allow better residential service and, obviously, see the important development and important growth of the overall economy, including in mining and energy and other industries.

I think it’s a great project. I’m really proud to be supporting it. I think that everybody in the province should support it.

[4:30 p.m.]

You know, it’s not a partisan question. It seems to me, if you’re living in the northwest of the province, and you want to build business in the northwest of the province, or if you just want to run your toaster in the northwest of the province, that having greater access to electricity…. A lot of the transmission lines take service from north to south

partisan question.

It seems to me, if you’re living in the northwest of the province, and you want to build business in the northwest of the province, or if you just want to run your toaster in the northwest of the province, that having greater access to electricity…. A lot of the transmission lines take service from north to south. This takes service out to the northwest — northern power fuelling northern economies.

It is fantastic. And I encourage members of the opposition to get on board, to not listen to their leader, but to get on board and to support this project, because it is a fantastic project for the people of B.C. It will spur economic development. It’s exactly what a great Crown corporation like B.C. Hydro should be doing in cooperation with First Nations.

David Williams: We’re all for growth and getting our economy going. We need more of that. To clarify, this project is twinning the current line that currently carries the 287 kilovolts, correct?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It twins the current line which is 500. The current north is 287, and that’s the situation. The member is not quite accurate, but I think he’s on the right path.

David Williams: Thank you, Minister. Again, just to clarify, so that should result in the total capacity of over 1,000 kilovolts, correct?

Hon. Adrian Dix: What it can serve at the end of the line is 2,200 kilowatts of capacity.

David Williams: My last question for a bit. Has B.C. Hydro or the ministry considered a larger project or a higher capacity if the project is not already going to meet the demands? And do we know what the future demands will be for the area?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This project is the result of significant planning by B.C. Hydro in consultation with communities and the assessment of the future demand of the region.

I’d just say that the member’s question implies that he thinks it’s a good idea we’re building the line. So I think that’s a wonderful thing. Occasionally, in public life, one’s position changes on an important issue — occasionally. So I encourage members of the opposition to follow this course. If the member is saying, “Well, I’m concerned this line doesn’t bring enough power, but I’m opposed to this line,” that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

We think that this line will make an enormous contribution. It’s based on the planning at B.C. Hydro. It’s based on, yes, a more significant risk-taking approach with respect to the possibility of economic development in the northwest, of critical minerals and other economic development in the northwest.

I think that that is something that the federal government is interested in, the communities are interested in, we’re interested in and B.C. Hydro is interested in. It’s why having a great company like B.C. Hydro, a great government-owned 100 percent Crown corporation is such a good thing.

I really encourage the opposition to support legislation that will see this line, which provides access for clean electricity to the region, builds economic development — that they support this proposal, which I think is the right one. And then, supporting that proposal, it’s totally reasonable that the opposition might say we should do more. They might say we should do more. But when they’re not supporting the line, that’s problematic, and I encourage them to come on board of the government side on this crucial issue and support the northwest transmission line.

[4:35 p.m.]

David Williams: I was mistaken. I have one more question.

Since we’re up north, we’ll move on to Site C. The B.C. Utility Commission has the authority to review the costs on Kalum projects, which is well within their mandate. Is the ministry committed to having the BCUC review the Site C project and provide a report by 2026?

Since we’re up north, we’ll move on to the Site C. The B.C. Utilities Commission has the authority to review the costs on Kalum projects, which is well within their mandate. Is the ministry committed to having the BCUC review the Site C project and provide a report by 2026?

Hon. Adrian Dix: So typically, what happens is that B.C. Hydro prepares a project completion report when we’re fully in operation, which is soon. And it’s such great news for our province. Good news and more good news. I can’t believe how much good news. And the BCUC reviews it, and they have that power already. They’re an independent regulator.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair, and lovely to see you.

I’m so glad to hear the minister talk about changing positions, getting on board and twinning lines, because I will be bringing back a conversation that we started in question period last week. I wonder if the minister would like to take the opportunity to correct himself with regard to the capital cost of the Trans Mountain expansion project.

Hon. Adrian Dix: On all projects, it depends what you count, but $38 billion, $39 billion sounds right to me.

Gavin Dew: Yeah, wrong again. It was $34 billion. Last week he said $25 billion. Today he says $39 billion. I would, you know…. Just $10 billion between friends. Kind of seems like something you’d want to know.

So I’m curious whether the minister would be able to evaluate for us how much of that cost escalation was attributable to the use by this government of every tool in the toolbox to obstruct the construction of that pipeline.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Of course, the member will know. And part of the reason we were talking about those numbers is that initially the cost of that pipeline was in the single billion dollars, and it rose dramatically. That wasn’t because of the provincial government of British Columbia. The cost, in fact, rose so dramatically that the private sector proponent was not enthusiastic at proceeding, and the federal government got involved. The federal government saw the project go forward. So it’s absolutely legitimate, in the public debate, for governments to take action in the public interest. The federal government chose to do that in this way, and that’s no problem. They’ve done that.

My point in the House…. I’m happy to have a debate about numbers and details. It’s so fantastic. It’s such a good use of question period and estimates time, especially when it’s a federally funded project.

But my point is that the project’s built. The project’s built, just like we had the discussion of Site C and who said what, when and everything else. The project’s built. Now that it’s built, we want to get maximum value out of the project, which was the answer I gave him in question period; it’s the answer I give him today.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. The minister seems awfully quick to let his own government off the hook.

Having worked for three years on the project, I can confirm that there were very material impacts in terms of cost and delay that were the result, precisely, of this government. So I do find it rather surprising that the minister would be labouring under the delusion that somehow the province had no role in driving up the cost of the project. But I’ll let that go.

I will ask, as we now are dealing with a version of this government that is supportive of energy and the resource sector and of major projects. I wonder if the lasting scar tissue, the effect on market confidence, investor confidence and the pursuit of natural resource projects in British Columbia…. Is the minister finding that there is still a hangover effect from the delay and cost escalation of that project in particular?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well thank you, and I’m delighted to hear from such a longtime and devoted B.C. Liberal activist on these questions of energy projects and delay. I know he’s transitioned now to the B.C. Conservative Party — and all that’s fair — and been elected the MLA in Kelowna.

[4:40 p.m.]

What I would say is that on key energy projects, such as, for example, LNG, when this government came to office, there were, well, zero projects. And zero projects, by definition, are worth zero dollars in confirmed

what I would say is that on key energy projects — such as, for example, LNG — when this government came to office there were, well, zero projects. Zero projects, by definition, are worth zero dollars in confirmed investment.

In the case of LNG, the province put together conditions that focused on return to the province, benefits to local communities, First Nations involvement, jobs in B.C. and climate change.

We’ve now seen three projects go forward, under construction. Three. Zero. I think when you take any period of time…. Of course, there will be projects that start in any period of time, I’d say, in fairness to the member. But three — and if we’re counting, $36 billion to $42 billion capital investment; we want to be in a range for the member, because I know it’s important to him — to zero.

That doesn’t mean that the B.C. Liberal Party, which has devoted followers here, didn’t strongly support LNG. They were very effective at campaigning on LNG. Quite effective, I would say — talking about it, talking about its potential value. Less effective about delivery, and that’s okay.

With respect to where we’re going as a province, we’ve had a period of significant economic growth in the province. We’re making progress on important economic activities. We made a review of the Site C dam, for example. We decided to proceed, and we proceeded. That was a decision made under Premier Horgan in 2018.

There was an agreement around LNG Canada 1, as the member will know. We have the Cedar project. We have many other projects around the province. We’ve got priority projects that have come forward — 18 priority projects, I think, 11 of which are opposed by the official opposition. And seven, I’m not sure. It’s sort of zero, 11 and seven.

We’re working hard to ensure that we hold our high standards in environmental matters, that we involve First Nations, that we involve everyone else and that we succeed in getting the investment and the diversification that the province needs.

I think that’s a pretty good message to the province. I’m not suggesting the message by the previous government was negative. Far be it from me to attack the B.C. Liberal Party. That would be unfair, since they’re underrepresented in the Legislature now.

But I would say that that record of taking climate change seriously, of taking economic development seriously and of taking care and ensuring that all of those conditions are priorities for the government is an important and useful approach.

Gavin Dew: Just to make sure I’m 100 percent, totally clear: what I’m hearing the minister say is that we should use what we’ve built to the fullest extent possible. I am hearing support. Can I just get the minister to confirm exactly what the next steps are in advancing an additional expansion of the Trans Mountain expansion project, which has been written about extensively in the media, has been discussed by bank analysts and has been identified as one of the most expedient ways to enable Canadian trade diversification?

I just really want to understand very clearly if this government is or is not supportive of that further expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, one, there’s no proposal. There’s talk. There’s no proposal. In the question the member asked, I assumed, but I may be incorrect, that he was asking about the optimization of the existing line. There are some significant things we can do to do that that are not 15 years in the making but can happen relatively quickly.

[4:45 p.m.]

That’s obviously mostly in federal jurisdiction, those issues, but we’re working on those issues as well. I think having built the pipeline, we should maximize its value. That’s the answer I gave in the Legislature, and that’s the answer I give now, which, I have to say, is quite a good answer.

those issues, but we’re working on those issues as well. I think having built the pipeline, we should maximize its value. That’s the answer I gave in the Legislature, and that’s the answer I give now, which I have to say is quite a good answer.

The Chair: Member for Kelowna-Mission.

Sorry. Can I just remind the member that using electronic devices….

Gavin Dew: I’m not using this. Paper, supporting forestry. Don’t worry.

The Chair: I appreciate that. Thank you, Member. You may continue.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

So what I am now hearing from the minister is that there is support for measures that can be taken to optimize and expand the capacity of the Trans Mountain Pipeline and, if I understand correctly, that this government is actively supportive of taking those measures. That’s what I believe I am hearing, that there is support there.

There has not been a proposal that I’m aware of or that the minister is aware of, but I would assume that in the context of a Team Canada approach to trade diversification, the minister is in fact supportive of measures that could be taken. And were a proposal to be forthcoming, am I correct in understanding that the minister would welcome that proposal and that he and his colleagues would do all in their power to expedite such a proposal?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it’s important to know what we’re talking about. The member was unusually elliptical, and that’s coming from someone who can occasionally be elliptical.

But as you know, there’s a specific project around downtown Vancouver in optimizing the value of a line that’s already built. Prime Minister Mark Carney mentioned that proposal on March 21, 2025. If that’s the proposal we’re talking about, the Premier has expressed a strong interest, yes.

Gavin Dew: So again, going back to optimization, obviously one of the challenges facing the full optimization of that line is that in order to have fully laden Aframax tankers transit Burrard Inlet, dredging would be required. That would, of course, require multiple levels of government and multiple entities to be involved, including but not limited to this ministry, Environment, WLRS and Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

So again, just for everybody’s clarity, does the minister and does the government actively support moving forward with dredging Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden Aframax tankers to transit? And what are the next steps in making that happen, on what timeline?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Largely, that’s a federally regulated piece — the member will know that, of course — and a federal initiative. In terms of the regulation in the harbour, for example, that’s a federal approach. Our support for economic development is less administrative and more as a province supporting a national activity. But in that case, that would largely be federal regulation and federal initiative.

Gavin Dew: The original pipeline was largely a federal matter, but in opposition and in government, this government availed itself of every tool in the toolkit, including a wide range of different provincial permitting and other administrative processes, in order to be obstructionist to the project.

So far be it for me to accept such evasion. I would really like to understand whether the minister will use all of the power in his control as Minister of Energy to actively expedite the process of having every box ticked on an expedient basis by every ministry in this provincial government in order to ensure and actively support the dredging of Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden Aframax tankers.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member is being quite disrespectful to federal regulation. They don’t tick boxes. They take their job seriously, and that has important implications for the whole country and for projects such as this. No one, not least of which Trans Mountain, would want to have a box-ticking approach, and no one would adopt such an approach at the federal level.

So I think officials at Environment Canada and other federal agencies, who are the principal people dealing with this, would deal with those issues. But the Premier has expressed our support. The process, though, will be not only led by, I suspect, but regulated largely by the federal government.

[4:50 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I certainly don’t mean to suggest the process is anything other than rigorous, but I do simply wish to get it on the record that what I have just heard is that the Premier and this government, in collaboration with the Carney Liberal government, are actively supportive of dredging Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden Aframax tankers to transit. Is that correct? Yes or no?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

that what I have just heard is that the Premier and this government, in collaboration with the Carney Liberal government, are actively supportive of dredging Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden Aframax tankers to transit. Is that correct? Yes or no?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

Ward Stamer: We don’t have a whole lot of time, so I just wanted to see if I’m correct in a couple of things that the minister had mentioned. And no, I was never a B.C. Liberal.

From what I understand previously, Site C dam was designed under the Liberal government. The NDP didn’t want to build it in the first place. I remember talking to then opposition leader Horgan about this and asked him specifically what they were going to do. He said they were going to wait for the regulation report that came out, and as it turned out, they changed their mind. So you’re taking credit for something that was actually started from a previous government.

But my question to you, Mr. Minister: Site C dam, the buildings that were up there, they’re still up there. I believe they cost in the neighbourhood of $483 million to build. I’m not sure if you want to answer if they were built with the idea that they could be engineered to be taken down. And if they’re not, what is the plan of this government to be able to use that existing $483 million worth of construction going forward.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just want to make it clear that I don’t think being a B.C. Liberal is something that any member of the House should be embarrassed about or having been that. So it’s no problem confirming that, but also no problem. There are a number of members of the opposition that used to be B.C. Liberals, not least of which is the Leader of the Opposition.

As the member will know, in 2015, B.C. Hydro awarded a $470 million dollar contract to ATCO Two Rivers Lodging Group for the Site C worker accommodation camp. That contract included camp construction and operation and maintenance of the facility through the life of the project. It’s quite an exceptional place. I don’t know if the member’s been there. I’ve been there. It’s quite an exceptional place. I think if I’d been there longer, my jump shot would have got better. It’s also, of course, responsible for decommissioning the worker facility.

In 2023, B.C. Hydro hired a consultant to conduct a market sounding to ensure a thorough canvass of potential buyers in the private sector, provincial ministries, Crown agencies, local governments, First Nations and non-profit organizations. Through this process, there was a high level of engagement and initial interest from more than 20 public sector and industry stakeholders as well as six First Nations communities.

As interested parties assess needs against the camp building design and scale, all parties have determined that camp assets were not suitable for them. It’s a huge facility, very difficult to move. B.C. Hydro remains open to acquisition interests and is working with an accommodation service corporation to broaden market exposure. It remains actively engaged with ATCO in planning for the decommissioning of the worker accommodation facility later this year. If alternate units cannot be found, decommissioning would involve dismantling the facility, along with salvaging or recycling material to minimize the amount that would have to be landfilled.

That’s the circumstance around the project. It was built in the way that it was built. Active efforts have been made to solicit interest from both government and private sector interests. To date, it hasn’t been successful, although there are still people expressing interest.

David Williams: Yeah. I would just like, from our caucus, to say thank you to the minister and his staff for the short and snappy answers and look forward to working with in the future.

[4:55 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister, would you like to make some closing comments?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No closing comments. We’ve got an important discussion with the B.C. Green Party representative coming forward.

I just wanted to thank all four opposition critics for a thoughtful debate, to say that we continue to offer

Minister, would you like to make some closing comments?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No closing comments. We’ve got an important discussion with the B.C. Green Party representative coming forward.

I just wanted to thank all four opposition critics for a thoughtful debate, to say that we continue to offer access to our officials when briefings are required to members of the opposition, and to express my appreciation for their thoughtful participation in the debate, including my hon. friend from Cranbrook on the Columbia River treaty, the member for Peace River South, the member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap, all of the members and the member for Richmond Centre.

So I want to thank all of them for their participation and thank their staff because it’s a lot of work. I always enjoy estimates. I really enjoyed them on the opposition side. And so, I want to thank them and offer them…. If they have more questions for us in this estimates process, that they provide those questions in writing, and I’d be happy to respond positively to that.

The Chair: And my apologies, Leader of the Third Party.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the Minister for all the questions already answered. I’ve been trying to tune in when possible, but I’ve missed large portions of it. I apologize in advance for the repetition. I won’t be quite as effective a verbal jousting partner perhaps as my opposition colleagues, but I’ll try.

I appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions. I’ll start with electricity because, I believe, it’s our way out of this climate mess, and then, unfortunately, we’ll have to move on to fossil fuels. That’s the order of my priorities.

To start, B.C. Hydro’s most recent Integrated Resource Plan lays out a plan to meet electricity demands in the coming decades with consideration for electrification of the whole economy. The plan confirms the need for new sources of clean or renewable energy in the province sooner than previously anticipated. What is the province’s plan to make up this shortfall?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thanks to the Leader of the Green Party for the question. Welcome to the debate. I think this debate represents such an important opportunity for the province, electrification, what it means for jobs, what it means for climate change, what it means for communities, what it means for First Nations people, and what it means for economic development in other industries as well, which is significant.

With respect to our Integrated Resource Plan and what we’re doing, a lot of our capital plan, our capital investment at B.C. Hydro, is to ensure the distribution of electricity. Some of it is in communities that are urban communities.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The need to address…. If the member has recently been to Brentwood and Burnaby, you’ll know the extraordinary development in that neighbourhood of the number of new people living there. The 540,000 new people that came and got MSP numbers in B.C. during my final three years as Minister of Health, for example.

There’s a huge demand for that, which was mitigated over time, a little bit, by some declines in industrial demand that started in the 2000s and went forward from there, some of them to do with some major forest industry, which is a major user of electricity.

And so, I believe that this is the time when we have to advance renewable energy projects in B.C. Last year, my predecessor, the now Minister of Health, announced the call for power that had been led into it by a one-year process to seek renewable electricity.

I think the results of that were extremely positive for the province: nine wind projects, the average levelized price 45 percent below a similar call for power in 2009, so inexpensive.

Of course, all the projects but one, the nine wind and one solar project, nine of them 51 percent First Nations-owned and one 49 percent First Nations-owned. We put a minimum of 25 percent…. I think it showed how effective the process was: clean, low-cost energy and projects around the province.

[5:00 p.m.]

I won’t get into this debate, because it’s coming in the legislature, but I also believe that projects need to be built. That we need to…. Part of dealing with climate change is building an alternative economy, and that means building projects like wind projects in B.C. and getting them done and getting the turbines turning and so on.

get into this debate because it’s coming in the legislature, but I also believe that projects need to be built, that part of dealing with climate change is building an alternative economy. That means building projects like wind projects in B.C. and getting them done and getting the turbines turning and so on.

It’s our intention to follow up with that call for power. It had been initially thought that we would go 24, 26, 28, but I think the demand is there, and I think we should be more ambitious with that. So there will be renewed calls for power for energy but also a desire to look at our options in terms of firm power, of which there are also a number of renewable options.

Earlier in the debate, we excluded in that process nuclear power as an option. But there are very significant options for the province. Think of geothermal, battery technologies. You can think, of course, of hydro as well. So all of those are significant opportunities.

We further have to also explore, because sometimes the cheapest power is the power we don’t use, further investments in conservation, which also help individuals who are dealing with profound affordability issues right now to avoid major costs in energy. B.C. Hydro is already a low-cost provider. With the recent increases, we’ll be 12 percent below the rate of inflation since 2017, the third-lowest electricity rates in North America.

Providing people with an opportunity to save money also builds the economy, also deals with issues of affordability, also builds support for climate change and is part of any serious electricity plan. So those are some of the things we’re looking at now.

In addition to that, B.C. Hydro has some things that it can do to address this, including the sixth unit at Revelstoke, which would also increase the capacity of the hydro system. That project is in process now, but is an important process as well. So B.C. Hydro, First Nations and then, finally, the distribution of that electricity to regions of the province that have inadequate access now for economic development. That includes the northwest, the North Coast transmission line. So all of those things coming together to build economic development.

I’ll just say this finally. I’m very proud of the First Nations involvement in the renewable projects, but for a reason that sometimes people don’t think of. Frequently, major projects get built by major corporations that are not centred in B.C. We’re talking about projects majority-owned by the communities where they’re situated, and that is exciting for economic development and the creation of wealth in regions of B.C.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister. I take the point on public power.

I’m relying a bit on my observations as a layperson over the last ten or 15 years, but my impression is that there were some lost years at B.C. Hydro in terms of bringing on new capacity, and 2005, I believe, was the last call until this past fall. Although I said, you know, we need the energy sooner than previously anticipated, it seems like there was a miscalculation in terms of what new capacity would be expected. I believe that probably a lot of resources were brought into Site C.

Can the minister say what structural changes have been made at B.C. Hydro to make sure that that kind of lack of forecasting won’t happen again in the future? As we know, we’re changing quickly on electrification, and we may find that no matter what we do, we’ve underestimated what power we need.

Hon. Adrian Dix: There’ve been a number of periods, as the member will know. There was significant IPP development in the early noughts. I would argue not especially successful or effective for B.C. Hydro in the way that the calls were undertaken. I’ve written about this elsewhere. I’ll share that information with him, but I don’t think he needs a full history of that time.

[5:05 p.m.]

The last call was 2009, not 2005, but nonetheless that’s a significant thing. In the meantime, B.C. Hydro, which had relatively flat — I’m happy to share this information with the member — power demands over time undertook the Site C project, which adds 8 percent and is obviously a very valuable project

a significant thing. In the meantime, B.C. Hydro, which had — and I’m happy to share this information with the member — relatively flat power demands over time, undertook the Site C project, which adds 8 percent, and is obviously a very valuable project in terms of the capacity it brings to B.C. Hydro’s system. I think it’s significant and in place. And that was undertaken, to be clear, under the previous government. It was reviewed under our government in 2017. We decided to proceed with the project and finished the project. The initial price was $8.335 billion. The final price was $16 billion. So it increased in price as capital projects have over that time. But we could, again, have a discussion on the Site C project. It’s not important, but it does fill a gap.

Over that period there was relatively flat demand. Why? While we saw an increase in residential demand, we didn’t see the same increases in industrial demand, and they tended to cancel themselves out a little bit. We’ve seen in recent years dramatic increases, and we see this not just in energy but in health care and education and everything else. Dramatic increase in population that has occurred over time, right, and that creates substantial new residential demand.

B.C. Hydro continues. We have a B.C. Hydro system. They and Fortis have systems that are regulated by a public regulator, the B.C. Utilities Commission, that does a very good job. So actually, not all publicly owned energy companies have that system in place, but we do in B.C. It’s kind of a unique system.

The CEO and the chair of the B.C. Utilities Commission is Dr. Mark Jaccard, who has a lot of experience in these areas, not just in utilities regulation but on issues of climate change and everything else, and he’s well-known. He has actually significantly, I think, improved efficiency at the Utilities Commission. He deserves a lot of credit for that, and he’s obviously a very active and thoughtful participant in those debates.

When B.C. Hydro submits its plans to the Utilities Commission, including its detailed plans around projects like the wind projects, that is a process that doesn’t occur everywhere. It doesn’t mean we can’t be wrong, but what I am saying to the member is that we are being, and B.C. Hydro is being, in these processes, more aggressive.

Historically, they would wait for the demand for projects before engaging in a process like the North Coast transmission line. We think there’s a strong case to be made that the energy demand is coming, and critical minerals and other things, and that we should address it now so as not to be too late to get there to take advantage of the economic opportunities that the member in the Legislature is supporting, as are we.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate the update on the Site C costs.

Can the minister tell us whether the final tally is in on Site C and what it is? Is it that figure, $16 billion, quoted, or is there a further update to come on the cost of Site C?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think that will be the cost. Of course, we’re not finished exactly, so it’s still estimated cost. But there will be a final project report submitted to the BCUC by B.C. Hydro when it’s fully operational. That will be publicly available, and it will be the responsibility of the BCUC, as it is with all such reports, to review that report at that time.

Jeremy Valeriote: I note the mention of the North Coast transmission line, and I listened with interest to some of the earlier discussion, but I missed part of it. I heard “critical minerals.”

Can the minister tell me who are expected to be the principal customers for North Coast transmission line energy?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, first and foremost, the residents of the northwest. I think it’s fair to say…. I think representatives of the region may be in other Houses, but I think they would tell you that residential service is sometimes not always what it should be. The demand on transmission in the region is significant, but there is a significant number of mining projects in the northwest.

[5:10 p.m.]

Of course, there’s increase in demand, for example, from the Cedar LNG project, which would be in place before the construction of this line, so it’s not, you know — one follows the other. And there’s very significant economic development in and around the Port of Prince Rupert and then into the region.

Cedar LNG project, which would be in place before the construction of this line. It’s not….

One follows the other. There’s very significant economic development in and around the Port of Prince Rupert and then into the region in mining critical minerals projects. Without this transmission line, really, the only alternative, I suppose, to doing it, which would be contrary to our policy, would be some form of gas fire generation to support energy demand there.

We believe there’s a better approach, and that is twinning our transmission line, working with First Nations to do it, and that’s what we’re doing, which is bringing clean electricity from the North to the North.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for that. That’s helpful.

Given the differential rate for industrial customers versus residential, is it fair to say that residential ratepayers will be subsidizing industrial consumers for the energy brought by the North Coast transmission line?

Hon. Adrian Dix: To start with, we have extremely low electricity rates in B.C. Why is this? It’s because we’ve got public power. The only two that compete with us are Manitoba Hydro and Quebec Hydro — public power. Now, Quebec Hydro is doing what we’re doing, which is a massive investment in clean electricity. We’re doing the same thing. You see that reflected in B.C. Hydro’s capital plan, and you see that reflected in the announcements we’ve made on calls for power and the ones that I expect we’ll be making in the future.

All of the incremental power costs more than the heritage power. By definition, it’s just true. It’s true of Site C as well. You build new resources, and then you pay for them over time. They’re going to cost more than the heritage resources.

One of the reasons why overall energy prices are pretty stable in B.C. and below the rate of inflation, at least under this government…. I’m hesitant to criticize the B.C. Liberal government, but 54 percent above the rate of inflation in hydro rates in their time, and 12 percent below the rate of inflation in the current government’s time. I know I’ll have support on this side of the House for that, so that’s good.

What is also true is if you build out new capacity…. That’s true of wind projects, that’s true of Site C, and that’s true of building out transmission capacity, which we have to do. If you’ve got hundreds of thousands more people, you’ve got to bring distribution transmission capacity to get the power to those people. That will cost more. That capital cost is ultimately borne in a utility system by the ratepayer.

If you look at the $36 billion capital plan by B.C. Hydro, the majority of the spending is that kind of spending. It’s new power stations in Burnaby and in Surrey and in communities around the province that are paid for, ultimately, by the ratepayer. Because they’re new, and they’re new costs, they will have an upward pressure on hydro rates, just like building new transmission capacity in the northwest does.

Building new transmission capacity in the northwest might be paid for by people in the Lower Mainland, but so is building a new substation in Brentwood, for example. So that’s meeting the demands of the economy everywhere.

We have different industrial, commercial and residential rates. All of those rate increases are reviewed in normal practice by the Utilities Commission. In the current practice, as you know, we gave a direction for two 3.75 rate increases because it’s going to be an extremely busy period for the Utilities Commission. But the next round will be regulated by the Utilities Commission, as will such projects as the North Coast transmission line be regulated by the Utilities Commission, to ensure that they meet the proper standard, and that if their rate increases, they’re properly ascribed in the process. So having that Utilities Commission process ensures….

[5:15 p.m.]

It’s not that there won’t ever be any rate increases, because if we’re building things, by definition, we’ll have to pay for them, like Site C, like the North Coast transmission line. But having a Utilities Commission process and a public utility as outstanding as B.C. Hydro will benefit everyone and ensure that everyone is treated fairly.

like site C, like the North Coast transmission line, but that having a Utilities Commission process and a public utility as outstanding as B.C. Hydro will benefit everyone and ensure everyone is treated fairly.

The Chair: Recognizing the Leader of the Third Party and a reminder to please direct comments via the Chair.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I’m going to move towards oil and gas. I apologize, through the Chair, that I may jump back to electricity at some point, but I’m new at this. I’m going to try to group my questions.

The net zero by 2030 policy and understanding that there’s recent advice clarifying to net zero ready for certain portions but how does this net zero by 2030 policy ensure that LNG project proponents prioritize on-site emissions reduction over offsetting in alignment with the mitigation hierarchy rather than over relying on carbon offsets as seen in the Ksi Lisims LNG proposal?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Maybe I will just start with the member by going through the policy. Then we can follow up with other parts of it. Really, the policy is that “new large industrial facilities with estimated annual emissions greater than 10,000 tons carbon dioxide equivalent that’ve not already received an environmental assessment certificate….” So we know how that applies to LNG projects. One significant project…. Well, two significant projects…. One that’s not decided, not received its decision to go forward — LNG 2 or LNG candidate 2. That’s already approved in these processes.

“But those projects that have not yet already received an environmental assessment certificate must develop a credible plan to achieve net-zero emissions in the required time frame, that’s 2030 for LNG and 2050 for all other new industry; demonstrate that emissions will be reduced as far as reasonably practicable during facility design and during the lifetime of the project; review and update the plan every five years to consider new technologies; and demonstrate how for emissions not eliminated through reductions the promoter will offset the remainder of the facilities emissions through offset units under the greenhouse gas industrial reporting and control act operating in and beyond the applicable net zero time frame.”

I think the member is asking…. All of that is to lay the foundation. So we don’t repeat what the policy is. The policy is in place in such a way that they have to have a credible plan. They have to be ready to go forward. The clarification that occurred that has received some attention…. It merely states that if the electricity isn’t there at that time, they have to have a plan in place, they have to be ready to take it on so that they’re ready to go when it gets there. And that’s really the only distinction between what the policy was and is.

I think the member understands that, but I wanted to go through it just to lay the foundation for perhaps other answers.

[5:20 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: I do understand the distinction. Thank you to the minister for that.

I’m focused on offsets, and given the concerns around the offsetting program, including issues of additionality, permanence and verifiability, how does the government plan to regulate and verify offsets to prevent double counting and ensure credibility in meeting those net-zero targets?

on offsets. Given the concerns around the offsetting program — including issues of additionality, permanence and verifiability — how does the government plan to regulate and verify offsets to prevent double-counting and ensure credibility in meeting those net-zero targets?

Hon. Adrian Dix: So our offsets are third party–verified, first of all. We have the most stringent requirements in the world. And so to ensure it represents additionality, which is an important principle…. I think in that respect, the processes that are established in B.C. are highly respected around the world. It doesn’t imply that there aren’t concerns about the projects and other issues — of course not. But with respect to that issue — third party–verified, additionality and stringent requirements.

Jeremy Valeriote: Larger issue, but I’m interested in the minister’s take on it. Most of the emissions associated with…. First of all, I appreciate the attempt to get to net zero by 2030, or net-zero-ready, and recognize that that is within the export plant itself and liquefying process.

As we know, most of the emissions associated with the supply and the upstream and downstream supply of the gas…. And so given that the terminal is only a small part of overall emissions, what confidence do we have that the net-zero policy will help address pressures on our B.C. climate targets?

I will leave the downstream discussion, since it’s offshore, outside of Canadian borders. But my question for the minister is: should the upstream portion of this process, fracking and distribution, not be included in this net-zero planning requirement?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, first of all, I just noted in the answer to the first question, in 2050, we have a net-zero requirement at that time. So that’s important. Existing plants, of course, have to deal with the methane rules, if he’s talking about oil and gas, which are significant, as well as the output-based pricing system, which B.C. is supporting continuing to have in place.

In terms of brand-new facilities that are not LNG, which is 2030, the brand-new facilities of all kinds meeting the threshold will require the net-zero plan.

[5:25 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m focused on LNG because, according to the information I have, operational upstream emissions for all six of the proposed LNG projects would make up 40 percent of our 2030 emissions target, leaving 60 percent, of course, for the entire rest of the economy.

To be consistent with the B.C. government’s net-zero new industry intentions

operational upstream emissions for all six of the proposed LNG projects would make up 40 percent of our 2030 emissions target, leaving 60 percent, of course, for the entire rest of the economy.

To be consistent with the B.C. government’s net zero new industry intentions paper, I would expect that the Ksi Lisims application would not be approved until the terminal project’s net-zero plan has been deemed credible by the climate action secretariat. Can the minister confirm that that is the case?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, and it would be the climate action secretariat doing the work. That would be the minister’s decision.

Jeremy Valeriote: Again, on Ksi Lisims, the construction and commissioning are excluded emissions from the net-zero commitments. Does the government have a plan to require LNG projects to account for all emissions, including those from construction, to align with net zero by 2030 policies? And I’ll note that flaring during commissioning is a very large proportion of the carbon emissions and is a very large exemption.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Just generally speaking, I don’t like to do this, because that’s a project that’s in environmental assessment. So those issues could be. I’m not saying they will be, because that particular process is independent of me. But what’s decided about those issues could be addressed in the environmental assessment process, which is obviously a different minister. But I didn’t want to give this “talk to the Minister of Environment” answer. So that’s basically where it’s at.

Jeremy Valeriote: Ksi Lisims includes a non-binding oversight committee for its net-zero plan, and there are no consequences if the proponent ignores the committee’s recommendations. How does the government intend to ensure robust binding oversight mechanisms that hold project proponents accountable for implementing and updating mitigation measures in line with emerging technologies and stricter standards?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Again, the EA conditions are legally binding.

Jeremy Valeriote: Prince Rupert gas transmission line was excluded from Ksi Lisim’s mitigation planning, the BAT/BEP assessment and net-zero planning. These gaps mean that opportunities to address PRGT’s climate impacts are being ignored. Will the province update the PRGT application to reflect this?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Obviously, these are processes that are before regulators now. The member will know the PRGT has its environmental assessment certificate. And it’s in a process to review whether the project has had a substantial start; that process is before the environmental assessment process now. With that, the member understands that as an answer to his question.

[5:30 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: Mentioned output-based pricing system. Can the minister provide a status update of the complete implementation of the OBPS for large industrial polluters?

the OBPS for large industrial polluters?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s fully implemented for all existing industries, and they’re in the process of reporting on their emissions and production. CO2

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m going to go back to offsets, because I’m jumping around. This is a small caucus and a small team and not everything goes according to plan.

The uncertainty of the availability of verified offsets presents a challenge for net-zero pledges. In 2021, we had 1.1 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent from B.C. forest management projects verified in the entire province. Solisums, for example, would require 21 percent of that amount every year, starting in 2028, to be net zero, even with connection to the grid, never mind the competition with other parties also seeking to offset their impacts.

Does the province have a plan to rapidly expand the scale of verified carbon offsetting projects in B.C.?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We were just having a discussion about interfering in markets. But anyway, the short answer is yes. We work closely with the federal government on this and adopt their requirement. That’s their requirements and their approach. That’s the most efficient way to do it.

In addition to that, there’s a belief in markets here and that there’s a market being created here, and we believe that as that market is created and demand increases, there will be opportunities in B.C. for that. That said, the decisions on this project, which is, of course, not approved at present, the process…. The financial decisions that accompany it would maybe be their decisions. They’d have to assess that. But in terms of building out the carbon credit market — yes. Working with the federal government on that — yes. We believe that market demand will drive opportunities there, absolutely.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m going to move back towards solutions. I’m interested in learning a little bit about hydrogen. A couple of questions. What is the ministry’s plan for the rollout of hydrogen fuelling infrastructure and fleets as a solution to increase accessibility and affordability for clean transportation?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Maybe to start, because this is direct funding from the past year: $8.2 million was provided in funding for eight hydrogen-fuelling stations in 2024. Six are operational. Two are being built. So that’s a building out of capacity. In addition to that, we talked about — and I’m going to share with the hon. member; I won’t use up his time with this — 20 projects that we’re working on now with private and public sector proponents.

In addition, of course, B.C. has a hydrogen strategy that involves 63 actions to be taken in the short term. We’ll absolutely share that. What I might offer to the member, depending on what he wants to involve…. We can absolutely offer to the member, with the ministry and with B.C. Hydro, a full briefing on the hydrogen plan — where it’s at.

In some cases, it hasn’t moved forward as quickly as possible, but that’s just the case with all new advancements that sometimes take a while. But the investment, we believe, will be fruitful for B.C., both in economic development but also in building out a network that will support hydrogen as a fuel source.

Jeremy Valeriote: I think the minister has anticipated my next question, which is that the hydrogen strategy is from 2021. So it’s four years old now. It would be really appreciated to get an update on the status of it.

I did have the benefit of visiting some local hydrogen-focused businesses three or four weeks ago in and around Burnaby and North Vancouver, and I did hear about — how can I say this? — maybe a softening of support for hydrogen innovation. I’m wondering whether there’s anything…. As the minister mentioned, not everything moves as quickly as we would like. But is there any hesitation from the ministry over hydrogen as a potential fuel, particularly for transportation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Maybe I’ll just describe some of the actions that have been taken. I’d say on the last question that progress doesn’t always go in a straight line. The potential here is significant, both for the economy and the climate.

A lot of the innovation is by, of course, post-secondary institutions and private corporations. But there’s a significant role, and I’m very appreciative of the work my immediate colleagues have done on this file.

Just to give you a sense of some of the key actions since the strategy released: partnering with the B.C. Centre for Innovation and Clean Energy to publish the B.C. hydrogen regulatory mapping study; providing support for the city of Prince George to develop a central B.C. hydrogen hub; expanding the B.C. Energy Regulator’s mandate — this is going to be a theme for the week, I think — to include regulations for hydrogen, ammonia and methanol production; and setting up the clean energy and major projects office to accelerate the development of clean energy projects.

The hydrogen sector has received support from various government programs. B.C. provided more than $48 million in support for the hydrogen sector since the release of the hydrogen strategy, until the end of this past fiscal year — so until March 31, 2025.

In addition, the low-carbon fuel standard initiative agreement program offers support to low-carbon fuel projects independent of public tax dollars and does not provide direct financial subsidies. Instead, that program issues compliance credits, which hold a fluctuating monetary value in the LCFS or the FSS or the low-carbon fuel standard credit market.

The number of credits allocated to an agreement does not have a guaranteed value, but project proponents assume all risks associated with credit price changes. The IA program currently supports seven hydrogen projects.

[5:40 p.m.]

All of that is some of the high-level summary of what’s happened under the strategy. There’s more detail. I’d be happy to share it with the hon. member. And yes, I believe that this will be a benefit to B.C. The benefit is not immediate. It’s

the high-level summary of what’s happened under the strategy. There’s more detail. I’d be happy to share it with the hon. member. And yes, I believe that this will be of benefit to B.C. The benefit is not immediate. It always was and always will be in the sort of medium term, but I think it’s absolutely worth proceeding on.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m going to move back to oil and gas royalties for a moment. I notice in the budget document between fiscal year ’24-25 all the way to ’26-27 — so two years — the natural gas royalties double. In 2022, the government announced plans for a new oil and gas royalty system with the intention of economic development receiving a fair return on our natural resources and environmental protection. The program is set to take effect on January 1, 2027.

Can the minister please provide an update on this new system for oil and gas royalties?

Hon. Adrian Dix: So what I’ll suggest as well…. I’ll share a document that takes you through the expected timelines, so I won’t talk too much about this.

The key changes to the royalty system, as the member will know, is a revenue minus cost approach with a capital recovery mechanism that uses actual costs, which is a significant change; setting reference price so that it captures more of the commodity’s value; removing incentives to increase production that were based in a time when gas was expected to be scarce; and reevaluating the royalty rates so that revenues are maximized and there’s a minimum that all producers have to pay.

The result, we believe, will be that government receives a fair share of royalties from petroleum and natural gas resources while treating companies fairly. Interestingly, in terms of the prospective years and then the past years, earlier I got a question of why the past years have gone down, and now I’m getting a question why the future years are going up. I just say that is in the nature of parliamentary debate.

Jeremy Valeriote: In May 2022, the province announced the Healing the Land and Emissions Reduction program as a response to the results of deep well credits and to encourage investment in land restoration in the northeast. The program is targeted for implementation in 2025. Can the minister provide a status update on the progress of this program, and can they confirm if any money has been collected for the intention of healing the land in the northeast so we can begin reversing the environmental degradation caused by deep well drilling?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The HLER program hasn’t been stood up yet. We’re working very closely on these issues of restoration, which are fundamental, I think, in the region, with the industry, but in particular with Treaty 8 First Nations.

This is an important initiative for all. What we want to make sure is where we arrive at will lead to the restoration on the land. That’s the most important thing. So that particular program hasn’t been stood up yet. Obviously, there’s work being done on restoration. We believe there needs to be more, and I believe so does the industry. I certainly know Treaty 8 First Nations believe that.

[5:45 p.m.]

So we’re actively involved, including assigning Assistant Deputy Minister Viva Wolf and others to these issues. I intend, as well, to be actively involved in this issue because we need more restoration of the land, and it is, in some ways, a requirement for activity and maybe increases in activity that are reflected in what the member cited from the budget, but also essential for the future of the region.

issue because we need more restoration of the land, and it is, in some ways, a requirement for activity and maybe increases in activity that are reflected in what the member cited from the budget but also essential for the future of the region and for the economic development of the region.

Most of the Treaty 8 First Nations, if not all, have their own companies that deal with issues of restoration, which means that those projects are very positive expressions for First Nations as well as economic development. They have a very sophisticated understanding of the issues, and we’re working closely with them and with the industry to make sure that we’re on the right place on this, and we see improvements in restoration.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m just going to focus on methane, fugitive methane for a moment. I appreciate that this report was tabled today. Thank you to the minister for that. I haven’t been through it enough of a fine-tooth comb to get into the methane piece.

But obviously, the province made a commitment to reduce GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector by 33 to 38 percent by 2030, and this includes a 75 percent reduction of methane emissions from 2014 to 2030 and the near elimination of methane emissions by 2025. Notwithstanding all the other emissions, methane, to me, seems one of the most tragic because it doesn’t benefit anybody.

Can the minister provide a status on this emissions cap, and does the minister foresee us reaching this target?

Hon. Adrian Dix: To date, the progress has been really important: 43 percent reduction since 2015. That’s a real achievement for everyone and, I suppose, especially by the industry.

We believe that we can meet our targets, and we’ll meet our 2030 targets from this respect. We’ll be greatly assisted, I would say, by the federal government mirroring what we’re doing. I think that’s true in lots of areas. That the federal government…. An active federal government — which itself is driving economic development, the clean economy — needs to be an important player here. It is very challenging for one jurisdiction in the country and in North America to take initiatives that aren’t being taken everywhere.

We’ve certainly advocated this with the federal government. I’ve met and spoken on this issue with my federal counterpart. He was my federal counterpart, and he may be again: Minister Wilkinson engaged with Minister Guilbeault, when he was the Minister of the Environment, on this question.

We, of course, increased our regulation on January 1, proceeded to do that. It’s a significant action we’ve taken. I agree with the member, but I also want to acknowledge the significant and positive role that industry has made in achieving what we’ve achieved so far and, obviously, we’ll be counting on them to help us achieve these goals as a province and hopefully as a country.

Jeremy Valeriote: That’s encouraging that we stand a chance of meeting that 2030 goal. We wish it were true for all of our goals, but that’s the work that’s ahead of us.

I just want to dig in a little bit to electrification, especially in the northwest. Is it clear yet whether LNG Canada phase 2 will be electrified? Can the minister provide any new information on that?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it’s clear, but maybe not in the way that the member would like to see. LNG 2 is fully permitted and fully permitted as gas-fired.

[5:50 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: The reason I ask the question is that to provide this electrical power to go from net zero-ready to actually net zero, it would seem that we are removing capacity from potentially other industries in favour of LNG.

I’m trying to understand if there are any boundaries or guardrails to ensure that all this power that we’ve generated

are removing capacity from, potentially, other industries in favour of LNG.

So I’m trying to understand if there are any boundaries or guardrails to ensure that all this power that we’ve generated by B.C. Hydro, by a public power, doesn’t get sucked up, so to speak, from a single industry when it could be benefiting, potentially, innovative industries that are not fossil fuel driven. Is there any mechanism to put boundaries on that so that this electricity can be used by British Columbians, not necessarily export-based, and benefit people within the province?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, economic development…. For example, if we’re talking about critical minerals, it may be that those critical minerals are developed for export, but that would also be very beneficial in terms of jobs and economic development in the province.

Judging that, I would say this. The net-zero requirement does not apply to LNG Canada 2. We’ll call that project that. It doesn’t apply to it because it was permitted in advance of the necessary requirement being put in place.

That in some ways ensures that the electricity we produce is going to be distributed widely into different sectors, including LNG but also the Port of Prince Rupert, also mining projects, also, frankly, residential customers, who sometimes in the region don’t get the service that I think they should get, and any number of other things that are being developed in the region.

I think the transmission line is a single important thing. It is important, and it is valuable.

There’ll be a bit of a debate on this, but I’ll just refer to the Cedar LNG project to be electrified — the lowest emission LNG in the world. I think there’s a whole debate, and there are dozens of economic studies about the displacement of coal. I don’t think you need to think about the displacement of coal. That’s a debate, and there are very interesting views on all sides of that debate. But I think it’s clear that the lowest emission LNG in the world does displace other LNG projects.

Our projects and our LNG being the lowest emission in the world and electrified, and projects like Cedar, which also is, of course, majority owned by a First Nation, who’ve done an exceptional job on that project…. Whatever one thinks of LNG or the issue, the Haisla have just done an extraordinary job on that project — getting it done, getting it through and now getting it under construction. I think that has value, too, and it’s important too.

But the member is quite right. I think we have to, as a province, assess what I call the allocation of resources.

What he’s talking about, we do do in other areas. I’ll give the member a very specific example that involves an action that was sustained in the courts by my predecessor, now Minister of Health, who was Minister of Energy, around crypto mining, which could have potentially, for virtually no jobs, in a lineup system, used a huge amount of electricity resource.

I think one of the challenges of B.C. Hydro and for the province…. There are different jurisdictions that do this differently — I apologize; I’ll try and keep the answers shorter for the member — but say Quebec, which has a different allocation framework. That’s something that absolutely the government of B.C. is looking at, not specifically as it relates to LNG but just generally. How, if we’re building incremental resources, do we ensure the maximum benefit to the province?

It seems to me that the maximum benefit to the province is probably not in some sort of first-come, first-served system, necessarily, when you see a huge amount of demand into the future. We certainly took that view with respect to crypto mining.

[5:55 p.m.]

I think that view is widely supported on all sides of the House including, if I recall correctly, by previous members of the B.C. Green Party in the House.

I think there are options to do that and it is something that we’re under active consideration about, how we best do this in this time when the potential economic development is so great for electricity, where we’re obviously building more

the previous members of the B.C. Green Party in the House.

I think there are options to do that. It is something that we’re under active consideration about, how we best do this in this time when the potential economic development is so great for electricity, where we’re obviously building more electricity, but to ensure that with our 100 percent public-owned Crown corporation B.C. Hydro, we get the maximum benefit of that.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll go back to LNG 1 and 2 and Woodfibre already permitted in a second.

I’m wondering…. There has been, as the minister will know, a lot of speculation about potential subsidies to this industry. I’ve seen quite a bit of speculation that Woodfibre, in particular, is being charged an even lower rate than the industrial rate for electricity.

Can the minister disclose what Woodfibre will be paying for electricity from B.C. Hydro?

Hon. Adrian Dix: They’re going to be charged a standard industrial rate.

Rob Botterell: What LNG expansion is baked into the revenue forecast for the next three years?

You mentioned LNG 2 is permitted. We’ve talked about Cedar. We’ve talked about Woodfibre. What LNG expansion, beyond what is currently in operation, is baked into the revenue forecast for the next three years? And how much is that revenue amount?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, two things.

I’d say to the hon. member that there’s nothing I hate doing more than saying that that’s a question for the Minister of Finance, but it’s kind of a question for the Minister of Finance.

But I’d say that if you’re looking at the next three years of the fiscal plan, only LNG 2, which hasn’t…. Remember, they have not made a decision to proceed, even. That wouldn’t be, necessarily, a revenue-producing project even in the next three years. If you think of where these projects are, I think it’s very unlikely they’d be, quote, “baked into” anything.

But I’m sure that the member might engage on the projections of the Minister of Finance with our outstanding Minister of Finance.

Rob Botterell: To the minister: what studies do you rely on to take the view that LNG has a ready market in Asia and that it will displace coal?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I said quite the opposite. I said the displacement of coal is not a primary consideration. I just noted that there was a public debate about the displacement of coal. I didn’t suggest I was making that case, and I’m not making that case.

The case I made was that when you have a low-emission LNG project like the ones we have in B.C. — lowest-emission LNG in the world — there is a potential to displace other LNG projects, which I think is a reasonable argument. If you assume that there’s a market of a certain size, you’re displacing those projects that might have a positive effect.

[6:00 p.m.]

It’s unlikely to be used to achieve climate targets, but there’s no question it has an effect on the actual climate when you displace a dirtier project with a cleaner project. That’s what I was saying with respect to coal.

With respect to the future of the LNG market, there are…. I could also provide the member, because I read

when you displace a dirtier project with a cleaner project. So that’s what I was saying with respect to coal.

With respect to the future of the LNG market, there are…. I could also provide the member, because I read — it shows where my life is at these days — lots of projections about the LNG market in the world. But I would assume that if you’re talking about investments of tens of billions of dollars, the people making those investments — private sector investments, not investments by the government of British Columbia — would have insight into that question.

There was one set of conclusions, as you know, in, I think, an IEA report, I’m thinking, from last fall, which was more pessimistic than others but dependent on, for example, climate action in the United States. This, let’s just say humbly, is no longer proceeding, so we’ll see in that. But to a degree, it will be…. Those are massive investment decisions by sophisticated, sometimes government-owned, corporations around the world.

I would assume that they are making assessments of that future market in their investment decisions. I read a lot of them. I read some that are bullish and others that are whatever the opposite of bullish is. That’s bearish. But I wouldn’t want to speculate on all that. I just say that I have seen some that are quite pessimistic. But I assume that people making these investment decisions have seen them too.

Jeremy Valeriote: I just want to make sure I heard correctly. Is the minister not contending that there is displacement of coal, that the benefits of B.C. LNG are simply lower-emissions LNG? Did I get that correct? I was under the impression that we had a study suggesting that coal was being displaced by our LNG, but it sounds like maybe that’s not the case.

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, what I’m saying is that there’s a robust international debate about this question.

I’m interested in the debate, and I’ve read about the debate. But I’m not drawing a conclusion about that debate. That’s a debate overall about the displacement of coal by natural gas. As the member will know, coal production and coal energy generation has gone up in recent years and will go up next year. So there may be displacement. But that is not….

There may or may not be displacement. But I’m saying that that is not central to my thinking as Minister of Energy. What I do note, the only thing I did note, was that there’s clearly, in the LNG market, unless you think it’s inexhaustible in some ways…. I don’t think that’s the position of either of my two colleagues. But unless you think it’s inexhaustible….

When you have a project such as Cedar LNG project, you compare it to this sort of notional, unusual, strange and uneconomic proposal around Alaska that’s being made by the United States government right now. Our project is way less emissions and way better.

Jeremy Valeriote: Does the ministry have its own study or at least a B.C.-based study on this impact — either displacing coal or displacing higher-emission LNG — or is it relying on the global conversation that the minister mentioned?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We don’t have our own study, but there are lots of studies, fortunately.

I don’t think, though, that such a study independently commissioned in B.C. on the issues that I’ve raised would be a bad idea. I think it would be quite a good idea. I think it would potentially, given the centrality of this question to the debates in our province…. I think that would be a useful thing to have an independent group work on.

I think that we could do some of that work within the ministry, but I think this is a case, given all the debates involved, where some independent review would be required as well.

[6:05 p.m.]

We’ve heard, and we’ll hear from the industry, these questions, and, of course, from groups that are opposed to LNG as well. But having an independent review establishing baseline facts is something, certainly, that I would consider looking at very seriously.

Heard, and we’ll hear from the industry on these questions and, of course, from groups that are post-LNG as well. But having an independent review establishing baseline facts is something, certainly, that I would consider looking at very seriously.

Jeremy Valeriote: I don’t have it brought up in front of me. I believe the David Suzuki Foundation did a study of this and so, perhaps, I appreciate the suggestion that an independent body be best suited to parse through all that data.

I just have a bit of a broad question here. I understand the philosophy of not moving the goalposts on industry and the effects that that can have, so exempting LNG 1 and Canada 1 and 2 and Woodfibre from these net-zero requirements.

Given how quickly climate science is changing, well how quickly the climate is changing, can the minister describe the risk that would have been involved with including these projects after the fact, after environmental certification? It seems like to me like we are late to the game on that and probably could have required that. But was it an impossibility or just too large a risk of maybe perhaps not getting a final investment decision on LNG Canada 2? What would be the main obstacles to going back and making those requirements for net zero.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, amongst other things, I would think, very significant legal risk.

The Chair: A reminder to the member and to all members that electronic devices must not be used when you have the floor.

Jeremy Valeriote: Okay, can I just for my own edification clarify? I understood it was reading questions off an electronic device. If I’m consulting a document on a device.

The Chair: No, that’s not permitted.

Jeremy Valeriote: Okay. We really are supporting the forestry industry then.

Going from memory, looking at the service plan and acknowledging all the positive developments and plans for positive developments that are involved, the percentage of clean fuels forecast for year to year, I would say, is somewhat underwhelming — one percent increase per year for the next four years.

I’m wondering if the minister can comment on whether there’s a possibility if these targets are artificially low or if the amount of investment that we’re talking about could potentially increase the percentage of clean fuel.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I mean we worked on this issue a little bit. I would say our targets are quite ambitious, and they’re having a real impact. You look at the emissions benefits, the low-carbon fuel standard and the economic benefits are really extraordinary. I think the targets are ambitious. It’s our expectation, we’re going to continue it. We’re going to work closely with industry because you want to make sure you have the capacity to deliver on them. I think those targets are really important.

I would say, and I don’t know how long the member has, but if the member would like to do printouts and stuff, perhaps, if I may suggest, a short recess and then we’ll go the distance at the end. Would that be possible to get to that?

[6:10 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: I was supposed to have two hours, which would take us another 45 minutes. But the minister is so quick at responding to the questions. Previous experiences have been longer

Jeremy Valeriote: I was supposed to have two hours, which would take us another 45 minutes. But the minister is so quick at responding to the questions; previous experiences have been a longer delay. I’m almost ready to wrap up. I think my colleague has one more. And if we could do that one more and then I think I will yield my time or finish up.

Rob Botterell: Over the course of the committee debate and discussion, we’ve discussed a variety of issues and in various ways, we have been guided in our policy approach on climate action by what other jurisdictions are doing or not doing. And the most recent example is the removal of the carbon tax because it was being removed in other jurisdictions in Canada.

My question through the Chair to the minister: is it the policy of your government and your ministry that we will not undertake climate action that is more aggressive than other jurisdictions?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We want to lead other jurisdictions.

I mean, I just say that on the methane regulations, we want to lead other jurisdictions, but surely it makes what we’re doing stronger when we do. Surely if the federal government adopts our approach, for example, to methane emissions and oil and gas, that that’s a positive. It’s a positive because it takes away a challenge to our competitiveness with other jurisdictions. So that’s true, but it also means that our policies that we’ve led on in all kinds of areas, from the low carbon fuel standard policies to other policies, are adopted everywhere.

I hesitate, because of its origins, to say we need to let all the flowers bloom. I won’t give a number. But we need to lead on this. And I believe we’ve done that in lots of areas in the past. The member will know that I proudly voted for Don Davies in the advance poll in Vancouver Kingsway. I’m very proud he got re-elected. But I also feel for climate action that a majority of Members of Parliament who support climate action and might adopt our initiatives, as we might adopt theirs, is a positive thing.

So I don’t see it as: oh, we won’t do it unless everyone else does it. I think we’ve got to lead. On the carbon tax, it was a significant issue, and the Premier made it clear before the election that we were going to get rid of the consumer-facing carbon tax should the federal government do the same. And the reason why that was important was that, of course, the federal government was imposing it anyway. So he was straightforward and clear about what the government would do, and we did it. And there is a robust debate on that question; the member and I participated in that debate when the legislation was brought forward.

But I’m hopeful, I believe, that B.C. can lead, and we need to lead. We are, whatever, 0.4 percent of the world’s emissions. If it’s just us, then it’s not enough. And other countries, I know, do extraordinary things, and we should see what they’re doing to build economic development.

The province of Quebec and Hydro-Québec — I recommend to all hon. members a recent speech by Michael Sabia of Hydro-Québec — where they’re building out, in partnership, by the way, with Newfoundland, in part, an extraordinary development of renewable electricity that counters, in many respects, the economic impact on Quebec of what Mr. Trump is doing. I think that’s extraordinary. I read his speech, and I’m inspired. And I want to do it too. And we are. Our premier is leading on this question too.

So I think we should lead and be inspired, and that’s certainly how I feel.

[6:15 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m all finished. That leaves 40 minutes, and I don’t know how to yield that time….

We should lead and be inspired, and that’s certainly how I feel.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m all finished. That leaves 40 minutes, and I don’t know how to yield that time, whether to another….

Interjections.

Jeremy Valeriote: Oh right, we have independents. Well then, I thank you very much.

Jordan Kealy: I love the energy that is coming from the Energy Minister.

It’s interesting that with the ambition of supporting and adapting and leading the way…. As a farmer, when it comes to growing crops and finding different ways to absorb carbon out of our atmosphere and help our climate emergency…. That said, when are you going to start paying farmers for actually growing the crops that absorb the carbon?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I certainly encourage the member to engage in agriculture estimates where we talk about these very issues.

British Columbia has over the years taken leadership positions on agriculture, including the establishment, in 1973, by legislation in this House, of the Agricultural Land Reserve, without which our agricultural landscape would look very different today everywhere in the province. It’s had extraordinary value, and it was controversial at the time. Why was it controversial? There were people on the lawn like you wouldn’t believe at the time. I think very few people look at that and say that wasn’t the right thing to do.

So absolutely, it’s critical that we support farmers. In the CleanBC program, there are some extraordinary things happening — insect farms in Delta, which I visited recently, which have received exceptional support in that sector, the greenhouse sector. You see their products on our shelves all the time; they’re being snapped up because people want to buy Canadian today. Sometimes there’s only American tomatoes left, and you know what that means? I go without tomatoes. But I would say that we do need to support our agriculture industries, give them opportunities to process and to grow food across B.C.

Equally, we support our forest industry and the efforts for reforestation which are important, as the member will agree, for the planet as well.

This is the Energy Ministry’s debate though, so I gave the member a long answer to what I think his question was: should we support our farmers? Well, we are supporting our farmers, and I appreciate that he would like us to do more or to advance direct payments, and he’s fully able to do that.

Jordan Kealy: Thank you for the answer. That didn’t answer what I was asking though.

When it comes to the carbon capture process, we’re seeing funding being put towards companies where they capture nitrogen out of the atmosphere and then take that and put it underground as a storage, where it could be used as a fertilizer for farmers as well. When it comes to carbon capture and those plants growing and storing that carbon in the plant itself and then being used for food, this isn’t an agriculture question. This is actually in reference to the financial side of carbon capture, as to whether or not you’re going to help the farmers assist in your environmental plans.

The Chair: While the minister is consulting with his team, a reminder to please direct questions and comments through the Chair.

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, you know, I’m reflecting on my insight on agricultural issues. I feel that my first answer may have fully expressed it, but I will move forward.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, you know, I’m reflecting on my insight on agricultural issues. I feel that my first answer may have fully expressed it. But I will move forward, nonetheless.

To the member: I think when you grow something and eat it, you’re not storing carbon, but when you’re composting you might be. The Ministry of Agriculture — that’s why I directed the member there — has regenerative agriculture programs and does support agriculture in that way.

I’m absolutely open to suggestions around CleanBC that the member might have. If he wants to make suggestions to me, I’m happy to take those suggestions. But in terms of regenerative agriculture, the questions are properly directed to the Minister of Agriculture.

Jordan Kealy: I think when it comes to the storage methods, there’s actually a lot of carbon that’s returned into the soil to try to actually benefit the carbon capture in that effect, as well. But I’ll proceed on to the next one if those are too related to the Agriculture Ministry. I can bring those forward on that side.

I’ll proceed to bring up wind turbines in my region — a topic that has been controversial to some. The fact that with an environmental process that is being sidestepped…. People have concerns when it comes to the fact that there’s no recycling program in place for these wind turbine blades. Right now, when they hour out — which they already are in our region and other projects — the only option is to just bury them in the ground.

For reasons like this, it is appropriate to have an environmental assessment program and actually know how you’re going to recycle these products. With that effect, how are you going to handle the cost of the reclamation program of these projects when they time out?

Hon. Adrian Dix: What I’ll say to the hon. member, because he wasn’t here earlier, and I noted this, is that we’re expecting the legislation on this question soon. He’ll have occasion to review that and, should he wish, to review it with me, as well.

With respect to the B.C. Energy Regulator, which will have responsibility for permitting, this is full life cycle. He’ll be familiar with this from his own region, for oil and gas, right? It’s full life cycle regulation that would include decommissioning and, potentially, orphan site funds to support the community should that be required, although that wouldn’t be our expectation.

In other words, what we have often…. We’ll conflate the two. We have environmental assessment. Up to now, wind projects of under 50 megawatts have been exempted from that anyway. So we’re raising that, and we’re making that change, and that’s fine. That’s what we’re doing, and we’ll have the debate on that. I’ll tell the member why I think it’s a good idea, and I hope he votes for it at second reading.

What we do have is the permitting process and the regulation process, which has been assigned to the B.C. Energy Regulator. This is good news for the member because, of course, the B.C. Energy Regulator is a major employer in his community and, I think, is acknowledged to do an excellent job in full life cycle regulation.

They will address in their regulation process all of that, and we’ll debate the principle of the issue shortly in the Legislature. I’m hopeful that I’ll have his and other members’ support.

Jordan Kealy: The reason that I bring that up is that in our region, we’ve been left with a vast amount of abandoned wells and leases that the landowners now have to deal with. That’s including my own property. I’m having to face one of those abandoned lease roads and the well that has been capped off. Right now, it’s still in that process.

[6:25 p.m.]

A lot of these projects are on private land, and they have these agreements. But when it comes to the finalized delivery on how these projects get cleaned up…. I think they’re a great idea, if you want to put them in and invest in certain areas, whether or not they put out more than 50 percent of the power projection.

A lot of these projects are on private land, and they have these agreements, but when it comes to the finalized delivery on how these projects get cleaned up…. I think they’re a great idea, if you want to put them in and invest in certain areas. Whether or not they put out more than 50 percent of the power projection, we still have to see the environmental impact on how they’re going to get reclaimed down the road and the costs that are assessed.

My question, again, is: how is the government going to cover the cost of the reclamation process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member will be familiar with this from the oil and gas industry and the nature of regulation. It seems that he has some concerns with that industry, certainly concerns that I hear when I go to the Peace, because you are living with those issues. Regardless of whether there’s overall support for the oil and gas industry, and I think there is, nonetheless living with the oil and gas industry is different for his constituents than it is for mine. I accept that.

The nice thing about the B.C. Energy Regulator — one of the many nice things — is that it’s self-financing, essentially through fees and on participants. So there will be requirements in that regard. You can expect this is a full life cycle regulation. I suspect you would see funds developed to ensure that as with orphan wells…. We’ve seen the example of that recently, where the energy regulator has taken action for people in his region. You would see this in this area as well.

Obviously, the impact to the land of wind energy is different than it is from natural gas, but I think that’s obvious to everyone and obvious to the hon. member as well.

Jordan Kealy: Thank you very much.

To the minister: where are the efficiency breakdowns provided for major energy projects like Site C dam, which have gone on for more than double over budget? How are British Columbians supposed to know when projects of this scale will actually be paid off and start generating a real-time return rather than burdening taxpayers with endless debt? Where is the transparency on or if these so-called investments will ever deliver a net benefit?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the B.C. Utilities Commission regulates B.C. Hydro and Fortis and other utilities in B.C. The Site C debate, which has been going on essentially all my adult life, has been the most thoroughly reviewed process you could imagine. The initial price of the project when put forward by the previous government was $8.335 billion. It grew to $16 billion, which is close to what the final price is. There’ll be a full report out on that to the BCUC, which they will review.

Equally, the electricity purchase agreements put forward as part of these wind projects, as well, also have to be filed with the B.C. Utilities Commission here in British Columbia. This was a change put in place by a Social Credit government initially, but supported by multiple governments, and I think the member would be in agreement with this.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

We have a utility that’s owned by the people of B.C., but that is also regulated by an independent regulator, the B.C. Utilities Commission. If there are concerns, and so on, with a B.C. Hydro–related initiative, even one where they’re contracting through electricity purchase agreements, there is a place to review that independently, and that independent review happens on a regular and ongoing basis.

Jordan Kealy: Thank you very much.

Where I was getting with that is that when you look at the efficiencies of power generation and the different types of projects that you can choose, especially with the province, some are definitely more efficient than others. When you look at the costs input of wind turbines compared to a dam and how long it takes to actually pay that project off…. What I’m referring to is: what is the most efficient energy generation that we can do?

[6:30 p.m.]

Now, continuing on that, if you look at my region, when it comes to efficiencies, it seems like the government does a great job of putting a lot of these projects in my region. But then it also has to deliver that power primarily all the way down to the other end of the province, to the Lower Mainland, for it to be consumed. That

my region. When it comes to efficiencies, it seems like the government does a great job of putting a lot of these projects in my region. But then it also has to deliver that power primarily all the way down to the other end of the province, to the Lower Mainland, for it to be consumed. That 15 percent line loss — is that actually calculated in projects that you choose and scale up when it comes to the location of the power generation projects that you’re doing, going forward in the future?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you, hon. Chair. Good to see you.

The short answer to that question is yes, but I’d disappoint my colleagues on the opposition side by just giving the short answer. I think they expect more of me. The opposition Whip is encouraging me. Such good news.

The wind projects that were produced, the ten wind projects, are all over B.C. It was a concern, because as a member knows…. Why are there wind projects in the Peace? Because the wind is great in the Peace. Why are there oil and gas projects in the Peace? Because the natural gas is great in the Peace, some of the best natural gas in the world. Why is the Site C dam in the Peace? Well, a little thing we call the Peace, right? So that’s the reason why that’s the case.

And the member will know that the good news about wind projects, which are 45 percent below the cost of the wind project from the previous call for power in 2009…. They have a lower average levelized price by about 9 percent than recent calls for power in Quebec.

They’re all over the province. So we have projects in the Nicola Valley, a project near Kelowna, projects in the central northwest, projects on the north of Vancouver Island, and projects in the Peace. This is good news.

We were a little bit concerned, given the quality of the resource in the Peace, that we would get just projects in the Peace. But that didn’t prove to be the case. In fact, we got projects all over the province, which will bring economic benefits all over the province and economic benefits to First Nations all over the province, who are the member’s constituents when it comes to the Peace. So all of that is a benefit for B.C., I think, and I encourage the member to be supportive of this economic development in our province.

Jordan Kealy: The CleanBC program has ballooned in costs, yet we see no central dashboard tracking outcomes by region, sector or emissions reduction achieved.

Can the minister provide numbers showing rural B.C. what they’re getting in return for their tax dollars, since you love doing projects in my region?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I love doing projects everywhere in B.C., and we think of the opportunities everywhere in B.C. and what it means for the people living in the member’s region and all over the province. We want, in our province, economic development. We want that.

Today in the Legislature I tabled a detailed accounting of the climate action program of the government. I’d be happy to share that with the member. In addition, we did one around EV vehicle programs, which addresses, for example, the geographic distribution, within regions, of EV sales in the province, and registrations, I think — not sales but registration in the province. I’d be happy to share that with the member.

Jordan Kealy: Given the increasing wildfire threats to transmission lines and isolated grids in the Interior and the North, what specific line items in this budget address rural energy resilience — not just climate targets or carbon credits?

One of the reasons that I asked this is that there have been over 3 million hectares burnt in my region. One of the fires that started in Fort Nelson was by a tree that fell on the transmission lines, and one of the projects that local governments have really been emphasizing needs to be done is more maintenance on all the transmission routes.

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: A $36 billion capital plan from B.C. Hydro, all over British Columbia, because in the majority of that plan is not

Hon. Adrian Dix: So a $36 billion capital plan from B.C. Hydro all over British Columbia because in the majority of that plan are not new projects, like the North Coast transmission line and others, but it’s distribution infrastructure in large communities and ensuring that our transmission distribution network is up to where it should be.

With respect to wildfire resilience, it’s obviously a provincial priority. I know the member may have raised this. I believe Minister of Forests’ estimates are over. I know that because I was here watching the Minister of Forests’ outstanding performance in those estimates. It made me feel like I needed to do better. But wildlife resilience in the service plan…. That resilience as opposed to action on wildfire, putting wildfires out for resilience…. The B.C. government announced a $40 million a year commitment to reduce risk back in Budget ’22, which continues to be in place. It funds the Crown land risk reduction project, wildlife resiliency partnerships, cultural burning, and prescribed fire and the FireSmart B.C. program regulations.

I’d encourage the member, in talking about wildfire resilience, which I absolutely agree with him is a critical issue, that he engage that issue, and you don’t need estimates. The Minister of Forests is extremely approachable, and I know he’d be happy to talk to the member about it.

Jordan Kealy: As it stands in British Columbia with Site C dam being the last big project, when is this government going to come forward with a large efficient energy project besides the small-scale wind projects that don’t even produce the amount needed for B.C., primarily with the fact that with the completion of the dam we’re using all of its power already and then we still have to rely on power coming from Alberta and the U.S.?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member will know that our extraordinary B.C. Hydro system…. This is because, in his wisdom, W.A.C. Bennett and his government nationalized B.C. Electric and gave us one of the world’s most remarkable utilities.

All governments, I think, have sustained that over time. Very proud of it. B.C. Hydro does an excellent job for our province. We have, essentially, the lowest electricity prices in the world here. Three Crown-owned utilities — B.C. Hydro, Manitoba Hydro, Quebec Hydro — the lowest rates in the world. It is a singular achievement by our province. We’ve done that by consistently investing in our hydro system and, in some ways, you can only do that when you have a 100 percent Crown corporation which is owned by the people of B.C. That is precisely what B.C. Hydro does.

The member talks about small wind power projects. Those small wind power projects have an equivalent power of Site C dam. I visited Site C dam recently. I know it’s in the member’s riding. It’s pretty big. It’s pretty powerful. It’s eight percent of load. It’s an extraordinary engineering achievement, and it was built by British Columbians, by a British Columbia-owned Crown corporation. How about that?

And these wind projects — all of which will be 50 percent owned by First Nations, meaning by local communities across the province — are going to generate, just those projects, the same amount of power as B.C. Hydro.

Now B.C. Hydro power is more useful overall because it’s firm power, right? So it’s base and firm power. It’s worth more, you can argue. But these are major projects. We’re going to keep going. We’re going to keep building, because you need to build up more power and you need to build out more transmission capacity. We’re absolutely going to do that.

With respect to the import and export of power, we do import and export power. Over the last 15 years, eight of the last 15 years, we exported more power than we imported. In seven, we imported more power than we exported. That depends often on conditions like we’ve seen in the last two years, which are drought conditions. We have the extraordinary flexibility of our system, such that we can hold power and sell it and use it when it has its greatest value.

[6:40 p.m.]

And the result of that is Powerex, which is, essentially, the sales arm of B.C. Hydro. It makes for the people of B.C. — you and me and all our constituents — $550 million a year on average over the last five years. What an achievement by the people of B.C.

Our power, because of our system, is

essentially the sales arm of B.C. Hydro makes for the people of B.C., you and me and all our constituents, $550 million a year on average over the last five years. What an achievement by the people of B.C.

Our power, because of our system, is worth more than the power we import. Yes, there’s a trade-off, and we work with other jurisdictions. You talk about Alberta. You bet we should work more with Alberta. Why is it the case that with other jurisdictions around the world…? Why is it the case that Nigeria and Saudi Arabia are in an alliance on these questions, and we can’t have a better inter-tie relationship with the province of Alberta for not just our win but their win, not just our clean electricity but theirs? Why not? This is a country after all. We’re together in this country, so we should work together.

What I’m saying to the member is that we have truly limitless resource opportunities to produce clean electricity. We need to get on with it, and we are.

Jordan Kealy: I think that’s great that we have the dam. I’d like it if it actually produced as much as the W.A.C. Bennett dam, which has less water flow through it, and the Site C dam only produces about a third the power. That’s a great design, by the way. It would be nice if it actually matched the same power output of the upstream dam. But I think we do need the power. It comes into the fact of water column and drop as to how much power you can generate, if that’s what’s being referred to.

When it comes to power going forward, especially when we look at the consumption and the designs going forward of how people are moving and traversing throughout our province and the electrification demands, we need big-scale projects that are designed to match this, not just come in par. When we do a giant project, we don’t want it to have to be at maximum consumption already when it comes to the strategic planning.

One of the things that I would like to see that would be great that our region could offer is that…. When you look at Fort Nelson and the gas that’s available up there — it’s a dry gas — you could look with First Nations partners at doing co-gen facilities that are very efficient, that just about match the electricity efficiencies. These scales can easily handle what our province needs. That’s what I was referring to.

My question that would be for the minister is: is there strategic planning looking to 20 and 30 years ahead of time?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We have an integrated resource planning process. We do it and file it and it’s reviewed independently by the BCUC. It’s 20 years forward-thinking on generation, 30 years on transmission. B.C. Hydro has to file that regularly, and it does.

Jordan Kealy: We can’t seem to meet our own electrical demands, and you want to electrify the gas transmission lines for shipping our LNG to the coast. How are you justifying this to taxpayers when it comes to creating the infrastructure grid to electrify these compressor stations, when traditionally they can be run off a turbine with the current product that’s getting shipped through the lines, requiring no infrastructure for electricity to be hauled in? Currently we do not have the electricity to power these big projects.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I would say that industry is choosing to electrify because they want to reduce their emissions, and it’s in their long-term interest to do so. They’re acting in that way, and we’re supporting and working with them on that. That makes, it seems to me, a lot of sense.

[6:45 p.m.]

The member talks about the impact emissions can have, I think, on the issue of LNG. I note, and we’ve had this discussion already in the Legislature, that we now have

the member talks about the impact emissions can have, I think, on the issue of LNG.

I note, and we’ve had this discussion already in the legislature, that we’ve we now have three LNG projects under construction; the first is exporting LNG this year. All of those projects were approved and put in place and got their FIDs under the current government, and they all did so because we considered benefits to B.C., considered climate, considered benefits to First Nations, of course, benefits to local community and job creation and benefits to individuals in our province, and those were our conditions. Those conditions have been more successful than the previous situation where we’d approved exactly no projects.

So, I think that one of the advantages B.C. has is it’s renewable energy. I don’t think we can conflate issues of one year. I talked to the member about it — told him before — 15 years, eight times we were net exporters of actual power. Every year our power has been worth more than other jurisdictions; but eight years, net exporters; seven years, net importers. And that’s because water conditions in a hydro-based system often change, and we’ve had a couple of years of drought. It doesn’t appear to be as difficult this year as it was last year, but that affects our ability and how and when we deliver energy.

But our system is remarkable and building on that system with that system as a battery as a backup gives us the ability to drive economic growth across the province with projects like the wind energy project in the member’s region but also the ones in the Nicola Valley and in Kelowna and in north Island and in other parts of the North.

So I think that that is the right approach to take, which is to see our province growing — unprecedented opportunity and economic growth supported by something that B.C. has a lot of: clean energy, clean electricity, resources that will make a difference, not just for our generation but future generations.

Jordan Kealy: Just to clarify on that question that I had: I was referring to with the transmission lines, they use compressor stations to move the product along the pipeline. Those traditionally, when it comes to that transmission, you can have turbines powered off in the natural gas that’s currently on location and on site.

It’s easy, efficient, and it moves the product. It’s handled by the private company, and it’s at no cost to the taxpayer. By using this system, you’re still very energy or environmentally friendly. But by staying with that existing system, it avoids the taxpayers of having to put in new infrastructure for electrification to happen. That is not environmentally friendly, especially when you have to reroute that infrastructure into place to get it to where these compressor stations are.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Nobody’s forcing anybody to electrify. It has real benefits to the industry, and they are investing, and good for them. Good for them. They understand it’s in their immediate and their long-term interest to do so, to make those investments.

We are going to have an extraordinary advantage over other jurisdictions because of this. We already have an advantage. We talked about LNG and the export of the cleanest LNG in the world. That is an advantage in the world. Friends on the other side who work in this industry understand that advantage. It has real value to us. Companies make decisions, investment decisions, based on the climate here, and they’ve been investing in energy and in LNG, for example.

[6:50 p.m.]

As they’re investing in electrification, that allows them to meet their requirements, which are not just for the requirements of the government of British Columbia but requirements of the government of Canada and will, I think, make our industry on the cutting edge or leading edge of industries across the globe. It’s unique and it’s not just in the NDP’s time. It’s unique how the natural gas industry in B.C. has innovated on these questions. I think overall these are positive

edge, the leading edge of industries across the globe.

It’s unique, and it’s not just in the NDP’s time. It’s unique how the natural gas industry in B.C. has innovated on these questions. I think overall, these are positive investments in the economy, private sector investments that I support and encourage, but I don’t mandate.

Jordan Kealy: I think investing in clean energy is a great thing. When it comes to looking at these projects, I would like to know if you can confirm, when it comes to the electrification process and putting the transmission lines into place for these compressor stations and projects…. Is that funded by taxpayers or by private corporations?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just say in general that it’s the responsibility of private customers to connect in general to the B.C. Hydro system.

Jordan Kealy: Does B.C. Hydro own the work camp on the Site C dam location?

Hon. Adrian Dix: So I just say to the hon. member that the hon. member from Kamloops and I had a full exchange on this just a few hours ago in estimates. So I just refer to that.

I will give a shorter answer to this question, which might be desirable for him. I don’t know. He can see whether this answer or the one the member from Kamloops got is the best answer. B.C. Hydro paid ATCO to build, to run and to decommission that work camp.

Jordan Kealy: The reason that I ask about whether or not Hydro owns this camp or ATCO owns this camp is that my region wonders why local government was asked if it could be disposed of in their landfill. Is it Hydro that’s looking to dispose of it in the landfill, or ATCO?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m happy to give a fuller and more fulsome response to the member because it’s important. Sometimes it’s important to say it twice.

The member will know that in 2015…. This tells us about how significant this project is — the number of people who worked there. I’m sure he’s been to the site, as I have. I got to stay there when I was last in Fort St. John, in the region.

It’s pretty impressive work that’s been done on that site by ATCO. I want to give them credit for that work. They awarded, at the time, in 2015, a $470 million contract to ATCO Two Rivers Lodging Group for the Site C worker accommodation camp. The contract includes camp construction and the operation and maintenance of the facility through the life of the project. We asked them to do it. We paid them well. ATCO is also responsible for decommissioning the worker accommodations.

In 2023, B.C. Hydro hired a consultant to conduct a market sounding to ensure a thorough canvass of potential buyers in the private sector. But also provincial ministries, local First Nations and others could look into buying the lodging or the camp. Through the process, there was a lot of engagement. There were more than 20 both public sector and industry stakeholders who were interested, including six First Nations communities. As they all assessed the needs against the camp building design and scale, all parties to date determined that the camp’s assets were not suitable for them.

[6:55 p.m.]

It’s a very large asset. It’s hard to move, as the member would understand. He knows this in part because he received correspondence this week that he was copied on, on this very question. So B.C. Hydro remains open to acquisition.

It’s a very large asset. It’s hard to move, as the member would understand. He knows this, in part, because he received correspondence this week that he was copied on, on this very question.

So B.C. Hydro remains open to acquisition interest and is working with an accommodation services corporation to broaden market exposure for this project, because of course, we would like people to take it on.

They remain actively engaged with ATCO and planning for the decommissioning of the worker accommodation facility later this year. If alternate uses cannot be found — and we, of course, hope that they are — decommissioning would involve dismantling the facility, along with salvaging or recycling materials to minimize the amount that would have to be landfilled.

So that’s the circumstance of the project. This was set out in 2015; we’re now in 2025. Lots of efforts have been made to offer this to everybody. Those efforts to date have not been successful, although they’re not finished.

And we’ll keep the member involved, because it involves his community, and he’s been copied, I think, in the last number of days about correspondence that we’ve had with the community on this issue.

Jordan Kealy: I’m inquiring about this because there’s been a lot of confusion by the community when it comes to this project and, well, with the course of the project the amount of consumption of our landfill, when it comes to disposing of products from the dam project, and trying to maintain dump processing levels and capacities is a continuing issue for regional districts.

I’m very intimate when it comes to that project. I’ve worked there as a millwright, myself, on the location. I’ve seen the camp, and two years ago I was told by ATCO that they had found buyers for the buildings there, because as local government, we were trying to find uses for…. It could be amazing housing that could be used somewhere else. We’re always looking for housing. It’s got a giant movie theatre, commercial kitchens. There is no way that the taxpayers should ever have to see an investment like this go into a dump.

Right now, I bring up about the recycling and disposal of projects, that it’s great to have these projects, and it’s wonderful that we can have people working in our region, but we have to think about reclamation and how we deal with the aftermath of projects as well. And right now, we only have so much capacity left in the landfill for that to be able to go into. So is B.C. Hydro going to follow through with compensation properly to try and dispose of that product if that’s the case?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think the member will know from the correspondence that he’s privy to that B.C. Hydro does have an agreement with the community on the use of the landfill. So that’s clear.

The member says that he thinks they had a buyer a couple of years ago. Well clearly, they didn’t, because they wanted to, and clearly, they didn’t. Part of the challenge with the site, and this is true of similar sites, but smaller sites tend to be more movable or more mobile…. This was a permanent site that was hosting thousands of workers for a decade, essentially. So it’s a different site than a typical site, say on a pipeline project or other projects where you’re a site, you move the site, you move the site, you move the site. That’s not the case with this site.

So this was the arrangement by B.C. Hydro. They have an agreement with the community that, of course, they need to follow through on. And they’re constantly in touch with the community on this issue. I appreciate it’s important to the member, and I’ve heard from his constituents, as well, and spoken to some of them about this issue. I think everyone feels the same way.

When I was Minister of Health, with the hospital in Fort St. John, I said: “Can’t we move something here to provide accommodation for health care workers?” Because that was an issue at that point.

[7:00 p.m.]

So I think everyone agrees that that would be desirable, but you still have to have someone prepared to take it. And because of its location and its size, that is a very difficult proposition. But we haven’t given up, and we’re seeking buyers wherever they may be.

and it’s got size. That is a very difficult proposition, but we haven’t given up, and we’re seeking buyers wherever they may be.

Jordan Kealy: B.C. Hydro at Site C also has a bridge that goes across the river, and right now the taxpayers could be on the hook for dismantling that bridge and demolishing it, because their plans were to take it down. Is there a chance that the ministry could save money by leaving that bridge there as a backup just in case the Taylor Bridge does fall down?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member knows, because he’s been on the site, that this is a construction bridge. They are, of course, built to standard. There are a number of bridges around the site. He’ll also know that because he’s been there, and I’ve been there. He worked there. I didn’t work there. So I’ll leave the other part of his question, as to what, I’m sure, will be an interesting exchange between him and the Minister of Transportation.

The Chair: Recognizing the Leader of the Third Party.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member for Peace River North. I’m back.

Hon. Adrian Dix: You’re back?

Jeremy Valeriote: Yeah, I missed a couple. So I appreciate the time to jump back in. I’ve already curtailed or distracted you from your recess, so I apologize. But I’ll get through these fairly quick. They’re all based on…. They’re all solar.

As the minister knows, across North America, the utility sector is undergoing a transformation. The 21st century grid is more distributed, more participatory and more resilient. Yet B.C. Hydro continues to operate without a clear policy direction on how to embrace this transformation.

The ten-year capital plan proposes $36 billion on community and regional infrastructure investments, yet utilities are evolving, moving from a 20th century model of centralized generation to a 21st century grid that is distributed, digital and participatory. Distributed energy resources, including rooftop solar battery storage and demand-side solutions, offer lower-cost localized alternatives.

I’m getting to a question. What concrete policy direction has the ministry provided to ensure that B.C. Hydro prioritizes these cost-effective and decentralized options in its distribution system planning, beyond limited pilot projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C. Hydro started last year’s program not just for home-based solar but for community and industrial solar, where you can participate in the system, and there are incentives for that program as well.

[7:05 p.m.]

That said, it has some limitations. We have the lowest-cost electricity, essentially, in the world, and that puts limitations on what you can pay or what you ought to pay for electricity that would be coming in the system. But that said, these programs exist, and I think the potential for them to grow is significant. I agree with member. They create opportunities for

in the world and that puts limitations on what you can pay or what you ought to pay for electricity that would be coming in the system. But that said, these programs exist, and I think the potential for them to grow is significant — I agree with the member — and they create opportunities for B.C. Hydro and opportunities for people.

These programs exist; we’re moving forward with them. I would say, in a general sense, that the uptake has not been significant up to now, but I expect it to grow over time and it shows our interest in these issues that new programs have been developed.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you, Minister.

So as we know, B.C. Hydro’s net-metering rate redesign is advancing ahead of our CleanBC review under CARGA, potentially without guidance from the ministry. Given the importance of ensuring that regulatory rate design reflects current government policy, has interim guidance been issued to pause or align this proceeding or will the minister commit to ensuring that major rate-setting decisions do not lock in outdated assumptions before CleanBC is complete, especially when they concern the role of customer-sited energy in a modernized grid.

Hon. Adrian Dix: So Hydro is updating its net-metering program. It will come before the Commission. So it’s certainly something that can be discussed in the CleanBC process as well.

Jeremy Valeriote: Question. Second to last question. Thank you again to the member for Peace River North.

The claim that the grid is 98 percent clean overlooks recent science showing that large hydro reservoirs emit substantial methane. If B.C. is to lead in climate policy and energy transparency, will the ministry direct B.C. Hydro to update its emissions accounting to include full-life-cycle GHGs from legacy hydro?

And will the minister require that future planning and rate design fairly reflect the climate value of these distributed renewables rather than discounting them based on incomplete assumptions?

Hon. Adrian Dix: So that issue is extensively canvassed in the environmental assessment of site C. It should be said that there are more emissions in hydroelectric projects in more tropical environments. The member will understand the reason why. Those issues have been addressed and obviously they continue to be addressed.

The member will know that the B.C. Utilities Commission, for example, plays an important role in assessing issues around climate action as well as others. And so I would expect those issues to continue to be canvassed.

In terms of the CleanBC review as well, those issues of targets and definitions will be part of the review as the member knows.

Jeremy Valeriote: Yes, this is my last question and I apologize it’s taken so long to get to a recess.

In jurisdictions like California, Minnesota and Australia, utilities are required to publish hosting capacity maps, open access heat maps of the grid that show where distributed energy resources can connect most cost-effectively. As we move, in B.C., towards this type of distributed energy system, looking for information on steps the ministry is taking to ensure B.C. Hydro provides this kind of transparency, will the minister direct the utility to publish hosting capacity heat maps to support the orderly affordable development of distributed generation particularly in communities of First Nations looking to participate in the energy transition?

[7:10 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it’s something we could certainly take a look at, something the BCUC could take a look at, and something that the CleanBC review could take a look at. At present, Hydro is not doing that work. They’ve done work like it, and I can provide the member with more information, but it’s not specifically relevant to his question.

These are issues that, of course, can be reviewed and looked at as the grid falls.

The Chair: At this time, I will have the committee take a five-minute recess. I have 7:10 on my watch, so I’d appreciate it if everybody was back in their seats by 7:15, please.

The committee recessed from 7:11 p.m. to 7:17 p.m.

[7:15 p.m.]

The committee recessed from 7:11 p.m. to 7:17 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee back to order, and we will resume estimates.

Jordan Kealy: Look at that. I care so much about the environment that I even help out the Green Party too.

Going back to my previous question, when it comes to the Site C temporary bridge that’s in place on that dam location, can I please have an answer as to whether or not that is Ministry of Infrastructure or is that currently an asset of B.C. Hydro?

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C. Hydro — and it’s possible there may be a spot for the member in the Green caucus.

Jordan Kealy: Thank you very much. Yeah, I don’t think they could ever handle that.

Right now, there’s a major concern in my region when it comes to how much money the Crown corporation is going to pay with taxpayers’ dollars to dismantle this bridge that could be a piece of critical infrastructure in case…. Our bridge, that’s lacking right now, is in the process of being evaluated as to whether or not it could be replaced.

Is the ministry willing to follow through spending those taxpayers’ dollars on an asset that could be used in a beneficial way?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s a temporary bridge. It’s a construction bridge. It’s not up to highway standard and removal of the bridge is part of the project budget.

Jordan Kealy: As I recall with the first bridge when it collapsed, I don’t think a barge is up to highway standards either. When it comes to a piece of critical infrastructure that if this bridge could be used as a backup, just like the railway bridge got used with the original bridge collapse of the Taylor Bridge, would the ministry hold off spending taxpayers’ dollars in dismantling or destroying this bridge, even though it’s temporary, until a resolution comes forward as to whether or not the Taylor Bridge is going to get replaced?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I appreciate the member’s interest in the issue of the Taylor Bridge, which he’s raised in question period, I appreciate his concern and passion on that issue. This bridge is not appropriate to that purpose, and it’s not taxpayers’ dollars to be precise. It’s ratepayers’ dollars. It’s the B.C. Hydro project they put in place.

[7:20 p.m.]

So the answer to that question is that B.C. Hydro will proceed, further to its plan, to decommission the bridge at the appropriate moment.

Jordan Kealy: That doesn’t really answer my question, whether or not it’s ratepayers or it’s taxpayers

B.C. Hydro will proceed further to its plan to decommission the bridge at the appropriate moment.

Jordan Kealy: That doesn’t really answer my question. Whether or not it’s ratepayers or it’s taxpayers, the asset that was put in place when it came to the Site C project was funded by the taxpayers of British Columbia. If an asset could still be used, whether it’s just on a temporary basis, are you going to dismantle and spend taxpayers’ dollars on something that could be of use when it comes to a bridge right beside it that needs to be replaced?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The distinction I made…. As the member just said, it was built with taxpayers’ dollars. If it was built with ratepayers’ dollars, which is a different question, it’s a different budget. I’m just making that point clear, not disputing with the hon. member.

The bridge itself is not to highway standard. Perhaps what the member is asking, if he doesn’t succeed or the community doesn’t succeed and the Minister of Transportation has already given him an answer that he’s working on this issue, including, I think, working with him and working with others in the community. The Minister of Transportation…. Is he actually proposing a dramatic investment in this bridge to bring it to highway standard in case we don’t address the other issue?

I think the other issue is an appropriate one for his discussions with the Minister of Transportation, and that’s where that discussion should take place.

Jordan Kealy: When it comes to a large project coming to completion and the plans for disposing of assets that could be used in different ways…. We’re seeing time after time now that whether it’s a Site C dam, when it comes to their camp, whether it’s a bridge that could be used for an alternate purpose…. You would just have to look at variances or different upgrades. When it comes to wind turbine blades right now, there’s no recycling program in place to deal with these blades other than burying them in the ground or putting them in a landfill that’s already near capacity. Is the ministry going to plan for the future remediation of projects like these?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The B.C. Energy Regulator, as I said in one of my first answers to the hon. member, does life-cycle regulations not dissimilar to what happens in the oil and gas sector. The member talks about two examples that were always designed, one in the case of the bridge, to be a temporary bridge for construction, that he’s well aware of because he worked on the site, and the other a temporary accommodation for workers, albeit a ten-year accommodation for workers. That’s how long the ATCO site has been in operation — a very significant investment. These were always the plans for these projects.

In the case of the accommodation, B.C. Hydro is making every effort to find an alternate group who would take that, but it’s a very challenging process for reasons that are obvious to anyone who has seen the site.

In the case of the bridge, if what the member is saying is that the creation of a temporary bridge on the Site C site should be made a permanent highway bridge at, presumably, taxpayers’ expense, I don’t think that’s the solution to the Taylor question. The solution to the Taylor question is with the Minister of Transportation and the member and community and everyone else.

Dallas Brodie: Minister, could you please provide your best estimate of the total dollar amount and total time, measured in ministry full-time employee hours for staff and contractors, in the upcoming fiscal year for all ministry activities relating to addressing climate crisis, including any programs or efforts to study, monitor, reduce, mitigate, offset or otherwise address greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of climate change? That’s a best estimate of the total dollar amount.

[7:25 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I refer the member to the supplement to the estimates, pages 36 and 37. With respect to climate action, that includes the measures, the secretariat and activities involved and supported therein. The total ’25-26 budgetary operating expenses are $19.273 million. In the ’24-25 operating year, the amount was $19.064 million.

As noted, that information is available in the supplement to the estimates.

Dallas Brodie: Thank you for that.

Minister, could you please provide your best estimate of the total dollar amount and total time, also measured in ministry full-time employee hours for staff and contractors, in the upcoming fiscal year for all ministry expenditures relating to Indigenous matters, including any transfers, training, stewardship programs, revenue sharing, negotiations or other programs relating to Indigenous peoples, initiatives, issues or other Indigenous matters?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The number of staff specifically focused on Indigenous issues is not more than 15. I believe it’s 12 overall that specifically focus on that, obviously.

We’re here to serve the people of B.C., and that includes Indigenous people. We have an ADM who’s working on energy issues in the northeast and leading those, and a lot of those issues are Indigenous issues in the northeast. It’s an outstanding ADM, Viva Wolf, who works on those issues, and she has a team of six. Beyond that, with other programs, it would be in the range of 12 to 15 FTEs.

Dallas Brodie: This next question is about return on investment. Can the minister provide a cost-benefit analysis demonstrating the tangible returns for taxpayers from the $10.359 million allocated annually to the First Nations clean energy business fund?

Specifically, how many megawatts of clean energy, community-owned infrastructure or long-term jobs have resulted per dollar spent? Once again, that’s the $10.35 million allocated annually to the First Nations clean energy business fund. It is earmarked and separated out.

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thanks to the member for her question about the First Nations clean energy business fund. The province is currently accepting applications for the fund until April 30, 2025, which is soon. On April 1, 2024, responsibility for administering the fund was transferred from the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation to the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions to leverage the ministry’s clean energy expertise. It seems like a reasonable approach.

Since the First Nations clean energy business fund was launched in 2011, more than 150 First Nations communities have benefited from more than $21 million in funding for clean energy and energy-efficient programs. Currently, 46 First Nations benefit from 71 clean energy revenue-sharing agreements with B.C. that are based on revenues to government from water and land rents.

I’d be happy to share with the hon. member more details on the fund, should she require it.

Dallas Brodie: Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The next question is about performance tracking.

The Chair: Member, I’ll remind you, I’m the Chair. This is the Clerk. We get confused.

Dallas Brodie: I’m sorry. Sorry, Madam Chair. Yes, thank you. New to doing estimates. Yes, thanks.

So this is about absence of performance tracking or presence of performance tracking, I hope. What concrete metrics, such as (1) emissions reduced to grid-connected renewable capacity, and (3) community energy independence achieved, has the ministry used to track performance of First Nations clean energy investments over the last five years? And if it has been tracked, where does that data publish?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As noted, I’d be happy to provide the member with some detailed breakdown, year by year, which is what she’s asking for — maybe over the course of the entire fund, because it’s a fund that was put in place, as the member will know, 14 years ago. And project support and community support, I listed off some of the high-level details. I’d be happy to provide the member with more information. In fact, we take the question as read, but if the member would like to be even more specific in writing, I’d be happy to seek out that information for her.

Dallas Brodie: Given that the fund, noted earlier, has existed since 2010, can the minister account for why there is still no centralized public reporting dashboard detailing the outcomes, timelines and costs per project breakdowns for initiatives funded under the First Nations clean energy business fund? This is a large annual allocation — very large — and of course, taxpayers don’t mind paying taxes and funding things, but they like to see the results that are being generated from those expensive projects.

[7:35 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member is correct. There’s no public dashboard, and that, ordinarily, would not be the case. Let’s say the fund was operated under the Ministry of Indigenous Relations until 2024. It’s now been taken over by our ministry. As typically happens

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member is correct. There’s no public dashboard, and that ordinarily would not be the case. As I say, the fund was operated under the Ministry of Indigenous Relations until 2024. It’s now been taken over by our ministry. As typically happens, we’re always looking for efficiencies as well to make sure that there’s full value for the money.

What I’d suggest to the member…. The member can ask any questions that she’d like and lay them out. But what I’ve agreed to do is provide the member with some information. Should that information be unsatisfying to the member, she can communicate that to me, and we can try and find the appropriate answers.

Dallas Brodie: It’s my final question, Mr. Minister. This is about…. With a lot of these allocations often come meetings, conferences and so on versus shovels in the ground and actually getting things done. People come for meetings and meetings and meetings.

This question is about: of the money that’s being allocated for this fiscal year, is the minister aware of how much is being absorbed by consultations, facilitations, engagement workshops and administrative overhead as opposed to actual shovels-in-the-ground infrastructure?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, typically, I mean, there are different programs that one does. This is a fund, and there are applications against that fund. So there may be costs in the application and assessment project process, but this is not something where you create large public events or conferences, as the member suggests.

These are funds, and those funds are administered. People apply against those funds. The main issues of concern in such circumstances are: how are the funds being used, and how is it being communicated so that, for example, the whole group of First Nations who might wish to allocate and receive access to the fund would benefit? Are they getting fair access to that information out there?

I’m certain that we would publicize the existence of the fund and the application process to make sure we get the best possible and the largest group of applications. But typically, a fund like this does not have a large administrative cost, and this one certainly does not.

Dallas Brodie: I have one last question following on that. If there is an allocation through your ministry to First Nations–specific projects, are those reflected also somewhere in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, such that the full dollar amount being allocated in this regard is being shown to the full amount, or is this separate from a budget that’s being shown in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This was in the budget of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, and it was transferred. It was transferred because of the expertise of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions on clean energy projects. It felt that if you’re doing a fund that’s promoting clean energy projects, the best place to situate that fund would be the Ministry of Energy and not the Ministry of Indigenous Relations.

The member will know that there are annual reports broadly around the reconciliation policies of the government. There are important reports that all ministries contribute to every year. There’s that aspect. That’s the process that the Declaration Act secretariat and the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation manages. But in this case, we would be reporting as part of the government’s broad effort to work with First Nations. For example, we would be reporting these activities, but the management of this fund is with my ministry, the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions.

Jordan Kealy: Couldn’t get rid of me that easily.

I was kind of curious about the 2030 emissions target, the targets that aren’t going to be met. When we hear about a lot of the environmental goals, or when we look at the things that are offered to British Columbians to try and make a difference to our environment, almost every single initiative is targeted to southern B.C.

Is there an equitable plan to offer these kind of projects to people in the North? Right now, feasibly, I will never drive a Tesla, and one of the primary facts is that the batteries will freeze in minus 40.

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I can assure the member I will never drive a Tesla. I drive a 2003 Nissan Sentra, which I probably wouldn’t

feasibility, I will never drive a Tesla and one of the primary facts is that the batteries will freeze in minus 40.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I can assure the member I will never drive a Tesla. I drive a 2003 Nissan Sentra, in which I probably wouldn’t have survived too many winters in his community either.

But in any event, there is a huge focus on regional equity. We see this with projects, which are producing economic growth in the North; actions, for example, the EV program, because of the inclusion of plug-in hybrids, is quite a bit to do with the need to ensure access to those cars, which would be much more used and much more durable in some northern communities.

If you look at the distribution of all the things that we’re working on in terms of CleanBC, there is enormous investment in every region of the province. There is an absolute connection to regional equity. It may be different things in different regions.

We fundamentally believe in the value of the North Coast transmission line, which is a massive investment. And the purpose of the North Coast transmission line is to ensure that the energy that’s produced in the North is available to people in the northwest in a way that hasn’t happened before. So doubling that transmission line has real value. That’s CleanBC. That’s clean electricity. That’s building economic development. That’s improving residential service in the northwest. And that will be paid for by all the ratepayers of the province. Just as the substation in Burnaby, because we’re seeing massive new development in a community like Burnaby, is paid for by all the rate payers of the province.

So if you look at the B.C. Hydro ten-year capital plan, a very significant part of that, for example, is one initiative being invested in the North because of the central importance of the North to communities. Equally, the support for buildings, the support in transportation, the support in other areas also serve the North. It’s true that there’s a greater uptake on EVs in southern Vancouver Island and in Metro Vancouver. And that’s just the way it is.

There’s actually a higher uptake for EVs in the Yukon than there is in northern B.C., which means we’ve got to do some more work in northern B.C., you might argue, right? It’s 11 percent in the Yukon. It’s about 5 percent to 6 percent of new car sales in the northern B.C. regions in a general sense.

So I’d be happy to talk all night about what we’re doing in the northern region. I believe that to succeed, we have to succeed everywhere in our actions on climate change and in building a clean economy. And that begins everywhere, but one of the places it begins is in the North.

Jordan Kealy: Thank you very much. I think you strayed a little bit off of what I was asking a question on there. What is going to be offered to British Columbians that’s equitable depending on the regions that you live in? Because right now, having a heat pump doesn’t do me any good; having a Tesla doesn’t do me any good.

Are we willing to look at options so that northern communities aren’t being discriminated against because of where they live? Is there an option to find different alternatives that work in different regions of the province?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, yes, and you see that with a number of the initiatives we’ve taken.

No one’s getting a subsidy on a Tesla today. It doesn’t matter if they live in Richmond or Dawson Creek. I’m not sure that’s the right example to use. I will never drive a Tesla either, so you see how things we have in common are so many.

I think the member is quite right. The program has to work everywhere and some of the programs that work in the south don’t work in the north and vice versa. And so I agree with the member, and that’s precisely what we’re doing.

I’d be happy to brief the member on all the extent of that. I think a 15-minute speech for me at this point might not be the right way to do that briefing, but I’d be happy to ensure that the member’s involved and to take any suggestions the member would have as to how we can proceed and pursue our collective climate change agenda.

[7:45 p.m.]

Because the one thing that’s equal between the South and the North is the impact of climate change. It’s fires like the fires in Fort Nelson that almost took the town down and almost affected Kelowna and did destroy Lytton. Those are things we have in common.

as to how we can proceed and pursue our collective climate change agenda. Because the one thing that’s equal between the south and the north: it’s the impact of climate change; it’s fires like the fires in Fort Nelson that almost took the town down and almost affected Kelowna and did destroy Lytton. Those are things we have in common.

The impact of climate change on all of us are profound. That’s something that we all share and why we all have to take collective action to ensure…. In the CleanBC program, we have to take action to ensure that public support grows that program as it addresses other issues such as clean economic development and affordability.

Jordan Kealy: It’s interesting how you bring up fires in the climate right now, because my area is still on fire and the local municipality of Fort Nelson is paying to actually try and put that fire out rather than the province helping them, because they choose to leave it burn over wintertime so that it can actually come back and start another fire. And right now climate wise, when you talk about carbon capture, all the trees that got burnt, three million hectares of trees, aren’t getting replanted right now. So where’s carbon capture?

Where I’m getting at is that in the North we have a different lifestyle. When it comes to electrifying everything, it’s not necessarily easy. On my farm, right now, when it comes to operating the equipment and being able to feed locals and provide for locals, I probably have about 25 different engines on my property and different pieces of equipment. I can’t just simply electrify them. I can’t cover that cost.

We have to find different ways of approaching different regions and we have to be able to support our farmers and different sectors in different alternative ways, and right now, I’m not seeing those alternative ways. I’m just seeing: “Buy a heat pump. We’ll give you a rebate.” No that doesn’t work for me. Right now, do you want me to put food on people’s tables? I’d love to be able to do that. I’d love to be able to actually do a carbon capture program, but right now, it seems like that only wants to be offered to a large corporation in a different style.

A lot of that carbon that they’re capturing, the CO2, they’re putting it downhole where they could be putting into greenhouses. Right now greenhouses are actually paying for that gas to go into their greenhouses to enhance food production for locals. There are different ways that we can approach how we deal with energy and climate; but right now, in the North, we feel neglected when we’re trying to bring these concerns forward.

My other concern that we have for the North: it’s great that the carbon tax is going to be reduced to zero. The act is still there. But when we look at getting the LNG to the coast and we hit the cost of when it actually comes to the international market, it’s going to jump and we’re going to go to the highest bidder or the private companies will. At that time, we’re going to see all of our local commodity prices shift to match that. When it comes to the carbon cap that the province is putting on larger corporations, are we going to direct that cost onto the countries that are buying this rather than onto the locals that consume it?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, as someone who is occasionally accused of stream of consciousness, I would say that was a bit of stream of consciousness, but I’ll do my best to respond.

[7:50 p.m.]

The benefits in the North…. I see the member for Prince George here has a low-carbon fuel standard. It has led to the development of renewable diesel at Tidewater. That’s the low-carbon fuel standard. That’s CleanBC. That’s jobs in the North. That’s transformation, potentially — something that we’re working on, we’re going to still work on together, because I think it has value, not just to the people working there and to a successful business…. We believe in a successful business model. But all the people who are using that renewable diesel in the region because it serves the region.

it’s transformation, potentially, something that we’re going to still work on together because I think it has value, not just to the people working there and to a successful business. We believe in a successful business model, but all the people who are using that renewable diesel in the region because it serves the region…. That’s an example in the North.

Through the CleanBC industry fund, I’d be happy…. I’ll share this with a member tomorrow. I’ll get him list of all the programs and projects that we’re developing in the North, in that fund. In fact, disproportionately in the North, in that fund.

I think there’s a tendency in the debate…. We see it in all our communities, sometimes between the east side and the west side. Sometimes between other people to say: “We’re not supporting one region, we’re supporting another,” or there’s some form of bias and allocation of resources. In fact, there’s enormous investment going on in the North.

The elements of what makes a clean economy in the North may be different. Let’s acknowledge that, and so, in that sense, I agree with what the member’s saying. When we build things like transmission lines in the North that provide an option for people living in the northwest — which I recognize is not the member’s region, but I’m sure he’s supportive of this — that instead of all of the power going from Site C south, to double our capacity, to move that towards the northwest.

I think that is a profoundly equitable thing to do; what I would expect the government of B.C. to do in terms of building equitable economic development across the region. Equally with respect to agriculture, where there is enormous opportunity, I believe, in our province right now, in all regions, from the greenhouse farmers, who seem supported by CleanBC in different parts of the province, that’s a particular type of farming, to other agricultural efforts.

We talked about the programs of the Ministry of Agriculture, which I encourage the member to take a look at. I think these are all enormous opportunities for our province. The circumstance that we’re all in — which is that the previous decades-long free trade agreement with the United States, which is essentially being violated by the United States — means that we have to support each other more, consult more self-sufficiently, and work together more.

I believe that involves people in my community supporting people in his community — and then in the member’s community and vice versa.

Jordan Kealy: I think there’s a little bit of confusion of what I was talking about. When it comes to what’s offered to British Columbians in rebates, it’s whether or not it’s equitable in one region compared to another is what I was referring to.

If southern half of the province can use heat pumps, and it’s feasible, but those don’t work in another region, well, maybe we need to look at an equitable way to help the other region. I’m glad that the Minister of Energy is embracing our resources. It’s good to see. We want to see that happen in a way bigger way, and I think there’s great potential for that.

I think it’s wonderful that British Columbians can go out and get a job, especially with innovative projects like we were seeing when it comes to other facilities being embraced. That wasn’t what I was getting at. I was getting at what can make the cost of living cheaper for all British Columbians to have access to…. Not just certain initiatives that will benefit one region compared to another.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I would say that there are always going to be measures that have higher uptakes in some region than another. When I was Minister of Health, the first project we approved was Williams Lake, the second project was Terrace, the third I think was Fort St. James. We approved a hospital in Dawson Creek that had been on the paper for 20 years, never proceeded with. We proceeded with that project. I’m glad of it. We’ve never seen a development of health care infrastructure like that, and the Minister of Health is leading that. I’m sure the member had an opportunity to ask our outstanding Minister of Health about that in estimates.

[7:55 p.m.]

I don’t think building a hospital in Dawson Creek is a loss for anybody. I think it’s a gain for people. There may be programs that have higher take-up in Metro Vancouver than they do in Fort St. John, equally. There ought to be…. I think the case I’m making to the member is that every program doesn’t have to be equally distributed

is a loss for anybody. I think it’s a gain for people.

There may be programs that have higher takeup in Metro Vancouver than they do in Fort St. John, equally. There ought to be…. I think the case I’m making to the member is that every program doesn’t have to be equally distributed — equally offered, yes, but not equally distributed, because, as he says, there are reasons why people in the North have less affection for EVs than, say, people in the Yukon, which is farther north.

There may be reasons for that. You have to address those reasons, but there also need to be — I agree with him — programs that support people in different regions that maybe don’t have any takeup in Vancouver or any takeup in Richmond or any takeup in Saanich or any takeup in Nanaimo.

I think it’s always a balance of these things, and that’s why I’m proud to provide the member with the many CleanBC initiatives and investments in the North.

Jordan Kealy: I want to thank the minister for his time.

I just want to finish with the fact that my region is willing to embrace any energy project going forward that’s beneficial to the region, and we’re always willing to work with you going forward. Please feel free to reach out any time you’re in the region. Thank you.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’ll just close by thanking all the members of the opposition. I have the honour for the official opposition of having four critics, and they all did excellent work in our estimates. I very much appreciate their questions — the independent members, the two members of the B.C. Green caucus who participated in the debate.

I believe in this estimates process. I think it has utility. I think I get ideas, and I hear from members of the opposition about concerns in their communities and reflect them in government policy. I encourage people to keep going deeper and keep working in this process.

I’ve had the occasion to work on the opposition side for 12 years. I’m getting there on the government side — almost equal. But I wanted to appreciate all the members who participated. With that, I believe, I’m going to move the resolution, the vote, if no one else gets up.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, shall vote 23 pass?

Vote 23: ministry operations, $90,831,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee now stands adjourned, and I will report.

The committee rose at 7:58 p.m.

The committee resumed at 8:10 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of
Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

The Chair: Good evening, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.

We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $75,134,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I do, thank you.

Good afternoon. I’m grateful to be here on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən peoples, the Songhees and SXIMEȽEȽ Nations. The lək̓ʷəŋən people have lived, hunted, gathered food and medicine on these lands since time immemorial. This land is inseparable from the lives, laws, languages, art and culture of those who have lived here since time immemorial.

It is my pleasure and honour to speak today on the estimates for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the Declaration Act secretariat as part of Budget 2025. Joining me for estimates from the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation are Deputy Minister Tom McCarthy; Ranbir Parmar, assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer; Carolyn Camper, assistant deputy minister of the negotiations and regional operations division.

This division is responsible for negotiating and implementing major reconciliation agreements with First Nations in B.C., agreements including incremental treaty agreements, comprehensive reconciliation agreements, consultation and revenue-sharing agreements and others. These agreements are negotiated in collaboration with First Nations, provincial agencies and the federal government and focus on both natural resource matters and social sector areas.

We have a number of staff joining us today. Some of them are joining virtually, and more weren’t able to make it in time this evening but will be joining us tomorrow. I’m going to continue to introduce them as they will join us throughout.

Anne Marie Sam, assistant deputy minister of the reconciliation transformation and strategies division, will also be joining us. This part of the ministry provides a leadership role for the development and implementation of strategic cross-government reconciliation initiatives, such as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act implementation, including the Declaration Act action plan and Declaration Act annual report, the commitment document with the First Nations Leadership Council and the draft ten principles.

This division consists of three work units: Indigenous economic development, intergovernmental relations and stakeholder engagement and the reconciliation strategies branch.

Julia Iwama, assistant deputy minister of the strategic initiatives and partnerships division, is also here today. This division of the ministry is responsible for overseeing key reconciliation activities, such as improving social and economic outcomes for Indigenous people, whether in their communities or in urban and off-reserve areas; implementing treaties while ensuring government obligations are met while maintaining positive government-to-government relationships; providing innovative fiscal solutions and services; and ensuring Indigenous interests and needs are supported during provincial emergencies.

This division also leads the province’s approach to supporting residential school survivors and lead communities in partnership with the federal government.

[8:15 p.m.]

Richard Purnell, executive lead for the new fiscal framework, has also joined us. The aim of the new fiscal framework is to co-develop a new approach to the fiscal relationship between Crown and First Nations in B.C., to help support Indigenous governments’ access to sources of revenue, to deliver services and build healthy, secure and prosperous communities, building a better province for everyone.

Joining me from the Declaration Act secretariat is Si Sityaawks/Jessica Wood, deputy minister, and c̓aʔaa/Priscilla Sabbas-Watts, the assistant deputy minister of legislative transformation and engagement

communities, building a better province for everyone.

Joining me from the Declaration Act secretariat is Si Sityaawks, Jessica Wood, deputy minister. And c̓aʔaa, Priscilla Sabbas-Watts, the assistant deputy minister of legislative transformation and engagement, will be joining us as well.

Established in 2022, the Declaration Act secretariat is a central agency within government that guides and assists ministries in meeting the alignment of laws obligations, collaborates within government on changes to government’s legislative and policy process, and helps establish government’s legislative priorities related to the important work of aligning provincial laws with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous people.

Additionally, Tracey Herbert, CEO of the First Peoples Cultural Council, will be joining us. First Peoples Cultural Council is a First Nations–led Crown corporation established in 1990 by the province at the request of First Nations leaders. The council supports First Nations people in their efforts to revitalize languages, arts, culture and heritage.

I am honoured and humbled to speak on the tremendous work Indigenous peoples and this government are doing together to implement the Declaration Act.

I’d also like to start by reminding every member of this House how we got to this point. Approved in 2006, the Indian residential schools settlement agreement came after decades of advocacy from Indigenous survivors and communities. At the time, the settlement agreement was the largest class action lawsuit in Canadian history. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the evidence as overwhelming. The court confirmed the truth of the common experiences at residential schools and the violent impacts of specific and sweeping abuses, and they provided direction to all of us as Canadian citizens to reconcile with this truth.

A small part of the settlement agreement was the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This is the only Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the world that has ever been court mandated.

Ten years ago the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada released the 94 calls to action. The 94 calls to action lay out the path to be followed if Canadians are to achieve true and meaningful reconciliation. Six years of hearings and testimony from 6,000 residential school survivors and their loved ones. The survivors spoke truth to the legacy of the residential school system and its intergenerational and ongoing impact on Indigenous peoples — 150,000 children stolen from their parents.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission called on all governments and all Canadians to adopt and implement the UN declaration as our guide, not just into customary international law but into domestic common law here in B.C. and Canada. If reconciliation starts with truth and respect, then our collective journey begins here.

B.C. was the first to adopt the UN declaration into law. We owe this accomplishment to generations of Indigenous leaders and others who advocated for a better future. I’m proud to say that since those days of denial and court battles, B.C. has deeply and fundamentally changed our relationship with Indigenous peoples. I’m proud of the work of the secretariat, the ministry and the whole of government to advance reconciliation and specifically to implement the UN declaration in B.C. through the Declaration Act. By working together with First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples through consultation and cooperation, we are finding solutions and building a stronger B.C. for everyone.

I will say, though, even through all of this work, there is a rise in residential school denialism in this province. Our government is taking this seriously, recognizing the harm that it causes former students, survivors and their families as well as the contractors and consultants working for the communities investigating. The attempts by some to discredit the findings at former residential schools is deeply disturbing. It perpetuates a troubling and persistent pattern of thought that seeks to deny the very real experiences of former students and their families.

[8:20 p.m.]

The facts as they relate to residential schools have been heavily studied and litigated. To put this dark history behind us, we need to stop denying the truth. Children died and were buried as a result of these institutions and

students and their families. The facts as they relate to residential schools have been heavily studied and litigated. To put this dark history behind us, we need to stop denying the truth. Children died and were buried as a result of these institutions and individuals at residential schools.

We must have compassion and humility. Most of all, as leaders in our province and in our country, we share in the accountability not to disseminate misinformation and race-based denialism in this house.

The province, with the support of Charlene Belleau in her role as First Nations liaison, continues to support all caretaker First Nations who wish to investigate the sites of former Indian residential schools and Indian hospitals across the province. The province has provided funding to support First Nations-led investigations at all 18 Indian residential school sites and three Indian hospitals across B.C. This is a direct response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action Nos. 72 through 76.

The province has made education about the history and legacy of the residential school system a key priority. Orange Shirt Day on September 30, a day also now marked as National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, is an important day in B.C. and across Canada. It’s a day to honour the resilience, dignity and strength of survivors and intergenerational survivors who suffered in the residential school system and remember the children who never came home.

Orange Shirt Day would not exist without the strength and courage of the campaign’s founder, Phyllis Webstad. Her story of residential school survival, as well as those shared by Orange Shirt Day Victoria co-founder, Eddy Charlie; the late Rick Gilbert, former Chief of Williams Lake First Nation; and so many others, sparked a national conversation on the true history of this country.

September 30, 2025 marks the 12th anniversary of Orange Shirt Day. It’s an important opportunity to also encourage deeper reflection, learning and public dialogue on the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people; directly respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s call to action No. 80; and provide an important opportunity to engage and educate more British Columbians about the history of colonialism, the legacy of residential schools and its continued impact on Indigenous communities today.

The province also remains committed to continuing education in this area, so that everyone in British Columbia learns about and understands the legacy of residential schools which remain a vital component in the reconciliation process. The province remains deeply committed to advancing reconciliation in B.C., guided by the Declaration Act and with meaningful consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples.

Budget 2025 will allow us to continue to do this important work and to effectively deliver the ministry’s and secretariat’s mandates. We’re working with First Nations and Indigenous organizations across B.C. to support long-overdue improvements to infrastructure, housing, culture, education and more. We’re also working with First Nations to build the province’s economy, advance major projects and support our tariff response.

At this moment in time, in this economic and political climate, it is so clear that we are stronger if we are together. Now more than ever, we need to stand strong together against division. Budget 2025-26 is about standing strong for B.C. and making sure public services are there when we need them, including supports for Indigenous peoples. We are protecting the programs and services Indigenous peoples are using to build resilient, self-determining and prosperous communities, as well as continuing the important work of reconciliation in the face of U.S. tariffs.

Like all provincial budgets, the numbers on their own don’t convey the scope of the work underway or the quality of the relationship with First Nations, Métis or Indigenous peoples as a whole.

[8:25 p.m.]

For the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, Budget 2025-26 provides dedicated funding to advance reconciliation and the ongoing process of establishing and maintaining respectful relationships with Indigenous peoples. It supports agreements like the Haida land title agreement to formally recognize Haida Aboriginal title throughout Haida Gwaii. It supports the next steps in the treaty process for K'ómoks, Kitselas and Kitsumkalum after they initialed their modern treaties last

with Indigenous peoples.

It supports agreements like the Haida land title agreement to formally recognize Haida Aboriginal title throughout Haida Gwaii. It supports the next steps in the treaty process for K'ómoks, Kitselas and Kitsumkalum after they initialed their modern treaties last summer, with K'ómoks overwhelmingly voting in favour of ratifying their treaty this past March, Kitselas voting yes on April 10 and Kitsumkalum’s vote coming up in the fall, all of which are steps supporting the recognition of Indigenous jurisdiction and self-determination.

Budget 2025-26 also supports land transfers, economic development, and continues government’s work with Métis Nation BC.

Budget 2025-26 continues stable funding for the Declaration Act secretariat to deliver its work. Funding for the secretariat is expressed as a separate item in the budget estimates. This is consistent with the secretariat’s unique reporting structure. While the secretariat reports directly to me as minister, it is independent and distinct from the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Thanks in large part to the secretariat, across government we are continuing to make steady progress on work to align laws.

We are fundamentally shifting our approach to how we both develop and implement provincial laws, which is resulting in an increasing number of legislative reforms: acts that support Indigenous peoples in exercising their jurisdiction over child and family services; upheld First Nations jurisdiction over education, which includes enabling First Nations to certify and regulate teachers in their own schools; adding a non-derogation clause to the Interpretation Act, which makes it clear that provincial laws uphold and do not diminish the rights of Indigenous peoples as outlined under section 35 of the Constitution Act; and added Indigenous identity as a protected ground under the B.C. human rights code, which will help us all combat racism and protect Indigenous people from discrimination.

One year ago we made changes to the Property Law Act and the Land Title Act through Bill 13, the Land Title and Property Amendment Act, 2024, to provide administrative changes to the ways First Nations can acquire, hold and register fee simple land, leaseholds and other interests in B.C., reducing discriminatory and racist barriers.

These administrative changes also provide a choice for First Nations to register the land they own in their own name in the land title office in the same way as companies and private individuals. These administrative changes are meaningful for First Nations and a step on the path toward reconciliation.

We’ve also now eliminated the property transfer tax on these transfers, so First Nations can move property under their direct ownership without worrying about that added cost. Exemptions apply to land beneficially owned by the First Nation prior to May 21, 2024.

Implementing the Declaration Act, including the alignment of laws, is a cross-government priority. B.C. and First Nations have done a tremendous amount of work together since the NDP formed government almost eight years ago, putting Indigenous rights in common law by unanimously passing the Declaration Act and developing an action plan that is producing changes on the ground for Indigenous peoples.

The province released the Declaration Act action plan on March 30, 2022, a five-year cross-government action plan to implement the UN Declaration in B.C. The first of its kind, the Declaration Act action plan includes 89 tangible, achievable cross-government actions in the areas of self determination and self-government, rights and title, ending anti-indigenous racism and enhancing social, cultural and economic well-being. Across government steady progress has been made to implement the Declaration Act action plan.

Details in the Declaration Act annual report shows that reconciliation is truly a cross-government priority and reflects the tremendous efforts being made to put our collective words into action.

[8:30 p.m.]

All ministries have identified actions and aligned or are aligning their priorities and budgets to implement these actions. The province continues to deliver dedicated and dependable funding that allows us to continue to advance tangible reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in B.C. both immediately and long term. Our budget is funded to match signed agreement costs and adjusts

The province continues to deliver dedicated and dependable funding that allows us to continue to advance tangible reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in B.C., both immediately and long-term. Our budget is funded to match signed agreement costs and adjusts along with commitments.

The combined budget for the ministry and the Declaration Act secretariat is $186.958 million. This is an increase of over $26 million, or 16.8 percent, from the previous year. Our budget includes dedicated and dependable funding that allows us to meet commitments, to continue to work in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples and to effectively deliver on our mandate.

This includes new stable funding for the First Peoples Cultural Council of $15 million per year, an $8 million annual increase for fiscal relationship agreements with modern treaty nations to participate in co-management of land and resources in their territory and increases related to signed agreements.

The budget does not fully reflect the scope of government’s work and support of Indigenous partners. In 2022, we delivered one-time historic multi-year investments, supporting First Nations governments through the Declaration Act engagement fund to engage on their top priorities, along with other ministries who provided multi-year funding to growing First Nations participation in the clean energy economy and to support food security. These investments are still being delivered and are making a real difference in the lives of Indigenous peoples today.

Part of the ministry’s work toward reconciliation has to do with empowering Indigenous peoples to revitalize their culture and their languages. There is incredible language diversity in British Columbia. There are 36 First Nations languages. Together, they make up more than half of all First Nations languages in Canada. We want to help build a province where First Nations languages and cultures are living and celebrated everywhere. I’m pleased Budget 2025-26 continues to strengthen First Nations–led efforts to revitalize languages, cultures and arts heritage.

Investments in the First Peoples Cultural Council helps First Nations communities, organizations and individuals in their efforts to revitalize their languages and cultures, while also creating good jobs and economic benefits. Last year alone, the grants delivered by the First Peoples Cultural Council created more than 1,600 jobs and generated an estimated $69 million in gross domestic product in British Columbia.

Sharing revenue with First Nations communities remains an important reconciliation tool as well. It supports implementation of the UN declaration and the self-determined pursuit of economic, social and community development. Budget 2025 forecasts that $716 million over three years will be shared with First Nations through natural resource revenue sharing, as the benefits of economic activity are returned directly to the community. First Nations are also expected to receive $300 million through gaming revenue over the fiscal plan to support self-government and self-determination; strong, healthy communities; and services that make life better for families.

Recognizing First Nations as one of three orders of government in this country with their own rights and responsibilities is foundational to our approach. Sharing the revenues generated by economic opportunities helps support economic growth in First Nations communities and for all British Columbians.

As you can see, funding decisions for Budget ’25-26 are underpinned by government’s commitment to tangible reconciliation through the implementation of the UN declaration by prioritizing opportunities for Indigenous peoples to be full partners in the inclusive and sustainable province we are building together.

We also continue our efforts to bring partners, industry and the public along in this work. Community engagement promotes partnerships and collaboration between Indigenous peoples, local governments, industry partners and community members. We know reconciliation is good for everyone. It’s a rising tide that lifts all boats. It creates certainty, opportunity and prosperity for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people alike.

I look forward to questions from the members of this House.

[8:35 p.m.]

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Scott McInnis: If I may. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the ministerial staff and the minister.

Indigenous people alike. I look forward to questions from the members of this House. Thank you.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Scott McInnis: If I may. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the ministerial staff and the minister for the time here this evening that we have left; I do appreciate it. If the minister feels anything like me, I do sympathize with how challenging this file is and the learning curve that I’m sure she’s been on, just like I have.

Today I rise to speak about a matter of deep importance to our province, which is reconciliation with Indigenous people. This is not just a political issue. It is not just a budget line item. It is not merely a bureaucratic process, a press release, or a check mark on a government to-do list.

In its truest form, this is a generational obligation, one that demands humility, honesty, and above all, unity.

I don’t know if I said something funny there, Mr. Chair, or…?

But I fear we’re not walking on this path entirely the right way. There’s a growing disconnect in British Columbia today. Many British Columbians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, are not aligned with the government’s current interpretation of reconciliation. We must ask ourselves what happens when reconciliation is no longer something that brings people together but instead becomes a wedge that divides us.

This government has taken a highly prescriptive approach to reconciliation. It has insisted that its narrative is the only legitimate one. It has framed any dissent or questioning as ignorance or worse, as intolerance. And in doing so, it has lost the room. It has lost the people it needs to bring along if reconciliation is to succeed.

Real reconciliation is not forced. It is not imposed from above. It is not done in secrecy. It is not a matter of dictating outcomes behind closed doors and announcing them through the media. Reconciliation must be rooted in shared understanding and mutual respect and those principles require us as legislators to listen as much as we speak.

Let us be very clear, reconciliation is not about assigning blame. It is not about shame.

The Chair: I’d ask members to allow the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke to make his opening remarks. It is not easy for me to be able to hear him, so I’d ask that you please keep your comments and chatter to a minimum. Thank you.

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It’s not about shame; this is not about guilt. This may come as a surprise to the government, but not everyone is comfortable with referring to themselves as settlers, uninvited guests or colonizers. That creates an us-versus-them narrative, which is not helpful whatsoever.

Instead, we should be looking at each other as British Columbians, citizens of this great province who are in this together. It is about truth, yes, but also about healing, growth, and forward-looking partnerships. And those things are not fostered through top-down mandates or through political grandstanding. They grow from the ground up, from community to community, and from person to person.

Yet, what we’ve seen from this government, at times, is sidelining of the grassroots community-level dialogue. Instead, it has promoted sweeping agreements and frameworks, foundation agreements, reconciliation agreements, title recognition processes, often negotiated in private with limited transparency and very little public consultation.

The public wants reconciliation, but when they are left out of the conversation and are informed of agreements later, it creates distrust in this critical process. We cannot expect British Columbians to embrace reconciliation if they do not feel safe asking questions about it. And we must not shame those who raise concerns. To suggest that questioning the structure or pathway this government has chosen is somehow anti-reconciliation at best, is not only unfair it is profoundly unhelpful. It shuts down dialogue at precisely the moment we need it the most.

[8:40 p.m.]

The conversation in this Legislature on behalf of the official opposition is going to change around reconciliation. We won’t be afraid to ask the tough questions on behalf of the people who elected us. And we won’t be deterred if we’re labelled as something we’re most certainly not.

we need it the most. The conversation in this Legislature on behalf of the official opposition is going to change around reconciliation. We won’t be afraid to ask the tough questions on behalf of the people who elected us, and we won’t be deterred if we’re labelled as something we’re most certainly not.

This government has budgeted a half a billion dollars toward reconciliation over the next three years. That’s a lot of public money. I will be asking questions today about what its overarching goals are, what measurable outcomes it seeks and how it will ultimately impact all British Columbians in a positive way.

There is an urgent need for humility. The work of reconciliation is incredibly complex. It touches on law, economics, culture, history and, of course, emotion. No government, no agreement, has all the answers. Yet this government often behaves as though it does. That attitude risks alienating the very people whose trust we need to earn.

If reconciliation is to succeed, it must include all British Columbians. It must be transparent. It must be inclusive. It must be grounded in realism. We need a provincial approach that supports Indigenous self-determination while also respecting the rights and voices of all residents. We need mechanisms that are clear and practical and assurances that private property rights and local governance will be respected and protected. This is not about saying no to reconciliation. It’s about saying yes to getting it right.

Getting it right means being honest about what is working and what is not. It means acknowledging that reconciliation is not a straight line. It means embracing the discomfort that comes with hard conversations and complex histories. It means resisting the temptation to politicize or polarize the process.

One area we can do better is education and public engagement. We cannot have reconciliation without understanding, and understanding does not come from sound bites or slogans. It comes from community meetings, information sessions, respectful debate and listening with open hearts.

That requires investment — not just financial but political and social as well. It requires courage from elected officials to host uncomfortable conversations and to represent all their constituents, not just the ones who already agree with them.

It also requires long-term thinking. Some of the agreements being signed today will shape this province for generations to come. Land transfers, shared governance models, economic benefit agreements, exclusive decision-making agreements, public land use agreements — these are not short-term fixes. They are long-term restructurings of power, authority and identity. If they are not done with full transparency and thoughtful consideration, we risk creating decades of legal uncertainty, administrative confusion and deepening social tensions.

Let us take as an example the impact of reconciliation on agreements on land use planning. In several regions, new land use agreements have been negotiated without adequate involvement from municipalities, regional districts or non-Indigenous stakeholders. This has led to situations where local governments find themselves suddenly bound by land use restrictions or consultation protocols they had no part in designing.

That undermines confidence in the process and fosters resentment, rather than cooperation. If we want reconciliation to endure, it must be co-created. That means a seat at the table for First Nations — yes, of course — but also for municipalities, for landowners, for industry. We must build a reconciliation process that is seen as fair, inclusive and transparent.

I urge the ministry to reflect deeply on the path we are on. We cannot afford to continue down a road where reconciliation is something done to people instead of with them. We must change course, not to abandon the goal but to better reach it.

To the Indigenous leaders and communities who have been patient, who have offered partnership and good faith, who are committed to the vision of reconciliation rooted in mutual respect, we thank you. To the British Columbians who are trying to understand, who are asking questions, who want a voice in this journey, we hear you.

[8:45 p.m.]

Reconciliation, when done right, can be the foundation of a stronger, more united British Columbia. But when done poorly, it can deepen divides, undermine trust and cost generations dearly. As I’ve stated before, reconciliation cannot be about creating winners and losers.

reconciliation, when done right, can be the foundation of a stronger, more united British Columbia. But when done poorly, it can deepen divides, undermine trust and cost generations dearly.

As I’ve stated before, reconciliation cannot be about creating winners and losers. Let us choose the path of humility, of inclusion, of clarity. Let us do the hard work to get reconciliation right, not for today but for tomorrow and for every generation to come.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: Members have heard the question.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:45 p.m.