Hansard - Tuesday, April 29, 2025 Afternoon, Issue No. 50

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we’re contemplating the estimates of Housing and Municipal Affairs Ministry.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,513,975,000 (continued).

The Chair: Thank you very much.

To the member….

I beg your pardon, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My apologies, Chair. I want to just start by welcoming…. Right now we have 31 students from Sutherland Secondary School that have just arrived here in the gallery.

On behalf of the MLA for your area, the Minister of Infrastructure, I want to welcome you all to this place.

We are now debating the budget of Ministry of Housing, so you’ll be hearing an exchange back and forth about infrastructure and housing. This is an important process that we all go through in government to ensure that the dollars are being spent and that there’s accountability of where the dollars are going.

Welcome to the House today, and I hope you enjoy the debate.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

Indeed, welcome to everyone joining us today, and we’ll turn it over to the member for Fraser-Nicola.

Tony Luck: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate that.

Just a little preamble before we get into some questions here. This is around one of our favourite topics in the province right now, infrastructure. The provincial government’s blanket upzoning policy, Bill 44, mandates increased density across municipalities without adequately considering local infrastructure capacity.

Smaller cities and towns across British Columbia already face enormous pressure due to spiralling inflation, soaring infrastructure costs and ever-increasing regulatory burdens imposed by senior levels of government. These communities are now struggling to provide even basic core services, with property tax bases insufficient to support essential infrastructure investments in these communities.

Municipalities such as North Cowichan starkly illustrate these challenges, currently facing an unprecedented backlog of 370 building applications totalling approximately 10,100 new homes. Yet local water and sewer infrastructure can only handle roughly 4,200, less than half. Such a scenario highlights the provincial government’s lack of practical planning and support, casting severe doubts on Bill 44’s viability without significant provincial infrastructure funding.

The Union of British Columbia Municipalities, otherwise known as UBCM, has repeatedly urged the province to address these escalating costs, calling for a more diversified and flexible municipal financing framework. With a current infrastructure deficit provincewide estimated at approximately $25 billion — that’s right, folks; that’s with a b — the promised municipal infrastructure fund, provincial property tax waivers for purpose-built rental projects and expanded middle-income housing on public lands have yet to materialize.

Critics argue that this government’s approach, mandating higher density without meaningful provincial support, endangers the fiscal health and very sustainability of many of the smaller rural communities in this province.

Given your government’s imposition of Bill 44’s blanket upzoning, how exactly do you propose smaller communities manage the unprecedented strain on their infrastructure capabilities, particularly in towns like North Cowichan, Merritt, Lillooet and little communities like that — North Cowichan where 10,100 new homes have been proposed but local water, and sewer systems can only handle fewer than half of those?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the first question in our exchanges.

First off, I’d have to respectfully disagree with the member’s statement in the beginning. The member is actually not correct. Communities that didn’t have infrastructure didn’t have to bring on Bill 44. We’ve had a lot of communities that had an independent engineering report that highlighted that parts of their community didn’t have the infrastructure to be able to have that housing and in fact have extensions multiple years down the road for them to be able to build out that infrastructure.

It’s important to note that communities under the size of 5,000 did not have the same level of requirements as other communities. We understand that those communities have unique challenges. Communities that are operating on septic, for example, did not have to incorporate the changes.

I appreciate the member raising North Cowichan. We provided North Cowichan $7.8 million last year to invest in infrastructure. Of course, I’m sure North Cowichan used those dollars for critically important infrastructure like water, like sewer. I’m sure the member knows that they’ve got those dollars as well.

Tony Luck: So what we’re to understand is that smaller communities have been left off this list needing the infrastructure change. Somehow, when I go travelling around my riding and that, they feel the same pressure as larger communities as well. Here nor there, their infrastructure is still failing.

Lillooet, $100 million in infrastructure that needs to be replaced. Merritt, $120 million in infrastructure replacement. Terrace, Prince Rupert — all these communities around the province want to be part of housing because they want to do development in these communities, but they can’t do it. What we have is a tremendous downloading of requirements on these cities without the available infrastructure money to pay for them.

Given that little bit of an explanation, and given the UBCM’s repeated calls for provincial support to address spiralling infrastructure deficits and the challenges smaller communities face, will your government commit today to immediately implementing the proposed municipal infrastructure fund, which has so far failed to materialize despite clear campaign pledges? If so, where would it fall in these estimates votes and processes?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I want to emphasize the point I made earlier, which is that communities that clearly could show, through an independent engineering report, that they lacked the infrastructure to see this type of housing could move the requirement until such time that they have the infrastructure. I just want to emphasize that.

It’s important for the member to know, and I know the member is new to this side but has local government experience, that we provided $1 billion to local governments to invest directly. It’s the largest direct investment in local governments for their infrastructure, certainly in my lifetime.

The member’s question around future infrastructure dollars…. I would say that one of the important pieces we were waiting for was for the federal election to end. The reason why was that it’s important that we not create a program with no connection to what the federal government is doing. If we end up creating a program that has different criteria than the federal government’s…. We’ve heard from local governments. Having multiple processes, trying to link one application to two different programs are just unnecessary additional hurdles for local government.

Now that the federal election is over almost officially, we’ll be able to now engage with the federal government on what future infrastructure dollars can flow to local governments. The member follows politics as closely as I and will know that there were strong commitments for building Canada and making infrastructure investments to unlock housing. We look forward to those conversations and will be able to share that when those conversations have concluded.

Tony Luck: Let’s go back to North Cowichan for a minute here.

Their infrastructure gap is a lot larger than the $7.8 million that you funded them. There are still going to be gaps in there that need to be done — sewer upgrades, water upgrades. Is there additional funding coming to North Cowichan so that they’ll be able to fully build out the infrastructure that they need to accomplish your goals that are laid out in Bill 44?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it’s important to note that those infrastructure needs were not because of the legislation that we brought in. Those infrastructure needs in the communities existed previously. Many communities have infrastructure needs that are well beyond the changes that we have brought.

[1:45 p.m.]

That being said, local governments have the ability to collect fees for building infrastructure. Local governments use those fees to be able to build the infrastructure. I expect that to continue. Of course, we’re going to continue to support local governments with infrastructure like we have been, like I’ve highlighted with the $1 billion, like I’ve highlighted with the other infrastructure programs that we’ve had in alignment with the federal government.

Tony Luck: Municipalities across British Columbia are currently facing an infrastructure deficit, as we’ve talked about, estimated at $25 billion. It’s probably more than that as we stand here, with inflation the way it is.

What specific new financing mechanisms or funding formulas is your government actively developing with UBCM to help communities address this staggering shortfall? Even though we talk about how we’ve funded so much, we know that aging infrastructure around the whole province is failing everywhere. We need to find some way of doing it.

I know you’ve been sitting down with the UBCM to work out, maybe, a new funding formula. Could you talk to us about that, please?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that those conversations with UBCM are ongoing. It’s a joint process between us, the Ministry of Finance and UBCM.

I can share with the member that North Cowichan, over the last several years, has received $14.6 million for five different projects.

I can also share that we’re not aware if…. Actually, from our understanding, North Cowichan did not apply for the community housing infrastructure fund, which is a fund that’s available, for infrastructure, from the federal government.

Tony Luck: Seeing how this is pretty critical in the province right now with the funding, and you say you’re in ongoing conversation with UBCM, can we get a firm timeline for when these conversations will end and actions will be put into place, please?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: No, I can’t give a firm timeline, but I appreciate the attempt from the member.

We are having these conversations and, of course, the federal government is going to be an important player in this. They’ve got the majority of dollars available to build the infrastructure, and we want to be good partners.

I have said to UBCM that we’ll continue to work with them in our joint collaborative approach to getting the federal government at the table and aligning our programs. I think there is an understanding from the UBCM table that that’s an important step that we have to take.

I can share with the member that I met with the Minister of Housing in late January, and our number one ask to the federal government was infrastructure and some consistent flow of dollars so that we can build the critical infrastructure that we need.

Tony Luck: Your government, some time ago, promised to waive provincial property taxes for new purpose-built rental projects. Has this commitment been abandoned, or will you announce today when municipalities can finally expect relief through this essential tax measure for them?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s a Ministry of Finance piece. Any tax measure, any measure that requires spending outside of what’s in our portfolio, has to be directed to Ministry of Finance.

Tony Luck: Well, I don’t like that answer. You can’t tell me that you’re running the Municipal Affairs portfolio and that you don’t know costing of some of these programs you decide to implement. You can’t just be plucking projects out of the air and just throwing to Finance to figure out costs for that. You must know.

Could we please get a little bit better answer on that one? You must know what some of these programs are costing.

[1:50 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, just to remind you that all questions must come through the Chair, please. Thank you very much.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member never asked that in the first question. The member never asked what is the cost measure. The member asked whether the plan is proceeding, and my point is that that’s a measure that comes from the Ministry of Finance.

I can speak to what’s in the allocation that I have, the 1.5 billion-and-something dollars. I can answer those questions. But anything that might come in the future requires the Ministry of Finance, and it’s a question better suited to them.

Tony Luck: UBCM has clearly requested a flexible, diversified blueprint for municipal financing.

Is your government seriously considering revenue-sharing models involving instruments such as the property transfer tax or provincial sales tax? If so, what specific progress has been made on those discussions?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I won’t be able to share an announcement today with the member, but there have been lots of different proposals from UBCM of where the money can come from.

I think it’s important for us to ensure (a) that we continue to support local governments with infrastructure dollars and (b) that we have a strong partner with the federal government and that whatever we do is aligned. This call from UBCM is no different than FCM’s calls across the country, and we want to make sure that we’re aligning best we can to get the same outcomes that everybody wants.

Tony Luck: Do we have a timeline for getting close to maybe making some announcements on a thing like that?

I know that the communities that I visit in my particular riding are really struggling for this infrastructure piece. I know one of the communities basically stopped developing because they cannot afford to fix their infrastructure at this particular time.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The federal election ended less than 24 hours ago. I look forward to hearing the new cabinet and the new Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, and we’re going to have those conversations. We’ll have a better sense when we have those initial meetings.

I can share with the member that at the last FPT meeting, the federal-provincial-territorial meeting, this was one of the biggest topics across the country, so it is vitally important that we align now.

I would say that not only in our time in government but even in the time of the previous government, there has been good alignment with the federal government in aligning our programs. I think that’s been a success for British Columbia that we want to make sure we continue, going forward.

Tony Luck: As we talked about infrastructure…. Of course, this section is about infrastructure. For example, the costs of a fire truck or road construction largely cost identical compared to a small community or a large community, in rural communities as in large urban centres.

Minister, what practical solutions for our funding format is your government implementing to ensure that small towns are not disproportionately burdened compared to large, wealthy cities?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that we have a $60 million regional district and small community grant program that is available to communities.

I can also share with the member, on the specific example that the member shared, that in the previous government, in the previous term, we expanded the eligibility under DCCs to include public safety measures. Also, we’ve introduced an ACC tool for critically important amenities that communities want to build. That is the reason why. That was a request from local governments, and we expanded both of those.

Tony Luck: Will your government undertake a comprehensive review, in collaboration with UBCM, to analyze the cumulative impacts of provincial downloading regulatory burden and upzoning on municipalities and publicly release a clear, actionable plan to relieve these unprecedented local infrastructure and financial pressures on these smaller communities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, the communities that had challenges with infrastructure and could not enable this type of housing just had to get an independent engineering report showing that. Richmond is an example. Parts of Richmond didn’t have the infrastructure to be able to support this type of housing. They have an extension for multiple years, and they are building out a plan to build that infrastructure. So that exists.

As I mentioned to the member…. Actually, I should also mention that Metro Vancouver in fact released a report within the last two years that highlighted that small-scale multi-unit housing is actually the best way of getting more housing with less dollars impacting their infrastructure. That was within Metro Vancouver’s own reporting.

What we’re trying to do is address both challenges, which are: we know we need more supply of housing, and we also want to limit impact on infrastructure. That’s also why we kept our housing requirements within regional growth strategies. We didn’t want to encourage sprawl outside of communities, because we know that type of infrastructure is particularly expensive for the type of housing that we want to see.

Tony Luck: Before we recognize how much money we need to throw at a problem and those kinds of things, we need to understand how big the problem is.

Has your ministry ever done a needs assessment for the entire province, or do you provide funding to local communities so they can make those assessments so we have a much clearer and more defined understanding of exactly what the total bill for infrastructure spending in the province would be?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We provide money through Asset Management B.C. to support local governments to do an assessment of their needs. It’s hard to put an exact number because they change so often. You know how a community decides they need a new rec centre, or they decide they don’t need a new rec centre, or they decide they need something else. These things are always moving.

We do engage with local governments who come forward and say: “This is our need.” In fact, I’ve had meetings with some local governments where the need started at a certain number. It changed over time because there were different needs and different priorities from a local government, election changes, and those priorities get completely wiped out, and something new comes in. It’s hard to have one number. But we do engage with local governments often, and they share whatever specific challenges they’re trying to deal with.

Again, $1 billion to local governments. We didn’t ask them to…. The only ask was to tell us where the money is going. We didn’t say to them: “You have to invest in project A, project B, project C.” We put faith that they knew where they wanted those dollars to go.

They also have access to the MFA. I don’t know if the member knows that. They have access to that to be able to borrow to invest in critically important infrastructure. We’ll continue to have a conversation with the federal government about what future programs could look like.

[2:00 p.m.]

Tony Luck: Finally, on this particular topic for now, and I reserve the right to ask more questions in the future: what accountability and transparency measures will your government introduce to assure municipalities and taxpayers that provincial promises such as infrastructure funds, middle-income housing development on public land and tax relief are fully honoured rather than continually delayed or ignored?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There were multiple things in there.

I’ll just say that we’re pretty public about government lands and where the projects are going around BC Builds. That’s on the websites. It’s available to people. Happy to talk about that, because I think it’s a huge success.

And hats off to B.C. Housing. That program was put together…. I recall being in the city of North Vancouver a year ago announcing the first project, and shovels went in the ground. That’s a remarkable time and speed for a project that size.

We do share that information. If the member has something specific, I can certainly try to get that to the member.

Tony Luck: I’ll start with a preamble on this one. We are going to talk about some of the cities’ favourite topics: DCCs, CACs and ACCs. Nice acronyms, but we’ll get to that part.

The current state of development cost charges, DCCs, and community amenity contributions, CACs, in British Columbia, is characterized by a lack of transparency, consistency and predictability, significantly impacting housing affordability and market viability. We hear from contractors all the time how confusing it is in the DCCs, moving from different communities and things like that. CACs are certainly something that developers don’t like, yet they can work with them.

Developers frequently face unpredictable municipal requirements, including arbitrary increases in CACs and the imposition of stringent social housing mandates, leading to considerable project uncertainty and inflated housing costs. Regularizing and legalizing uniform processes of DCCs and CACs could eliminate these uncertainties, streamline approval processes, enhance transparency and ultimately improve housing supply and affordability.

The B.C. government has introduced the ACC, amenity cost charges — I believe that is to replace the current process we have of CACs — and is seeing many municipalities overly allowing higher density but including onerous poison pill regulations, such as requirements for social or deeply discounted housing. Removing these is essential to restoring confidence and predictability in the development community.

First question is: while the move towards regularizing the CAC process into ACC is commendable, why has the ministry opted to introduce a 60-page policy document full of bureaucratic guidelines instead of simply setting out standardized dollar amounts or a clear rate per square foot for ACC areas across British Columbia?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I really appreciate the member’s preamble. I actually wish the member had been here last term, because we addressed this very thing. I’m sure if he was here then, he would have encouraged his colleagues to actually support the bill, because this is the very thing we were trying to address.

If I can just maybe rephrase or capture what the member has highlighted, which is a challenge that we hear as well. Imagine trying to build an affordable housing project for seniors and having it come close to the finish line and then all of a sudden getting a phone call that your DCCs are increased, your CACs are going to be increased, as well as the parking requirements going up. That’s an expensive venture when you’re already far along in the project.

We’ve actually had the situation where we’ve had to go to communities and say: “We actually have to cancel this affordable housing project in your community because of these new measures that you’ve introduced.”

The purpose of the new ACC tool was to try to address this specific challenge. The changes we’ve made in the last year move local governments to plan where they want their housing every five years. Go and engage the community, figure out where you want the housing, make sure it aligns with where your housing needs are. By doing that and not having public hearings, because the community’s already engaged on where they want the housing and how it should look, we’re going to see less public hearings. When you see less public hearings, there’s less opportunity for the negotiation of CACs.

[2:05 p.m.]

I hear all the time, from not-for-profits and the private sector, that that process can take a year to two years. It’s not done in a public, transparent way. It’s not good for the local elected officials either. There are accusations always made about local government officials that somehow they’re giving somebody a favour compared to somebody else because there’s no rhyme or reason for the formula.

What we did was that we brought in this ACC tool. The point of the tool is to build more transparency into the process, so now local governments can identify, with their community, what amenities they need. They put into their bylaw what amenities they want. The cost is at the front, people know what the cost is, and that cost goes towards building the important amenities they need. Local governments are happy because they’re going to get dollars for their amenities.

Now, it’s important to note, I hope the member would support this notion, that the ACC tool can only be charged to net new. If you’re replacing ten units with ten units, well, you can make the argument that you need a brand-new community rec centre for the same amount of units. But if you’re building above and beyond that, you can charge the ACC tool to that.

The reason why it’s getting good response from communities is because it ensures that local governments can still get the amenities that they need. There’s a requirement that they do an analysis, so that whatever cost structure they put in does not deter development. They have to do an analysis to see what levels they’re setting.

The member also mentioned…. I think inclusionary zoning was the member’s point. Even with the tool for inclusionary zoning, the reason why we don’t do a blanket is because what can be done in Vancouver will be different than Surrey, Maple Ridge or Kamloops. Each community now will have to look at their own opportunities in their community and identify how much inclusionary zoning, if at all, they want to have.

We’ve now provided them the tools that, I think, will help decisions to be made in a more transparent way. It’ll protect local government officials from accusations that, quite frankly, are mostly unwarranted, and it ensures that those that are building homes have a greater level of transparency.

This is just rolling out, and it’s going to still take a little bit of time. It’s not as clear to local governments, but those that have a good understanding of what we’re trying to do appreciate the direction we’re heading to.

Tony Luck: Thank you to the minister.

How does the ministry plan to monitor and enforce compliance with any standardized approaches to ACCs and DCCs?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Any DCC bylaws go through the inspector of municipalities. For ACCs, we’ve built in a requirement that when it comes to development of the ACC bylaw, there must be some form of consultation with the public, with homebuilders, etc.

There are rules around how the local government can set charge amounts, including whether charges that are being charged would deter development, so some important measures there. There are public economy measures around rules on how the funds can be used and the reporting requirements. It has to be made public. And of course we have, within the legislation, regulation-making authority, so the province can set additional requirements, if needed.

Tony Luck: What proximate timelines for introducing legislation or regulatory amendments to eliminate the potential of municipalities to include restrictive poison pills in that, such as excessive social housing requirements in development areas?

Do we have a timeline thing? Have you got anything around that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, there are many forms of poison pills, I’ve learned, in the housing space. It can be anything from communities putting limits on height, limits around an extensive amount of parking and not allowing setbacks.

[2:10 p.m.]

You know, we can talk. I’m happy to talk about any of those pieces if the member would like, but specifically when it comes to ACCs, there are pretty clear guidelines and rules that are in place for when it can be used. Now, I think the member is aware that it’s an ongoing conversation, and I’ll use Metro Vancouver’s DCC increase.

You hear, from those in the development community, some serious concerns about the cost and the implications for them when they’re trying to build housing. I know we’re not supposed to speak about legislation in the House, but I will say that there are measures in front of the House that will help address some of that.

There are processes in place for DCCs and ACCs to have guardrails to ensure that the rules are being followed. It’s my expectation that we continue to have that, with the understanding, on the flip side, that local governments do need access to dollars to build the infrastructure. I think we’ve struck a good balance, but we’ll continue to work with local governments as we go forward.

Tony Luck: I think you’ve covered a little bit about what steps are being considered to ensure developers can accurately assess the financial viability of projects without facing uncertain and changing municipal requirements.

Is there any look around at putting in things like KPIs and that? These communities and the developers, which are always complaining that things change and timelines change…. This is the first I’ve heard where cities can actually change things halfway through or at 90 percent of the project, which doesn’t even make sense.

Is there any way of measuring some of these things, putting in place, so that the transparency is very clear to the developers that often are looking at these projects?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ve got a document that might be helpful to the member. It is available publicly, but the reason why I want to share it with the member is that there’s guidance for elected officials on how to use the tools in a fair way. This was just issued within the last few weeks. It may help answer some of the questions. I’ll add the cover page, just so the member knows which document it is and where they can find it.

The second page, page 7, has all the information I think the member is looking for.

Tony Luck: I’ll move on from there, but I reserve the right to come back and ask a few questions around that.

Now I’d like to speak to the Auditor General for Local Government. In 2020, the B.C. NDP government eliminated the Auditor General for Local Government, significantly weakening oversight, transparency and fiscal responsibility at the municipal level.

Since the role’s termination, numerous questionable decisions by municipal councils and regional districts have underscored the urgent need for an independent auditor with meaningful oversight and authority. Recent controversies, including exorbitant salary increases for various Lower Mainland mayors and egregious mismanagement of infrastructure projects such as the North Shore wastewater treatment plant, highlight how taxpayers are left vulnerable when municipalities lack independent oversight.

[2:15 p.m.]

Similarly, revelations that the city of Vancouver sold an asset like a garbage truck significantly below market value only for it to be immediately resold at an immense profit by the person that bought it demonstrate clear disregard for fiscal prudence and respect for taxpayers.

The reinstatement of a robust and empowered auditor general for municipalities would provide crucial financial oversight, conduct pre-emptive reviews of municipal decisions and help prevent wasteful spending and fiscal mismanagement before taxpayer dollars are squandered.

To the minister: your government eliminated the Auditor General for Local Government several years ago, significantly reducing accountability and oversight for municipalities. Can you clearly explain the rationale behind removing critical mechanisms that safeguard taxpayers’ interests?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s always fascinating to get into this conversation, because the conversation is usually two things. One: “Why do you get into so much local government business? Let them be. They’re elected officials.” Then the flip side is: “Well, why don’t you have more oversight of them to make sure you keep an eye on them?” It’s always a challenge between the two.

That being said, I think the concern that the member raised around Metro Vancouver has obviously been canvassed in the public. There is a review happening at this time.

All of the documents for local governments…. They have to have financial statements audited, made public, available. At the end of the day, all of these elected officials have to represent their community and have to stand up for the decisions that they’ve made. For local governments, that’s coming very soon. That is, I think, a great accountability measure that we all have to go through as elected officials.

Tony Luck: Well, yes, we always have accountability when it comes time at the ballot box and that kind of thing, but in the meantime, taxpayers in Metro Vancouver are out billions of dollars.

In the meantime, could the ministry not agree that maybe we have to have some kind of oversight within government to be able to have a body that municipalities could go to and ask for help? I’m thinking of… Especially for us who are in smaller rural communities that don’t have the financial resources to be able to hire streams of accountants and things like that….

Do you think the ministry could be looking at re-implementing the Auditor General for Local Government to help those municipalities that struggle to make sure that their projects will come in on time and on budget?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, this topic is not in the budget, but I think we can have a little bit of latitude to have a discussion about it.

[2:20 p.m.]

Some of the questions are: UBCM elected officials are asking for this; why won’t you do it? In this case, UBCM was the one saying that it was unnecessary and that they were autonomous and should be able to make decisions. I think that’s the paradox of the questions that we get.

Now, I share the concern around Metro and some of the decisions and some of the challenges they’re dealing with, with their infrastructure projects. Again, there’s a full review happening right now, and we certainly will be keeping an eye on it and making public whatever information that can be made public.

Tony Luck: We talk about a full review going on with Metro Vancouver, but we know that’s an internal review set up by their own individuals and that. Under the Local Government Act, the government has the ability to call for a completely, totally independent review. Why would this ministry not do that to protect the integrity of the taxpayers in that community?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: As I’ve highlighted with Metro, we have an independent observer that’s watching the process. If it comes to a point where we believe additional steps are needed, that’s something we’ll consider at that time. But, at this point, the people that they’ve put forward are reputable individuals.

In no way…. The member is not doing it; I’m certainly not raising concerns about who these individuals are and the work that they do. We have to have faith that the process will happen. Our independent observer will be watching. If there are issues, then certainly we’ll take additional steps.

Tony Luck: Mr. Chair, I reserve the right to ask further questions from this section in the future.

Could we take a five-minute recess as my colleague will get resettled for her next line of questioning as she gets reseated? Is that okay?

Does she need five minutes? Can she just…? Just a couple of minutes.

The Chair: I think we’ve got time to wait.

Are we good to go? Perfect. There you go.

Thank you, Surrey–Serpentine River.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for recognizing me. Just before I get on to my next set of questions, I would put through you, Mr. Speaker, a question regarding Bill 44 and whether or not the ministry has determined….

If people were to accommodate the densification that the ministry is suggesting, has the ministry also acknowledged what the contributions would need to be from the province relative to hospitals, highways and schools?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I know the member is probably just staying up so that she doesn’t have to go up and down. I apologize. I was waiting.

I would say we have people in our communities that are underhoused, people already in our communities. I think there’s a misunderstanding sometimes with some of the pieces we’re bringing forward that this is about bringing a lot more people to our communities. This is about making sure the people that are in our communities have housing.

We have individuals…. I raised this in the debate of the bill last year. Twelve people were living in a single-family house, students all crashed into a three-bedroom place. There was a lack of housing.

Now, that’s increasing. We’re setting records for housing starts. The federal government has made some decisions to slow down some of the immigration numbers, so that will have an impact. But certainly, the social infrastructure needs to continue to be expanded.

The member is aware that south of the Fraser, we’ve got new transit, we’ve got new hospitals, and we’ve got new schools. We can debate all day long whether it’s enough, if it’s coming fast enough, but it’s coming. It is being done in communities, and we’re going to need to do that in communities around the province.

[2:25 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Well, I acknowledge the minister’s comments, and he is certainly right that we could debate that all day long and where the deficits are and continue to be. But I think the more critical question around Bill 44 is that there is a large expectation of local governments to provide this housing, to make sure that they have the roadways that are going to accommodate more vehicles, that are going to accommodate garbage trucks and that could have four to five or six houses on a lot now.

To that end, you also have to have the corresponding provincial requirements of: do we have enough hospitals to care for those expanded uses? Do we have enough schools to prepare for those students? And yes, we have…. When we’re growing this province as quickly as we are, I think that is an analysis that should be made relative to the Bill 44 requirement.

I’ll leave it at that, and I thank the minister for his response. But I still believe there is a lot to be done relative to that, and I reserve the right to query more.

I would like to now move on to what I’m going to call, likely not happily to the minister, the hidden carbon tax on housing, which I will call the step code. The step code regulations have emerged as a significant tax on new housing, substantially escalating costs, intensifying bureaucracy and hampering the province’s already strained housing market.

Intended to progressively increase energy efficiency in new construction, the step code imposes stringent guidelines on insulation quality, on thermal loss mitigation, on window sizes, on lighting and overall design specifications. Industry professionals have estimated compliance costs as adding 10 to 20 percent to new home prices, exacerbating affordability concerns in the middle of a severe housing crisis.

These regulatory layers not only inflate housing costs but introduce unnecessary complexity and delays in permitting and project execution, leading directly to fewer homes being built. This is exactly the red tape that strangles new-home building.

Given the complexity and bureaucratic nature of step code compliance, has the ministry calculated the exact cost burden, both direct compliance costs and indirect permitting delays, borne now by builders and, ultimately, homeowners in B.C.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are a couple of pieces, a couple of questions within the question from the member.

I know that we’re moving on from topics. I did just want to make one comment on the last piece, which is that we also need nurses, we also need teachers, and we also need trades folks, and they need housing.

[2:30 p.m.]

It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg. We need to have the housing to have the people to be able to support the social infrastructure we need, but we’ll have lots of time. We’re here for a while, so I suspect we’ll come back to this.

On the building code piece, I think it’s important for folks, those that are watching at home, to understand that, with any code changes, we try to give time for the home-building community, for industry, to adjust to the changes that are coming.

The member’s question was what’s the cost. It’s very difficult to come up with a number, given that design choices can change from building to building. So it depends on what your design choices are. It depends on market of supply. We do look at all these things.

I just met, within the last few weeks, with folks within this industry that supply goods, to discuss how we’re changing technologically, how we’re adapting. In fact, what I heard from them was that the technology exists; the technology is not the challenge. How do we skill people up and train them up to be able to install and do these different changes that we need to do to be able to get there?

I do acknowledge that there are often potential costs associated with building code changes, and the accessibility piece was one. We brought in some changes to accessibility. Given that there were some serious concerns around supply of building supplies — the fact that 40 to 60 percent of our building supplies come from the U.S., and the uncertainty of cost pressures — we have now made some changes to that accessibility code requirement so that we can build more predictability in costs.

That’s a tough thing to do because anyone that’s been advocating for accessibility in housing will tell you that these changes are long overdue. I think of Stephanie Cadieux, who was a minister here and who is now the national advocate in this space. They want to see it move forward.

We’re trying to find a balance between wanting to move forward on important measures and, at the same, time ensuring that we can still get housing built. We do that with the energy code as well.

Susie Chant: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Susie Chant: Thank you so very much.

Earlier in the day on the precinct was Sutherland Secondary School from North Vancouver. It was their global perspectives program, which was designed to enrich students’ understanding of global affairs by fostering engagement in the interconnectivity of economic, political, environmental and social systems. The global issues curriculum is interwoven through four courses, with an emphasis on field studies to ensure students’ learning extends beyond the classroom.

The class group, grade 11s and 12s from Sutherland, spent their time in the Legislature. They met with Minister Ma, and they’ve been touring through the building.

Unfortunately, I didn’t get here fast enough, and they’re off the precinct now. But I hope that the House can warmly welcome them at this time, so that we can show it to them on Hansard.

Debate Continued

Linda Hepner: I don’t think I got an answer relative to the costing and the cost burden of compliance to the step code. But I’ll help answer that question, if I may, because the people I’ve been meeting with within the industry tell me it adds 10 to 20 percent to the hard costs of a project.

How can you justify to British Columbians why their government chooses to impose a step code — essentially, a hidden carbon tax that raises home prices by that kind of a percentage — all in the midst of an unprecedented housing affordability crisis?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member must acknowledge that operating those buildings will be cheaper. Yes, there may be a cost for the developer. They may not make the profit margins that they want, but those that are living in those units will be able to operate in a more cost-effective way — lower bills, lower heating bills, etc. Those buildings that are rentals will have better cash flows.

There are other benefits. I know the member knows the climate benefits of it, but there are other benefits beyond that as well, which I think are important. I’ll leave it there, and I’ll come back to it after.

Linda Hepner: I don’t think we got an answer that the public would consider to be significantly useful to their pocketbooks when we’re talking about a 10 or 20 percent increase in housing and an onerous red-tape scenario.

With housing plummeting by 59 percent in Vancouver alone, can the minister confirm how many approved housing projects have been halted or cancelled, specifically due to the step code–related escalations?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware of a single project that has been cancelled because of just the step code. If the member has a project that was cancelled just because of the step code, I’m happy to hear it.

I can share with the member that there is research that was released in 2022. There was a construction cost analysis of high-performance, multi-unit residential buildings in B.C., and it showed that the cost was 3 percent or less for housing types under step 3.

There are a lot of factors in projects. The biggest one I hear, by far, is the time it takes to get approvals. So we’ve been taking those steps. Again, this research showed a 3 percent cost, and it doesn’t show the savings for individuals that move into those units. Both are important.

Linda Hepner: Has the government conducted any rigorous economic or social-impact analysis measuring whether the marginal energy efficiency gains — I think he said 3 percent — justify the substantial deterioration in affordability, livability and market viability, and if so, could we have those analyses made available?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, this research showed that there was a 3 percent or less cost. The ongoing savings were around 20 percent. That’s significant for those that are living in the unit after, the savings.

Now, the member wants the research. I’m happy to share the research with the member. It’s a report that’s from a few years ago. If it’s easier for the member, maybe we’ll have someone email the link to the research so that the member can have it.

[2:40 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: I wonder if I could ask the minister whether or not they have met with industry and gone through a pro forma of a building project and been able to determine through various agencies, as I have, that those numbers no longer work for viability in the marketplace.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I meet with industry on an ongoing basis. I think it’s not fair to characterize the step code as their challenge that they can’t get housing on. There are a lot of challenges.

There were interest rate challenges. There were labour shortage challenges. There is the fact that rents are coming down and that home prices are coming down, and a lot of pro formas don’t work right now. There is trade uncertainty around building supplies. Those are the topics that I discuss with industry all the time. That’s not a new thing.

The changes to the step code were not something we did this year. This was multiple years ago. We built in the predictability so that people knew it was coming, so that it gave a market signal to industry to be able to adapt.

I just met two weeks ago with some industry stakeholders that provide products that support us to be able to meet our goals. They said: “Technology moves quick.” Technology is moving quick. They said: “We still need support for training people up so that they have the skill sets to be able to install and make sure that these buildings can continue to operate.”

There are a lot of advancements happening in Europe. We’re seeing the price of a lot of the products coming down. That’s what happens when you give the signal: you see the market react and start to produce the products we need to be able to achieve the goals that we want. Over time, those costs will continue to come down.

Linda Hepner: I think it would be very advantageous for both the minister and the critic for the ministry to meet with the same players. We’re hearing different stories from what I just heard now from the minister. That is certainly not what I’m hearing, both in the community I live in and in the various agencies with which I’ve met.

I would like to ask whether it is the ministry’s position…. Could the minister define what measurable environmental outcomes have been directly attributed to the step code regulations and whether they merit the harm attached to housing affordability and availability?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I didn’t want the people at home to be confused that all of a sudden there was something brand-new being introduced this year. The energy step code was introduced in 2017. The member is asking for research and data that was done at that time. I don’t have anything new that I can share, other than the research that I’ve committed to share with the member.

If the member has questions about the climate change roadmap, that’s a question for the Ministry of Energy, which is actually in estimates right now. I suggest that’s a better place for that question.

Linda Hepner: Considering that the industry reports that the step code compliance results in darker, less comfortable and aesthetically compromised home interiors, how does the ministry defend sacrificing that quality of life for the marginal energy efficiency?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It depends on design choices. It’s a vague question. It’s hard to answer the question. It just depends on how projects are being designed, and they’re all being designed differently. Many projects are starting to use more natural airflow, etc.

I don’t know exactly how to…. I don’t want to avoid the question, but I just don’t know how to answer the question because it’s a little vague.

Linda Hepner: I did not mean to be vague, but can I build a big window? A big one?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, the member can, if the member chooses to, have a big window. I encourage a big window. Of course, it depends on the manufacturer and their ability to produce it. But there are homes that can meet that step code with larger windows, so yes.

Linda Hepner: I’m very glad to hear the minister say that, because that is not what I’m hearing from the builders. I’ll be sure to pass that on, that we can have as big a window as we would like under the step code.

What evidence, if any, does the ministry have that British Columbians support these regulations that significantly raise housing prices and lower home quality, except for the big window, merely for marginal improvements?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the fact that we have a majority government, the fact that we ran on a commitment to make some progress when it comes to addressing climate change…. Building envelopes are an important piece, an important measure on that.

I appreciate that in every election, there are people who campaign who say: “Don’t do anything.” We campaigned to say that this is an important step to move in that direction. I think that’s an important measure of support.

Again, I think our numbers…. We disagree on the numbers of the impact of the step code. This was introduced in 2017. A lot has happened in that time. A lot of innovation has come online, and we’re going to continue to see that. Anytime a marker is set and the market is given some time to adjust, you see the market adjust. We’re starting to see that here as well.

Linda Hepner: I’m surprised the market has to adjust if we can have big windows. In fact, I’m rather surprised that all the new buildings that you see have long, narrow, dark windows. I would suggest that perhaps the ministry needs to make their design options much clearer to the marketplace, because I don’t think the marketplace as yet understands that they can build as big a window as they like.

Finally, Minister, in this topic, given the significant social harm and economic harm caused by the step code, and the documented decline in housing starts, will you reconsider and repeal these regulations so that we can restore some affordability and some attractiveness to British Columbia’s new housing market?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it’s important to, maybe, put in context that the work to have a step code didn’t just happen under our government. In fact, this idea started when Rich Coleman was the Minister of Housing and Christy Clark was the Premier. That’s when the work started. That government understood that you need to make progress, and you need to move the dial. We just carried that work on when we came into government.

[2:50 p.m.]

At this point, the member is asking if I’m prepared to cancel regulations. The next step code is, I think, projected for 2030, and, at this point, I’m not considering changing any of those regulations.

Linda Hepner: I hear what the good minister is saying about previous folk sitting here in the House, but I think it’s fair to suggest that, under what is considered to be a housing crisis, we should all be looking for solutions to how we resolve a crisis, not how we are going to continue. What you’re suggesting is somebody else’s idea, and we’re just going along with it.

I’m not impressed with the ministry’s response to that regulation, because I believe that in a crisis, we all need to be swimming in the same direction, saying: what is it we need to do? This minister likes to suggest that there are all sorts of positive things happening in housing, when some of the very things that could easily help the cost of housing and home ownership are to simply get rid of some of the barriers we have within our own government regulations.

I’ll move on to the building code accessibility requirements and the cost impacts and the consultations under that particular subject.

I understand that the ministry is undergoing those consultations related to universal design, accessibility and adaptable housing. These may align or relax accessibility-related design standards, including those inspired by the accessible design for the built environment — CSA B651 and similar to federal or ADA-equivalent models.

Stakeholders in the development industry have raised concerns about the cost impact of requiring a majority of units in new buildings to be accessible and adaptable. Developers suggest that full compliance would add another 8 to 12 percent to the construction cost per unit, particularly in a multi-storey residential building, due to wider corridors, turning radius, additional elevator space, reinforced walls for grab bars and plumbing modifications.

At the same time, advocates for universal design point to demographic data. As to the most recent surveys, approximately 4 or 5 percent of British Columbians would rely on wheelchair or mobility aids, and that number is expected to rise, obviously, with an aging population. I can tell you, right here, I’ve got my cane. So for a short period of time, I’ll be among that 4 to 5 percent.

Questions please, Mr. Minister. Can you confirm whether or not your ministry has provided input into the accessibility and adaptability policy development as it relates to the B.C. building code?

The Chair: Once again, just a reminder that questions will come through the Chair, Member. Thank you very much.

Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you, Chair, for keeping us disciplined. I appreciate that. I will do so.

When I first got elected, my first task as an MLA was to bring back a Human Rights Commission to British Columbia. So I travelled to talk to folks about human rights and met with the accessibility community.

I heard many stories of people that couldn’t visit a family member because although they had units in the building that were accessible, the unit that their family member lived in was not. Doors weren’t wide enough, so the entire family would go up to visit the family, and that one individual in a wheelchair would just wait outside.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is an important conversation from a human rights perspective, which I take seriously. I reflect on the former minister, Stephanie Cadieux, who was in here, who has now got the job to be advocating for more progress at a national level.

I think it is important for the member to know a couple of things. We have moved the percentage requirement to 20 percent. We did that in consultation with industry.

We committed that we’ll continue to follow the national process. The member has asked if we provided some feedback at that process. I can confirm that we have a team that is engaged with the national process. It’s moving slow, but the conversations are happening at a national level.

Linda Hepner: I agree with the minister’s comments about how important accessibility and adaptability are. But to the degree that they’re doing consultation and that there is an expectation of a significantly larger percentage of design of the built environment being accessible into the now unaffordable….

Well, I’ll just ask the question this way: what is the estimated construction cost increase per unit associated with making a typical apartment fully accessible versus adaptable only, and has the ministry commissioned any third-party costing studies on this?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We have done costing on adaptability, not on accessibility. If the member would like a copy of that report on adaptability, I am happy to share it with the member.

Linda Hepner: Thank you. I would like that.

I appreciate the minister providing that to me.

I wonder if the ministry has an understanding of what percentage of British Columbians currently require mobility aids or wheelchairs, and if there has been a housing demographic forecast of what that would look like over the next ten or 20 years?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My team doesn’t have a number right now. But we’re here for a couple of days, I think, so we’ll make sure we get that to you.

Linda Hepner: I appreciate that. Thank you.

Does the ministry plan to mandate accessibility in 100 percent of new units, or did I hear the minister suggest that only a portion of suites — up to 20 percent…? On what basis is this policy being set?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: At this point, we are only at 20 percent adaptability. We are not in a position to expand that or announce any expansions of that. It is not something that is being considered at this time.

Linda Hepner: I wonder if I could ask for the full cost-benefit analysis, stakeholder feedback and any implementation plan for these code changes to be made public before any final recommendations or regulations are adopted.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think I have answered this question. We have a space-and-cost impact report based on adaptable changes, and I’m happy to share that with the member. My team was just going to email something over so that the member has it.

Linda Hepner: Does that include an implementation plan?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think, perhaps, we are talking about two different things. Our plan is to go to 20 percent. At this point, we don’t have a plan to go beyond that.

The federal government is contemplating further changes. We’re engaged with them at that table, but we don’t have a final report or a final plan. I assume the federal government will have a full cost-benefit analysis done with whatever end result they come with, but we’re not there yet.

Linda Hepner: I’m hearing the minister suggest that they’re talking adaptability, not full-on accessible. If I’m correct in that, then I believe my question…. If the minister provides me with the information that has been suggested, that would satisfy me.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, the member is correct, 20 percent adaptability. That’s as far as we’re going at this stage, and we’ll wait for the federal process. I commit to the member that I’ll get that report. It also includes some of the analysis around earthquake code.

I’ll make a comment just to say that at a national level, there was research done around soil and impacts from potential earthquakes. In fact, I would say the bigger concern from industry is how we adjust the building code to meet those earthquake requirements — less on the energy, less on the accessibility, because of our changes recently, and more on the earthquake pieces.

I’m sure the member would fully agree with me that if the research is clear that there’s a risk because of potential earthquakes, it’s all of our responsibility to make sure that we mitigate the best we can any of those concerns in the building code. That work is happening as well.

Linda Hepner: Just to clarify, we’re talking 20 percent adaptability, not 100 percent adaptability.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, that’s correct. Twenty percent adaptability, not 100 percent accessibility.

Linda Hepner: If I could ask for a break to bring in a couple of other people that would like to speak….

The Chair: Looks like we’re going to be okay with that. I think we’re going to recognize one of the members right now.

Scott McInnis: I’m okay to continue if the minister and his staff are okay with that as well.

Thank you, Minister, for those questions. I want to shift gears a little bit and just talk about some of the unique housing challenges we face in regard to resort municipalities and some of the short-term-rental regulations that are coming up in the next couple of days for those that want to be part of the new registry system.

Just to start off, if I could just get a brief outline as to what the stated goal is with the Ministry of Housing when it comes to this new short-term-rental registry application process and fee for small municipalities that are allowed to have short-term rentals.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Nice to have an exchange with the member. We haven’t had a chance yet, so I appreciate the question.

The changes we’ve done around STR, or short-term rentals, were to ensure that we are prioritizing housing opportunities for people in our communities.

[3:05 p.m.]

Prior to the member being elected, UBCM, in fact, had a resolution asking for the province to step in this space, in particular, because local governments were trying to create their own licensing system. But often they did not get cooperation from the platforms. So you could set up something and then you were finding out through house parties where the short-term rentals were as opposed to where they actually were.

The city of Vancouver had an agreement to share data, but even they struggled to actually get the data of where short-term rentals were. So we took the first steps last year, and the registry now is…. People are registering their properties, and we are starting to see some good progress. We’re starting to see the numbers coming up, and now that data will be shared with local governments.

Local governments now will be able to compare what they think is happening in their communities to what is actually happening in their communities. That was a big, big ask from local governments because there was a major blind spot when it comes to that.

Now, I think I know where the member is going, because I’ve seen some correspondence from the member. It’s important to note that when we set the system up, we want to make sure that we’re recovering costs to set up the system and operate. I wouldn’t be surprised to see local governments moving away from having their own systems, because the province has created one that has more teeth than they can possibly do.

I mean, the reality was local governments were not able to compel anything from platforms. Now, of course, with our system, that information will be transparent, so I wouldn’t be surprised if we see local governments moving away, because our system now does all the things that they wanted to see, and it will help them better mitigate challenges in their communities.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I think the minister will agree that resort municipalities are unique. These are small communities that have huge tourism influxes in peak seasons, but they don’t necessarily have the hotel capacity to house these tourists when they come to town.

I appreciate that the minister is stating that perhaps some of these municipalities will be moving away from their local registry systems and fee-collection pieces, but as of right now, they’re not. That’s somewhat of a stream of important revenue for local resort municipalities as they exist today.

I completely understand that not all resort municipalities are one and the same. I’m sure there will be resort municipalities that find that perhaps this short-term registry and the additional fee are a deterrent to providing more stable and long-term housing for specific communities.

I’m just wondering if, before this came into existence for resort municipalities specifically, did the ministry do any canvassing among the 14 resort municipalities in the province to see what their individual needs were?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: When we were building this out, there was extensive engagement done with communities. We exempted some regional districts. We exempted tourism-dependent communities from the principal residence requirements for that reason. We know that they often depend on that for tourism activity. The member will know that there are tourism-dependent communities that have wanted to opt in because they see the benefit of it. Osoyoos is an example.

Likely the member is also interested in the fact that we require everyone to register, whether they’re a tourism-dependent community or not, because the tools that we have in place allow us to do a level of enforcement. If we don’t know where the homes are in communities, whether they’re tourism-dependent or not…. If we don’t have a system in place, we can’t have an enforcement process.

There are many short-term rentals. Maybe I’ll just use Whistler as an example. It’s not a real example, but an example. You could have a whole host of short-term rentals in that community, and it’d be great. But you could have a few that are owned by somebody who doesn’t live in town, and it’s a major problem. Having everyone registered allows the local government now to use their licensing to say: “We would like that one shut down for whatever reason because of non-compliance, etc.”

Now our registry provides them the tool to actually have the enforcement. Before that, it would be goodwill. You could ask, but the platforms may not respond.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Again, I think the issue here is specifically for resort municipalities. My question originally was: did the ministry actually canvass the 14 resort municipalities to see what their unique housing needs were? Again, I have five of the 14 resort municipalities in my riding.

I’ve shared with the ministry a lot of concerns, because of some of the unintended consequences with a second registry and a second fee that the province has brought in, are that a lot of these small-time STR operators are now choosing to close their doors because they’re paying in excess of $1,000 per door for the registry plus a lengthy process — and one that the municipalities already have in place.

They’re extremely frustrated, and the result being that people are cancelling bookings. That’s very devastating for some of these local, small resort municipalities within Columbia River–Revelstoke specifically.

I just want to see if I can get an answer out of the ministry as to whether they canvassed, specifically, resort municipalities to see what kind of existing systems they already had in place, and would this registry be helpful for them? The feedback I’m receiving is that it is not, and the unintended consequence is that people are closing their short-term rentals.

Just as a footnote, these are not big corporate entities that are owning these short-term rentals. These are small-time people within the community that maybe have a second property that they’ve saved up a lot of money and time to be able to afford, or perhaps they’ve renovated their existing primary residence to have a secondary suite within there. It’s not these big corporate real estate investment trusts or things like that. These are local folks.

[3:15 p.m.]

Again, I think the result is that, yes, they’re pulling their short-term rental off the market. Yes, that does provide housing locally for people that need it, because we still do have a crunch, but the unintended consequence is that people are cancelling bookings to these resort municipalities.

I just want to ask the ministry if they canvassed specifically, through a questionnaire or through a town hall, with the resort municipalities. Were they asked what their specific needs were, based on the tourism and fluxes that they see every season?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can tell the member that we specifically engaged with Revelstoke in 2023 when we were preparing to make the legislation. If the member is asking specifically about the fee, the fee is again important because if Revelstoke wants us to use the powers we’ve created, in order to actually enforce the rules that they have in place for them, then it’s important for them to register.

I appreciate that for somebody who’s renovated a place, an additional $100 is $100. I get it. But it’s important that we also have a measure for cost recovery so that if we’re investing in infrastructure, a system, an opportunity for people to check, we’re able to recover some of those costs. I just think that the cost-recovery piece was an important piece for us as we move forward.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

Beyond Revelstoke…. I have five resort municipalities in my riding — Revelstoke, Golden, Invermere, Radium Hot Springs and Kimberley; and they’re all very unique. Not all of those communities disagree necessarily with the short-term-rental registry policy that’s in place, but several of them do, Kimberley specifically. I know Tourism Kimberley has written the ministry, asking them to reconsider this policy, and they were sent a message that said: “Well, maybe you should consider locally reducing your fees.”

I just want to again double-check to see if all the resort municipalities were canvassed to see what their unique, specific needs related to short-term rentals are.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We sent notices to Golden, Revelstoke, Rossland, Ucluelet, Tofino, Kimberley and Radium Hot Springs, and the teams met with Revelstoke, Golden and Rossland. We didn’t hear back from some of the others.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Sending a notice sounds like sending something that’s, “This is what’s coming,” not kind of an engaged, back-and-forth dialogue with those communities potentially.

I do appreciate that he did speak with a couple of communities, Golden and Revelstoke — and Rossland, which is outside of my riding but, nevertheless, still a resort municipality.

As I’m wrapping up this line of questioning here, will the minister agree with me that having a secondary set of fees in place, on top of the local municipal fees and a second set of application fees, is not redundant, and that asking municipalities to remove their fees and their application system, which is working in some of the resort municipalities, is not taking money away from local governments and putting it directly into the coffers of the province?

This is extremely frustrating for resort municipalities. At times, they feel like they’re treated like an ATM in this province, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and not seeing a lot of return on investment.

Just to summarize that question: does the ministry not see, because we still have both fees and application processes on the table as we sit here today, that they’re taking away local revenue for municipalities and bringing it here to Victoria?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: A couple things.

First, I’ll say that the notices to those communities were notices to engage with us. We don’t send them a notice saying: “It’s happening.” We say: “We’re thinking about moving this direction, and we’d like to engage with you.” UBCM sent us this recommendation to do it. UBCM did their own engagement with all the communities, so that’s an important piece.

Lastly, I’ll say to the member that local governments wanted the ability to be able to enforce the rules. Right now you can have…. I’ll give Burnaby as an example. Burnaby had their own licensing agreement. They had people say to them, literally…. Bylaw would go there, and they’d say to the bylaw officer’s face: “Thank you for coming. I’m not doing anything you’re asking me to do. You have no power to be able to do any of this.” That was what they heard.

[3:20 p.m.]

I know that recently Surrey decided to start their own bylaws because of the challenge. But the problem fundamentally still exists, which is if these communities want to actually take some action, they need the ability for our registry and our legislation to be able to enforce those rules.

I appreciate the additional $100. It is a cost; I get that. But it allows the local government to have a level of enforcement that they were not able to have previously. I know with any level of enforcement, it’s a challenge. But again, this was something the UBCM felt really strongly. There were motions passed on this topic, and we’re seeing the benefit.

We’re seeing now, because of the registry, actually an increase in registries at local government level. Local governments — when we started sharing the preliminary data with them, their numbers were small compared to how many short-term rentals were in their community. By requiring them to go through our process, now local governments are actually seeing an increase in registrations with them because the people that are operating short-term rentals realize that the only way they can operate is if they actually follow the city’s rules.

Cities are seeing a benefit, a significant increase in registries, as well, which brings them additional revenues for the important things that they do.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I totally understand that bylaw officers sometimes feel a little bit, no pun intended, handcuffed with their role in enforcing the rules. What additional enforcement strategies is the province going to use from here in Victoria in order to ensure that there’s compliance with their provincial short-term registration process that’s new here?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Two parts I’ll just share with the member. In Revelstoke, they’ve seen a 14 percent increase in compliance with local government rules, with local government licensing, because of the registry already. That is in seven months. That’s something.

In the enforcement piece, there are two mechanisms. A local government can use our new portal to send a direct message to anyone that’s got a unit, with a notice to say: “We believe you’re out of compliance” or “You’re not following the rules.” And then they have another tool available to them to notify directly to the platform to remove the listing.

That is a powerful tool for local governments that they didn’t have before, because before, it was, again, begging and hoping and wishing. Now the data portal allows them to send a notice, and then the platform has a certain amount of time in order for them to remove it. They’re required to remove it. If they don’t remove it, then there’s a fine associated with not doing that, so it’s in their interest to do that.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I just have one more question, and then I’ll pass it off to my colleague from Kelowna Centre.

I’m hearing from people on the ground who operate short-term rentals in the resort municipalities, specifically in Columbia River–Revelstoke, that there is some friction, some tension and some unhappiness with the new registry system.

Will the minister today commit to revisiting and perhaps canvassing again resort municipalities after six months or a year, just to see how the new registry is playing out within these communities? It’s extremely important in these small resort municipalities that are under a population of 10,000 people that short-term rentals are available for the tourism seasons.

[3:25 p.m.]

It would be great today if I could get a commitment from the ministry that they will review this in six months or a year to see if compliance rates are working and the consequences and the outcomes of this new registration policy are, in fact, working.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can’t commit to the member that in six months there will be a review. But I can commit to the member that we’ll continue to engage with communities as we go forward. We will share the compliance level that we see over time.

If the member is interested, after a period of time, we can check in. I can share what numbers we are seeing for compliance. We are continuously engaging with local governments on how we move forward, but I can’t commit to a specific time.

The need for folks to register through our system is vitally important. It’s not only important for this; it’s also important because we are able to share this data with the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance has registries created to ensure compliance around money laundering, etc. So there’s another level of importance for us to have this registry that is beyond just short-term rentals. But we’re happy to share with the member after six months or so what kind of progress we’re seeing in the community, and the member can come to me anytime to engage on it.

Kristina Loewen: In Kelowna, the municipality is now allowing business licences for short-term rentals in suites and carriage homes. While this loosening of rules and expansion of short-term rentals is welcome to many, the dates do not coincide well with the provincial requirements. The province requires a registration number as of this Thursday, in just two days, but the municipality says to expect two to five weeks’ wait for a licence.

At this point, the risk is put on the shoulders of the homeowner, the mom-and-pop, the small-time entrepreneur who are expected to pay $450 for a carriage home registration number. These are people who own a second property and have really struggled or have a second suite in their primary that they’ve not been able to utilize for the past year and a half.

My question to the minister is: will he consider waiving the fee or making it payable upon final approval? Will he extend the provincial date by a month or two, or will he consider some kind of support for citizens who are trying to do the right thing but are caught between two levels of government?

The Chair: This feels like a great time to remind members to have their electronic devices on silent mode.

Not you, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Good. I thought I was not hearing something.

I appreciate the member raising this concern. I’ll explore with my team if we can put in some sort of provision to allow individuals to provide proof that they are making the application. So we’ll explore that, and maybe I can get back to the member by tomorrow on whether we can accommodate that. I’ll try. I can’t commit to it, but I’ll try.

The fee is required to be part of it. We can’t waive the fee, but we will do what we can to ensure that that gap in time is covered so that people who are doing it in good faith can continue to operate. We’ll follow up with you as soon as we can.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. My constituent will really appreciate that.

I have just one more question for the minister.

A couple of weeks ago, I received a call from a realtor and a builder in Kelowna. They cited a cost of $50,000 to $60,000 per new build in Kelowna to add the province’s new seismic requirements. We’re in an affordability crisis; we’re in a housing crisis.

[3:30 p.m.]

What is the rationale in extending costly seismic requirements to the entire province when most of the province doesn’t have the same risk of seismic events?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My team has let me know that we will provide Kelowna the ability to have proof of application so that they are covered for the two weeks. We’ll share a link with the member on that so that you can see that and share that with your constituents.

I appreciate the member raising the question about seismic code changes. We were just canvassing this, before the member arrived, with the critic, the member for Surrey–Serpentine River. It’s a challenge. I fully acknowledge that it’s a challenge. When you have research from the federal level come down, which says that under certain soil conditions there are greater risks of seismic issues connected with buildings, we can’t turn a blind eye to it.

In my meetings with industry, I have always said the same thing, “Do you refute the data and research?” and they say no. Then I say: “Now it’s our responsibility to build housing that is safe for people, because god forbid that we have this data and builders are not building housing properly on that soil, and then we have a big one. How do we respond to the public?”

Beyond that, even if industry or someone were to come in and say, “You know what? We’re going to disregard that,” the insurance industry has come to us and said: “It doesn’t matter if you change the code or not. We know the soil sample. We are going to ensure that we price or not provide any insurance to anyone on that soil if you don’t do the proper mitigation to protect from that.” That’s the challenge we’re in; I fully acknowledge it. There’s no easy solution.

I can share with the member that we have a partnership that we’re forming with industry to look at how we can mitigate costs, what we can do in the design, in the engineering, to be able to continue to build this housing, but to do it in the most cost-effective way. That work has started, and that will help inform what we do as we go forward. It’s a significant impact on the coast in some communities.

It’s not us imposing it community-wide. It really depends on the soil. It could be something that impacts one project somewhere, but it could be a few blocks away are not impacted. I’m pretty open about the challenge that we have here, but I’m resolute and clear that I, as the minister responsible, will not put any lives at risk by not making the changes when the evidence is clear.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you for your answer, Minister.

Just as you were answering, I was thinking about the common sense in this reality. The reality is that I lived 22 years on the coast. Yes, we had earthquake drills; yes, we talked about earthquakes in schools.

I have now lived in Kelowna Centre for 27 years. We never speak of earthquakes; it’s not a thing there. So it defies common sense to apply this logic.

Furthermore, I got to sit today at lunch with the hon. Speaker and with some scientists, one of whom is an engineer and works for a research team. He was asking: “Where are we getting these codes from? Who’s doing the research? Who’s doing the engineering? This doesn’t make sense to me.”

We were actually talking about seismic code at lunch. That’s anecdotal; that’s one engineer. But I would like to see where these reports are coming from, what the science is, and who’s putting these forward, because it doesn’t seem to make sense.

Thank you for your answer. If we could get more information on where the science and research is coming from, I would love that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member.

The research is done by the National Research Council. I assume that’s as reputable as it gets for research in this space.

Seismic is an issue. The member may be talking about seismic in her community, but there may be other wind elements that are also an impact. If the member has specifics and writes me, I’ll try to get information on if it’s wind-related or if it’s soil- and seismic-related.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’ll go back to my original comment, which is: actually, at this point it doesn’t even matter if we make a change or not. No insurer is going to insure, knowing the National Research Council has done this research. No one is refuting the research. The information is in front of us. Even if somebody wanted to build and we didn’t change it, it’s going to have a major impact on them because they’re not going to find somebody to insure it, because that research exists, and there’s a huge liability that’s out there.

I hear the member. I can assure the member that every question the member is thinking about, in every way of avoiding this, I have asked my team and considered because I know there’s an impact. But unfortunately, the research is pretty clear.

Now, there is some hope, because some of the discussions we’re having with the engineering community, in particular, and some homebuilders…. There are some innovative solutions that are coming forward, and I’m hoping that this work that we do together, which will be made public, will help us mitigate a lot of these concerns.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Bryan Tepper: I have a question about a certain property, and I’m hoping we can get an update on it: 5625 Ladner Trunk Road. I am to understand that’s going to be a project going forward for below-market housing — 5625 Ladner Trunk.

I’ll just ask, first of all, is there any information on that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is going to work through that.

Does the member have something specific around…? Perhaps we can have a bit of an exchange while the team looks it up, if there are some specific concerns about that. It’s in Delta, so I have a sense of what it might be, but I’m happy to hear from the member on it.

Bryan Tepper: I’ve had this brought to my attention a couple of times by people in the area. It’s a townhouse complex on 1½ acres. It was set for redevelopment, but people have been out of the townhouse for several years now. It’s been empty and apparently going downhill. It should be for redevelopment, but at this point, nobody’s living in it. It hasn’t been made use of.

I’m wondering if we can get a time frame on what’s going on there.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: When the member gave the address, it took me a second to get the memory back, but we did canvass this. The member from Delta and I canvassed this last year. This one has got a long history. I think it was in front of council in 2022, and it was rejected. Then it went back to council just recently, and it’s going through the process.

My understanding from the team is that we’re expecting construction to start this fall. If something changes, I’ll certainly get back to the member. But we finally got the approval from local government, and it seems like we’re proceeding in a good direction.

It has had a long history in Delta. The member for Delta South will remember this, because it was on, and then it was off. The community was upset. We had to change the design. I think we’re in a better place now and hoping to proceed soon.

Bryan Tepper: Okay, the question around that would be, then…. The permits. It sounds like it’s a city issue that has been holding us up. Do we have a time frame on the completion date of it? I think the completion date was supposed to be this year at some point. Do we have a completion date or a length of time, depending on when we get the permits, that the project will take?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that we expect construction to start this fall. It’s 150 units, so it’s a pretty big project. It’ll probably take about two years for construction.

Bryan Tepper: Could you repeat the number again?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s 150 units.

Bryan Tepper: As this was a previous project, do you know if this is budgeted out of previous moneys, or is it this year’s budget? Do we have an idea of where it’s being funded from?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It is part of our CHF budget currently.

Again, it was announced some time ago, and then council rejected the proposal, and we had to go back to the drawing board and start again. But we’re starting, which is a good thing.

Bryan Tepper: Back to short-term-rentals ban. Hopefully I’m correct, and if I can just use the terminology short-term rental or Airbnb. With the short-term rental ban on people using their hard-earned property as they see fit, how many of the housing units came available for long-term rent in Kelowna? Do we have any estimates on that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s hard to know the exact number because there was no baseline in the beginning, but I can give the member a number that kind of blew my mind, which was…. The vacancy rate in 2023 in Kelowna was 1 percent. In 2024, after short-term-rental rules jumped in, it jumped up to 3.7 percent. That’s a significant shift in one year, from 1 percent to 3.7 percent.

Bryan Tepper: I have brought this up several times. There was at least one housing project scheduled for 360 units for Kelowna cancelled with the short-term rental ban when the pre-sales started falling through.

Do you know if we could have replaced those 360 units? Would that be completing fairly soon here?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The investors in that property had an option that’s available to others, which was to continue their project and operate as a strata hotel. The requirements are very simple — just having somebody at the front desk, some cleaning services, which they would, I suspect, require anyways. But they made a decision, and I can’t control the decisions others make. I can share that that option was available to them, and in fact it’s an option considered by others.

Bryan Tepper: Well, I appreciate the 1 percent to 3.7 percent, but I think we could have expected an initial surge in rental listings to be a significant number.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think we have had reports from experts saying this would be a short-term effect, and I’m curious about that. UBC Housing Research Collaborative noted that strong demand and low vacancy rates mean the influx of new listings is likely temporary. With long-term rent trajectories decimated due to structural supply issues, the regulations do not address the need for new housing construction, which experts argue is critical to resolving the issues.

Is there anything in the budget to actually address this?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m going to try to extrapolate from what the member is saying.

The member is saying: “Yes, you may have short-term impacts, but the long-term solution is still more supply,” and I agree with that. We still need more long-term supply. We have been seeing historically high levels of supply come on the market here in British Columbia, some of the highest in the country, and we’re certainly going to need more supply.

A whole host of measures we’re doing around small-scale, multi-unit and around transit-oriented development is meant to help facilitate that increase in supply. But you can do both. You can address the short-term challenges.

I mentioned, from Kelowna, the 1 percent vacancy rate to 3.7 percent is significant, especially for those who are desperately looking for a rental in the community. But yeah, we have to continue our work for increasing housing supply as well.

Bryan Tepper: Just to follow up on the 1 to 3.7 percent, over what period was that? Is it expected to increase or level out there? What are our projections on that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share another important data point for the member, which is that the asking rent has decreased in Kelowna in that same time period. Every year CMHC releases data. It was between 2023 and then 2024 when they released the data. That’s the increase in vacancy rate. Rent has come down for new units — for a one-bedroom, by 7.7 percent, and for a two-bedroom, by 9 percent in Kelowna, some of the largest decreases in new-unit rents in the country.

It’s an important provision to note that if a community has a vacancy rate of 3 percent or above, which is CMHC’s definition of a healthy vacancy rate, for two years, then they have the ability to opt out of the short-term rental principal residence requirement if they choose so. West Kelowna, for example, is a community that had that vacancy rate, so they chose to opt out. That’s allowed within the legislation.

Bryan Tepper: Critics of this, including B.C. Real Estate Association’s chief economist, have argued that the regulation’s impact on housing supply is small and that it’s more on broader factors, like population growth.

Simon Fraser University also noted that the rent and condo price declines may be influenced more by interest rates and economic conditions, or again, population immigration changes, than the short-term rental rules.

What’s in the budget to help with the economic conditions that we’re going through right now?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I would just say that I read the BCREA’s information, and I would say that there wasn’t evidence to back that. That was the chief economist making a statement that he presumed. I did ask the team to look to see what data was being used to make that statement, and there was no concrete data.

[3:55 p.m.]

As to the assumption of reduction of newcomers, immigration numbers, those changes were well past when the changes to the short-term rentals were introduced in the province. So you can’t connect the two. If the economist was suggesting that having a lower number of international newcomers will have an impact on the housing market, that would be correct, I suspect, but the two can’t be linked together.

Bryan Tepper: Just to follow up on that, do we have population data for Kelowna over the past two years?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: B.C. Stats has the information, by community, on their website. I don’t have it on me. If the member needs us to get that, we can, but it’s pretty accessible on B.C. Stats’ website.

Bryan Tepper: Airbnb has claimed that the listings they have represent less than 1 percent of B.C.’s dwellings, which would suggest that the return to short-term rentals is going to have a smaller effect and not have a significant impact on our housing shortage. Then again, in 2023 the Conference Board of Canada found that there was no statistically significant link between Airbnb activity and rent prices.

What evidence do we have that a ban on the use of people’s personal property has affected rent prices?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, the evidence we have is what’s in front of us, which is that from when we brought the legislation in to a year later, we saw the vacancy rate increase from 1 percent to 3.7 percent in Kelowna and rents come down about 9 percent for two-bedroom units.

It might not be the only factor, if that’s what the member is suggesting, but it’s an important factor. The changes around population that the federal government made —those numbers will really not be seen until ’25, ’26, ’27. We may see a greater decline because of less people coming, but that’ll be in the out years, not in the year that it was announced. We’ll continue to monitor that.

As far as getting new housing supply online, yeah, there’s a whole host of work that we’re doing — you know, trying to find ways to make the decision process more streamlined, to create more certainty of costs. Prior to the member being here, we had a good exchange with his colleague the critic for Infrastructure around certainty of costs. How do we ensure that those that are building housing can do so with some level of certainty? There’s a whole host of work that’s happened over that.

Of course, we have more work to do because there’s a lot of uncertainty with potential tariffs and building supplies. There are estimates that 40 to 60 percent of the building supplies come from the U.S., so that may have an impact. There’s a whole host of things.

The member asked what we are doing to help address some of the cost pieces. I can share with the member that our recent agreement with the federal government is just an example, where the federal government agreed to provide Metro Vancouver with $250 million for their Iona wastewater facility, on the condition that there be two-year in-stream protection for projects and that they move their payment structure to completion.

That offsets the costs. It helps the home-building community with direct costs. It ensures that Metro Vancouver has the money they need. We’re looking for those types of relationships with the federal government now that the election is over.

Bryan Tepper: It just worries me that we’re dealing with correlation and causation on some of that with the price, with no real evidence as to whether this is causing our prices to level or stabilize so that things can be affordable.

We’ll move on. We have a tourism-heavy area; this is why I brought up Kelowna. A lot of people in my riding, and throughout Surrey, have worked hard throughout their lives to get a second property, which they have used with the hopes of renting it out while they’re not using it.

[4:00 p.m.]

This has made it unreasonable for them to actually be able to continue owning a property like that, which then brings us to realtors now reporting that we’re a saturated market in Kelowna. Condos and vacation homes are sitting, waiting for sale, due to these regulations.

The low sales rate suggests these units may not quickly convert to long-term rentals or affordable ownership for that matter. What do we offer these people that are now stuck with a property they can’t sell due to this regulation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This conversation on housing has moved quite a bit.

I’ll share with the member that when I first became the Minister of Housing, I was told by the home-building community: “This is not about investors; we’re trying to build homes for people in our communities who desperately need it.”

When we brought in the short-term rental rules, we had similar homebuilders come back to us and say: “This was about investors; we need more housing for investment opportunities.” I appreciate in an environment where rents are coming down that a lot of pro formas, a lot of proposals for homes, they’re not pencilling.

What we hear is that we need to help address the cost, and I get that. We’re working on ways to do that, but if the model was just to build housing, not for people in our communities who desperately need housing but just because there was a lot of investors with deep pockets that want to buy it, that’s a challenge. That’s a challenge for us in all of our communities.

Surrey showed some leadership in bringing a registry for short-term rentals. They did it because they realize it’s a problem in their community. They’re hearing from people who are struggling, and they want to make sure housing is being prioritized.

[Interruption.]

Okay, that was a little bit weird. Siri on my phone decided to jump in. I don’t think I said anything but, weird. Google and Apple are listening to everything we’re saying.

I don’t even know where I was with the comment. Just to say that we understand that there are some cost pressures, especially in an environment where the price of new homes is going down and rents are declining. It’s good for renters. It’s good for potential future homebuyers that the price is coming down, but it does create new dynamics and new challenges.

Lastly, I’ll just say the member, again, reiterated that there was no clear data. I just shared with the member that data from ’23 to ’24, that vacancy rates went from 1 percent to 3.7 percent. Now, maybe the member is suggesting that all of a sudden, a lot of people just left town. It’s unlikely because we would have noticed. Kelowna is a popular place. People continue to go there. It’s more likely that the amount of housing became available on the market for people to rent.

Obviously, we have more work to do. We have more work to do to increase the availability of housing in our community.

Chair, could I suggest we take one more question and then we take a short recess? My voice is starting to break on me.

Bryan Tepper: I was going to try and get to a last question here as well anyway, so that works out well.

It wasn’t so much that 1 to 3.7 percent wasn’t a proper statistic, it was the others — how do we know the rents have come down — and everything else.

I will quickly go through this. Property owners who purchased units specifically for short-term rentals, especially in zoned areas like Kelowna’s, feel blindsided. Some face significant financial losses and must pivot to long-term rentals, which may yield lower returns. Is there any support in the budget to assist these people?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member, in the question, has actually touched on a core issue, which was that folks were buying not one or two but multiple properties, because they wanted to maximize profits. That’s fine, but people in the community couldn’t get access to that housing. That had some real challenges for people who were, quite frankly, struggling — struggling with rents. When the supply of housing is being purchased up to run mini-hotels, it makes it more challenging for young families to be able to get into the market.

The message we’re sending here is that homes are for people in our communities. We need to prioritize those homes.

[4:05 p.m.]

We struck a balance, I believe. If you look at New York, they went to an extreme level, just saying: no more short-term rentals. That was something that we had to look at, what New York was doing. They also have new challenges, which is that now it’s going underground. So having a balance of short-term rentals available, as well as prioritizing housing for communities I think is a balanced approach.

Now, I shared with the member that new asking rents are coming down in Kelowna. I can share with the member that it’s similar in many communities, especially communities where we saw a lot of investments in short-term rentals.

When we brought our changes in…. We’re seeing in Vancouver rents for one-bedrooms down 11.4 percent; down for two-bedrooms, 8.9 percent; North Van, 8.7 percent; and 10.6 percent for two-bedrooms. I’ve got a list of communities where we’re seeing it.

Again, leadership from Surrey. They decided that they knew it was a problem. They brought in some changes themselves. They’ve seen rents down 8.8 percent for one-bedrooms and 5.7 percent for two-bedrooms. So it is having an impact.

You could make the argument, I guess, that all these communities just lost people, but I think that’s hard to believe. I think we have to acknowledge that these actions are making an impact. I appreciate the member’s point that maybe it might not solve the problems well into the future. I would agree with the member that we need to increase housing supply in all of our communities as a more structural change, but this is having an impact. It is helping people in the short term.

The Chair: The committee shall take a short ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:06 p.m. to 4:17 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee back to order.

Trevor Halford: Thank you to my colleague the MLA for Surrey–Serpentine for allowing me some time here in our estimates.

This could be really quick. The strata electrical planning report — does that exist within the Ministry of Housing, or is that within the scope of the Minister of Energy, through CleanBC?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, we can answer those questions.

Trevor Halford: We’ve obviously seen a little bit of moving the goalposts and things like that in terms of EVs. Even today we saw some announcements regarding rebates and such.

Obviously, we are in the middle of an affordability crisis. People are feeling strapped. I know in my area, there are a number of seniors that are living in stratas. I’ve had a meeting with a few of them, such as some of my colleagues, regarding some of the pricing that’s been put on for stratas for EV charging stations.

Does the minister still stand beside the targets that are listed — I guess it’s between December 31, 2026 — to have these implemented in these stratas?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’ve done a lot of work in order to put this in place. I think it’s important to note that we worked with B.C. Hydro, the Condominium Home Owners Association, Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association to make sure that we had plain language guidelines for stratas.

It’s also important to note the costs associated with this, as the member raised. We’re looking at approximately, for 40 strata homes, about $6,000, so it’s $150 a unit. Obviously, for the larger stratas, it’s about $12,000, which on average is around $30 per unit. It’s important for the stratas to do this work, so we are continuing to proceed. The requirement is for this work to be done by the end of next year.

Trevor Halford: I thank the minister for his answer.

The minister is right, to some degree, in terms of the numbers that he just cited, but I’ll give him an example of how that might not add up in some certain locations. If you look at 530 Martin Street in White Rock…. It is a complex, a small building, 18 units, all seniors, older building. They have to pay this. That’s $6,000 for them. I guarantee you the majority, if not all, of those seniors are on fixed incomes.

I know the numbers that the minister just cited. By the way, none of these seniors have electric cars. I’ve gone and met with them in this strata complex. But they are now having to get organized and save money for this, all while we are facing high uncertainty whether or not the province is going to move their EV targets.

My question to the minister: is an 18-unit or smaller…? They’re still going to be on the hook for the $6,000 that the minister just mentioned. Is that correct?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I thank the member for raising the example. I think there’s also a flip side to that. If there are energy needs, upgrades need to be done. Similar to depreciation reports, it’s important for the strata to have a sense of where they’re at, what their challenges might be with the building so they’re not caught by surprise on bigger-cost items later.

So it’s both, I understand, but it is an important measure, I think, for stratas as they go forward.

Trevor Halford: In this, was there any consideration in terms of rebates for seniors, anything like that? Have they looked at that, in particular in some of these older units, where these upgrades are going to be required? Are there rebates available for low-income earners that are existing within that strata?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are no rebates at this time. I think the member knows that, but I’ll just say that.

I can’t commit to something future because I’ve got to go through a very, very tough Minister of Finance. We’re certainly going to keep an eye on it as we go forward.

Trevor Halford: I get the minister about the future, but we are asking these residents on low incomes that are trying to make ends meet in their strata, trying to get their bills paid, to make this commitment now.

My question, and it’s probably going to be a difficult one to answer, if it can be answered at all, is: if the province changes those EV targets, is this still going to be enforceable? A lot of these stratas are making these financial decisions now or have already made them. My question to the minister is: are they going to be reimbursed?

[4:25 p.m.]

What happens if there is a change to the EV targets? Is this all still having to be done by December 31, 2026, keeping in mind that a lot of these stratas are already making that financial commitment right now?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member knows I can’t get into a hypothetical of: what if? What if? What might happen if this happens? But I can share with the member that that’s something we will keep an eye on as those discussions go forward.

Trevor Halford: Again, we’re looking at these older buildings that all have to be retrofitted for this stuff, and it is a sizeable…. If you look at some of these units that are under 18 units in there, this is a large financial commitment. I know the minister talked about $150 here or $200 there. It’s much more in some of these units.

The government is backing off on rebates today. We are hearing that they’re hedging, in terms of where they’re going with EV vehicles, but they are still mandating all these areas to comply with their legislation that exists within this minister’s portfolio, at a time where affordability is an absolute crisis right now.

Has the minister contemplated pausing this, or is this going to be mandated for all stratas, and are they going to adhere to this December 31, 2026, timeline?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I know the member is talking about just EVs, but this is more than EVs. A lot of older buildings get upgrades for heat pumps, for air conditioners, for a whole host of things, and these reports are important for them to get an assessment of what the load is and what can be done with those buildings.

Maybe the individuals right now don’t want to do those things, but if it’s an older building, they’re likely going to do some renovations to those buildings. So this is still a necessary piece to be done on that, and there are rebate programs for the other items. There are rebate programs for heat pumps, etc. So it’s not just the EVs, as the member has highlighted. It’s much broader than that.

Trevor Halford: I do thank the minister for the answer.

I guess my final point on this is if the province is going to adjust or change the goalposts…. Sometimes we understand that’s necessary. They did that today, and they may do that again tomorrow and, at some point, they may do that in the future regarding EV targets. They’re able to adjust and modify to the climate that they’re in. They have that power to do that. They also have the power to enforce and make sure that these strata units comply. And this was all done at the same time that these targets and rebates were put in place.

I guess my question is that…. They’re okay to move the goalposts, but when it comes to actually trying to help people in an affordability crisis comply with this piece of legislation, it doesn’t seem to work.

I’ll leave that with the minister — that I do hope that this is monitored. There are a lot of people in these units where it’s below…. It could be ten units, 12 units, six units, eight units. The minister is right. Sometimes it could be 50 units. It’s a flat $6,000. I get that. But in some of those smaller complexes, especially right now, this is a lot of money.

At times that we are hearing…. It’s not this minister’s estimates; it’s the one down the hall. But we can’t get an actual answer in terms of whether or not they’re going to stick with their EV targets. It depends on what minister, when the Premier is talking to media that day. But we’re expecting these seniors all to pay.

I can tell you that in this building that I just referenced here, they are tight on money. But they have to do this because this government has ordered for them to do it. They’re hearing in the media quite often, and they’re going to hear again today, that things are changing. I’ll leave that with the minister.

[4:30 p.m.]

I know that some of my other colleagues have questions, and I’ve got other questions on housing that I’ll pop back in for. I just think that we’ve got to be very cognizant of some of the situations that people are in, the oldness of the building.

I get that it’s not just for EV vehicles; I get that. But this was done with the intention of those targets in mind.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks again to the member for raising the concern on behalf of his constituents.

Again, I just want to say that it’s not just about EVs. It’s heat pumps; it’s air conditioners. There’s a whole host of things. I note his concern, and we’ll consider that as we go forward.

Misty Van Popta: Up until two weeks after the provincial election, I was building houses, boots on the ground.

It’s said in our industry that the ability to build housing, by both contractors and developers, is eroding like death by a thousand paper cuts. I had the experience on my last project of having half of my houses under the old building code and the last half of the houses under the new building code in 2024. One of those paper cuts was an item that caught us all off guard, actually — not even the architect caught it at first — and that is radon mitigation.

The cost differential between my first set of houses and the second set of houses, just on material costs alone, was $10,000 in material costs. It’s partly due to the fact that the material required for radon mitigation is proprietary, and there’s only one wholesaler that sells it in all of Canada.

My question for right now is: what reports or research were used as the basis of determining the need for radon mitigation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This change was brought in, in 2024. It was a national response. It was a response to the National Research Council’s research as well as Health Canada’s recommendation for changes, so it’s aligned with the national changes. It’s not just a B.C. change.

[4:35 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Can the minister please drill down a bit into what the effects of radon are and the incidence of radon-specific illnesses are in British Columbia?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, this was research done by the National Research Council, which we are happy to share with the member, as well as information provided by Health Canada as an important safety measure. I mean, it’s available online, but if the member would like, we can send that to the member.

Misty Van Popta: Okay, so taking that information that it’s a national recommendation, can I ask why, if radon is so dangerous, the requirement is only that radon mitigation is a rough-in? It’s not even required. At least on my last project, we only had to rough it in.

The Chair: Recognizing the member. There is no eating in the chamber.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you, Chair. Very strict.

The rough-in is a requirement of the national code.

Misty Van Popta: It’s a part of the national code?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s correct. It’s part of the national code, which B.C. adopts.

Macklin McCall: I’m just going to ask a few questions here regarding my riding, West Kelowna–Peachland, and specifically in the community of West Kelowna.

The Ministry of Housing purchased the property at 2570 Bartley Road for $3.7 million in October of 2023. What are the ministry’s plans for this property, and when can the community expect to see development or services initiated on site?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Does the member have the address, by any chance? Could he say the address one more time?

Macklin McCall: It’s 2570 Bartley Road in West Kelowna.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. Now, 2515 is also owned by B.C. Housing; that’s where the temporary shelter is. This site has been purchased by B.C. Housing. B.C. Housing is in conversations with the city, in concept design planning at this stage, to identify what can be possibly done on that site.

Macklin McCall: Okay. I appreciate the answer there. With that facility being in the planning stage and whatnot, I know the city has some concerns with wraparound services associated with the housing.

I have a question relating to that. Given the increasing demand for mental health services in West Kelowna, what steps is the ministry taking to enhance access to mental health and addiction support in the region?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’re going into a bit of the Health conversation, but I can maybe speak generally.

On the other side of the water, with Kelowna, we’ve got 90 units of temporary supportive housing that have opened, and an additional, I believe, around 40 that are coming online in the last eight months. They come with inreach supports from the health authority. There are wraparound supports that are provided to individuals, and we are seeing some success.

[4:45 p.m.]

In fact, I just got a note from the city that in the first nine months of those units, 56 percent of the people that have moved in have already found themselves either into employment, into market rent or connected with family. So the supports seem to be working.

Of course, it would depend on what goes on that site, and we’re not there yet. This is just what’s happened at other sites.

Macklin McCall: The proposed Westside resource hygiene centre at 2545 Churchill Road has faced delays and community concerns. What is the ministry’s position on this project, and how does it plan to address the community’s feedback?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m just hoping the member can clarify. My understanding of the address he’s given us…. It was a temporary shelter, and we’re now using 2570 Bartley Road for that. Is there something very current or very recent that the member is raising concerns about?

Macklin McCall: No, that’s a separate facility, the separate location.

Just to confirm, from your perspective, from the ministry’s perspective, this program is no longer happening as per your ministry? Is that a done project now?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes. My understanding is that that site that the member referred to is no longer operating. It was a temporary winter shelter, so they’re usually temporary in nature.

If there’s a new development, I certainly will have my team follow up, maybe in writing, with you.

[4:50 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: My next question, then.

West Kelowna has been assigned a target of 2,266 new homes over the next five years. What support is the ministry providing to the city to meet these targets, particularly concerning infrastructure and land acquisition?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that we provided West Kelowna $10.2 million for infrastructure, part of the growing community fund. My understanding is that it’s just being held in reserve, that they may not have allocated those dollars yet for infrastructure.

As far as land acquisition, I’m not entirely sure what land the city might be contemplating. Perhaps the member can share with me if there’s a specific parcel of land that he’s referring to.

Macklin McCall: Nothing specific. I’m just seeing if there was any assistance from this government for West Kelowna meeting this target.

You said that there are funds that were allocated for the city of West Kelowna. Was that for infrastructure development, then?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, it was $10.2 million, part of our growing community fund last year. We require local governments to provide us updates when they’ve allocated those dollars. My understanding is that those are held in reserve for infrastructure: water, sewer, etc. I’m not entirely sure how they’re going to allocate that, but I certainly hope that they use those dollars for infrastructure that is needed. Of course, there’s also the Rose Valley drinking water project. We provided $41.2 million for that.

As far as housing goes, a lot of those units are, obviously, housing that’s in the pipeline for approval. I know that there was a high-profile project proposal that was in front of West Kelowna just recently. They faced some opposition and decided to decline it, but I’m sure they’re considering other housing opportunities, and we continue to look for ways to partner for more housing.

We will have a community housing fund intake, which will be happening soon. If the member has a not-for-profit partner in the community that is interested in directly having affordable housing, they should prepare for that intake, because it will be coming soon.

Macklin McCall: I appreciate that.

I now just want to go back to the target of 2,266 new homes. The money, which was indicated as being held by the city of West Kelowna, hasn’t been used, to the best of the minister’s knowledge. I’m just wondering if that money was set aside before the target was applied to the city of West Kelowna. There are quite a lot of rumblings and concerns in my community about this specific target.

[4:55 p.m.]

As the minister is probably aware, the city of West Kelowna is very rapidly developing, but the infrastructure is quite behind. My concern is: were these targeted 2,266 new homes put on the city after the $10 million was set aside?

If the city of West Kelowna were to indicate that the money that might be held, as the minister is saying currently, is inadequate to allow for this growth…. Is the minister willing to commit to providing more assistance to the city of West Kelowna, to actually meet these targeted housing numbers, if it is the case that the money set aside isn’t adequate to develop the infrastructure to get these houses built?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The $10.2 million was roughly around the same time, within a few months. Again, it’s held in reserve. I can’t comment on where or when they’re going to allocate those dollars. That’s probably a better question for the mayor and council. The $10.2 million will certainly help with infrastructure.

I’m not aware if they have applied for the Canada housing infrastructure fund, which is a federal fund. If they haven’t, this would be a good opportunity to do so.

The target for West Kelowna for this upcoming year is 289 homes. I believe it’s achievable for West Kelowna. They had a proposal just recently for 120 townhouses. I know that council rejected it. That was a tough council meeting, I suspect, but they do have other proposals that are coming forward, and it’s going to require some tough decisions on where they want housing.

As was discussed earlier, we are excited that the federal election is over because we need to have a conversation with our federal counterparts on what an infrastructure program can look like for local governments going forward. It was important for us to ensure, whoever wins federally, that our programs aligned.

We in B.C. are unique in that for over 20 years we’ve had a good history, our government as well as previous governments, on aligning our infrastructure programs with the federal government so that we can maximize our dollars and ensure that people are not applying twice.

That is something that we’ll be undertaking in the coming months, once we know who the Minister of Infrastructure, federally, will be.

Macklin McCall: Now, given the ongoing challenges in addressing homelessness and mental health issues, as a result, in West Kelowna, how does the ministry plan to maintain open communication with local officials and residents, moving forward?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We are in conversations with the mayor and the team around the need for supports for vulnerable individuals. It’s always important to have that open line of communication. It’s also important to come to an agreement on where and how we want to support people.

If the member has feedback, I am open to hear it, but we are just in the early days of trying to figure out what type of housing is needed. The positive news is that we’ve acquired land. The next step is the concept and the design and identifying what can possibly go there. That will require some engagement, certainly, with the local government and the public as well.

Macklin McCall: Thank you, Minister. Those are all my questions.

[5:00 p.m.]

Claire Rattée: Thank you to my colleague for giving me some of her time today. I appreciate it.

My staff has a few times reached out to the ministry to request meetings and some help with a few constituent issues that we haven’t received responses on. I’m hoping I can get through some of those today and get some answers.

First, I’m wondering if the minister can provide me with how many supportive housing units there are currently in my riding, and how many of those are specifically designated for individuals that are recovering from addiction.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: First off, I want to thank the member for the excellent statement she made around Trey today. He was a remarkable individual. I had the opportunity to meet him on multiple occasions. He gave me a tour of SROs and some of the supportive housing sites in the Downtown Eastside. He was a man of very few words, but when he spoke, he meant it, and people listened. I just want to thank her for making those lovely remarks about his legacy.

On supportive housing, we have 71 units in Skeena — 52, I believe, on one site, and the remaining on an alternative site.

Claire Rattée: I’m wondering if the ministry can, then, possibly provide me in writing, at some point, a list of the supportive housing units that are available throughout the province and kind of a breakdown, since, obviously, that data is available. I’d be interested just to see where they’re located and that sort of thing. So at another time, by email or something, would be great.

Thank you.

Is there any funding allocated for transitional recovery housing to support people that are exiting treatment in northern B.C.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, we can get the member something in writing around the supportive housing around the province.

The step-down recovery homes…. It’s not with our ministry. It’s Ministry of Health that leads that.

Claire Rattée: In a general sense, I’d like to just understand how this ministry is coordinating with Health to address the intersection of homelessness and addiction in the overdose prevention strategies and similar. I’d like to have a really clear understanding of what the responsibilities are like between each ministry and where the ministries are working together on that.

Obviously, with my critic portfolio, housing is something that’s quite important and intersects a lot. I’d just like to better understand what that looks like and how that’s structured.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Within each health authority, we work on projects within those communities. So there’s a connection with health authorities regionally, with the B.C. Housing team, with local government. Also, almost monthly I meet with the Ministry of Health, the Minister of SDPR and the minister for…. Well, those ministers for sure, and sometimes others join as well. And we also have a cabinet committee on public safety.

All those places are where we coordinate to try to break down silos and identify issues that may be arising in communities, to be able to address them. So there are multiple ways.

[5:10 p.m.]

Of course, the level of involvement is slightly different with every health authority, but we have been working really hard to break those silos down. Our previous Minister of Mental Health and Addictions did a lot of work to break those silos down, and that has actually helped us quite a bit to get to the point we’re at now.

Claire Rattée: I’m wondering if the minister might be able to provide me with what data the minister uses to actually assess the housing needs of people that have been discharged either from detox or treatment in northern communities or, in a general sense, across the province.

Since we know currently that many people that access withdrawal management, detox services are typically released back onto the street, more often than not, until there’s a bed available for them within treatment, I’m wondering at what point the ministry — how they intervene to assess whether or not somebody might be able to qualify for housing and how we can approach that to ensure that people that have gone through these services aren’t then being released to the street.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll just take a step back. The member probably knows this, but I’ll just say it anyway for the record.

We learned a lot from, actually, some of the experiences from the previous government, when Rich Coleman was the Minister of Housing. There was an encampment at the city of Victoria, and the decision at that time — I think it was the correct decision — was to just get people into housing as quick as we can. There was a motel purchased, and everybody moved into that motel.

What we learned from that experience is that you can’t just put everybody into one place, because everyone has different needs and different challenges. The Johnson Street site — we still have challenges because that’s a legacy of that time. Again, this is not to blame anyone. There was a decision made to try to address something really quickly.

Since then, we’ve moved towards community access tables. We have community access tables throughout the province. There is an opportunity for multiple not-for-profits to be at the table, health officials to be at the table, our ministry staff, B.C. Housing staff.

Frankly speaking — my team will probably chuckle — I find it sometimes challenging, because when I see someone and I see a space open, I always say: “Let’s just move people in.” They always remind me that it’s important for that table to exist because you want to make sure that the right individual is going to the right place with the right types of supports for them, and you want it to work. That’s probably the closest thing to what the member is describing.

Now, with our HEARTH…. We have HEART and HEARTH, which we’ve been deploying in communities. We have some HEARTH communities, and we are doing a lot of work to enhance that level of coordination.

I’ll also add that we provided money last year to the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness. They’ve got this really innovative initiative that they’re launching across the country, which helps us correlate all the contact points for people to identify what resources they’re accessing, what is working for them, what is not. It allows for not-for-profits to provide input into it as well.

The goal is to get to functional zero of homelessness. It was launched by the federal government. It’s deployed only in a handful of communities across the country, and it has had huge success. We’re trying to deploy that, to support that community access table model so that we are making sure that people are getting to the right resources and also identifying where there may be barriers, where the supports that people need are not fully there, so we can address that as well.

Claire Rattée: I think that it’s certainly a great point to talk about. You can’t just warehouse people, essentially, that are struggling with mental health and addictions problems. I do think that is part of the issue that we’ve seen previously — that people have been essentially warehoused rather than placed in areas that are going to be well suited to their needs.

Regardless of that, I think we still have a huge problem of people falling through the gaps. The reason I was asking specifically about withdrawal management and detox is because in my opinion, those would be people that would be particularly high-acuity need of housing because, as we’ve seen play out, if they go through detox and then they are put back out onto the street until a bed is available for them in treatment, the likelihood is that they relapse, and the likelihood is that they overdose and die.

[5:15 p.m.]

That’s why I was asking about that specifically, because I would like to see that there is some kind of strategy in place to be able to fix that gap. It doesn’t seem like we’ve got a strategy in place, currently, to fix the problem of people having to wait to access treatment, if we’ve got an average of 31 days to wait.

I would like to see the government put something forward to be able to ensure that people that have gone through detox are going to be supported during that gap that they’re seeing. That’s where I do think this becomes a Ministry of Housing issue — to ensure that there is some way to bridge that gap and to ensure that people are being supported during that time. I would just like to hear if there is any plan in place currently or any work being undertaken to address that issue.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member is correct. I agree with the member that those periods of transition of care are critically important. That’s the work we do with the community access table. We’ve got health care professionals and the community integration specialists at the table. They understand unique needs for people and will be able to identify what the best locations are for people. We do have recovery-based supportive housing sites throughout the province.

I know the member understands this space well. I’ll just comment, though, to say that we don’t identify supportive housing, during the zoning hearing, as wet or dry. The reason why is that it shouldn’t matter; if a person is struggling, we should be able to approve housing for them regardless.

You get into that discussion where everyone says: “We just want dry. We don’t want anybody else that does drugs. We don’t want anybody….” That’s a real challenge when, in a community, the data will show that maybe that’s the need. What we do is we go to community, we say we need supportive housing, and we get the zoning done.

Then we sit down with our partners and say: “What’s the data? What are we seeing? There are people coming out of detox. Where’s the need?”

In some communities, you will see a supportive housing site that is dry, and you’ve got another one that’s wet. There’s a holistic option, but it’s based on the data. It’s not based on just what people are saying they want in the community. That community access table is where all those discussions happen.

Claire Rattée: Interesting. I think you knew where I was going to be going with this. I was going to talk about wet versus dry housing next, and supportive housing. The reason I want to talk about it is because I don’t entirely agree with that assessment.

[5:20 p.m.]

For example, I’ve gone and done some outreach work on Pandora Avenue here in Victoria. From the people that I’ve spoken with, one of the biggest concerns I hear is that they do not want to go into wet supportive housing, yet there’s nothing else available to them.

I’m not sure if maybe the minister can provide me with a breakdown of that wet versus dry supportive housing and where that lands throughout the province and how many units there are available.

That’s a common issue I hear about — that in the wet buildings, people feel unsafe. They don’t want to be there. They tend to be areas that have a lot more problems with things like, for example, bedbugs, body lice — the housing just generally being very run down and feeling unsafe, issues with crime, theft. It goes on and on. Not to mention the fact that it then becomes very difficult if you’re somebody that is trying to stop using substances when you’re surrounded by it daily.

I don’t entirely agree with that categorization because I think somebody that has recently left detox obviously has the intention of wanting to not use substances anymore, so throwing them into a situation where they are then surrounded by people using substances again is not really conducive to supporting the efforts of recovery.

I am curious if the minister is able to provide me with some of that data. I understand that that might be a little bit difficult to get right now, so maybe we can follow up on that. If I could receive it through email or something….

Thank you. I appreciate it.

I want to talk a little bit about some specific things for my riding in this regard, one of which is, as I’m sure the minister knows, that my riding is very cold, and it’s farther north, so we do struggle significantly with people being exposed to the elements. When I first got to Kitimat and I first started on city council, it actually took a while to help explain to people that we had a significant homelessness problem in the riding because it wasn’t as visible homelessness because of the weather.

It took a while, but we eventually got approval for a temporary extreme weather shelter in Kitimat. The issue is that we are only able to operate it from November 1 to March 31. I know that the community is begging for this to change. We’ve got people that are sleeping in tents in absolutely frigid, cold weather. We’ve got a number of individuals that are sleeping in the bank vestibules. By March 31, it’s still cold in my riding, and it’s cold before November 1.

We’ve got a significant need in Kitimat to be able to operate the shelter year-round. The community has been begging for it. We have the people available. The space is there. I would like to understand why B.C. Housing isn’t approving that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, there are some standardized contracts, and how that works throughout communities…. I would say to the member that when there are unique circumstances on the ground, then we try to be flexible. In the case of the member’s community, if there is an issue identified where it’s needed a little bit longer, we would work to do that. We don’t want to move people outside into the cold if we can find a way to extend it.

[5:25 p.m.]

Sometimes we are able to extend it. Sometimes, for other reasons, we’re not able to. But we do try to standardize it. We’ve got the emergency weather shelters that are based on temperature. They come on once a certain temperature has hit. Then they open up. But the temporary shelters are usually time-allocated just because of the staffing and other requirements that are put in place.

It might not be the full answer, but just to say that if those situations arise, we try to be as flexible as we can. We’ve seen communities where we needed it for a few more weeks, and we’ve been able to try to work to make that happen.

Claire Rattée: I think the issue here is that, from what I’ve heard from different community groups and from different officials in the community, they have asked B.C. Housing to be able to operate the shelter longer, and they’ve been denied. The problem is we don’t have a permanent shelter and, concurrently with that, we do not have appropriate housing up north for many of the people that need it that have significant challenges.

For example, one of the women I’m thinking of in particular frequently sleeps in the hospital, even though she’s not supposed to, but they feel horrible because they don’t want her sleeping in a bank vestibule or falling asleep outside. She has a significant traumatic brain injury concurrently with a number of other issues, such as substance abuse problems that have come from that brain injury. We don’t have any facilities to accommodate people like her.

Realistically, we don’t have facilities in this entire province to accommodate people like her and give her the standard of living and the quality of life that she deserves — we certainly don’t have them up north — so that shelter is really her only place to sleep comfortably, and she can only access it a few months out of the year. Again, she’s frequently sleeping in a bank vestibule.

I would like to know if the minister is willing to commit to working either with myself or with other elected officials in Kitimat on this to ensure that that shelter is open and available to the people that need it. It is absolutely unacceptable, in my opinion, that there are people that would love to utilize a shelter, if it was available, that are sleeping in tents right now or sleeping in bank vestibules, or whatever it is, simply because we aren’t approving them to operate this year-round.

I think that it’s unacceptable, and we need to make sure that there is something available for the people that are struggling up there with homelessness.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll say two things.

We have been moving away from temporary shelters to permanent shelters. In the last two years, we’ve doubled the amount of permanent shelters in the province. In 2022, there were 2,350, and we’re at 4,666.

Okay, you have the exact number of spaces. It’s the amount of spaces.

If the member is suggesting that the member wants to work with us and her community to identify a location and explore what options would be in the community, the answer is yes. I’m happy to do that with the member. Maybe a follow-up step would be a discussion — first, a discussion with the city just to say: “Where are the potential locations?”

Quite frankly, that’s been the biggest challenge in all communities. It’s identifying a location for that to happen. I know other colleagues have been working to try to figure that out, and it’s not an easy conversation in community. But if there is a location identified, then that’s an important conversation to have. So yeah, happy to have that.

Claire Rattée: The minister will be happy to know I have already done that legwork, so we are good to go. We already feel pretty confident that we can operate that year-round. I was one of the people that started that shelter in Kitimat, and I do understand that there can be significant challenges, especially in small towns like that, with finding locations that the general public is comfortable having them in and stuff.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

I feel pretty confident that everybody in Kitimat would be supportive of us trying to ensure that people aren’t sleeping outside in cold temperatures.

Another housing project in Kitimat I had the pleasure of spearheading is Douglas Place. I’m hoping that the minister is familiar with Douglas Place in Kitimat, because that’s a pretty significant one for us, as far as actually providing rental housing to people that are on income assistance. It’s actually the income assistance rent portion of their cheque. It makes it very reasonable and affordable. It helps people get back on their feet. It’s been a great program.

[5:30 p.m.]

Currently in that facility, there’s something called Salon A that’s operating. I do know that the government gave a start-up grant to the community to be able to launch this program, but now it has become the district of Kitimat’s responsibility to continue with funding. It costs the district about $150,000 a year. This is essentially a daytime shelter with programming and a food-share program that’s being run out of Douglas Place.

What I’m wondering is if the ministry would be willing to look at providing some further funding for that or some kind of partnership funding for that to ensure that Kitimat can maintain access to this important program with the daytime shelter and all of the associated programs.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Just checking with my team. They don’t have that information right now. We’re here for the next couple of days, so perhaps I can get that information and read something back into the record. We don’t have access to it right now.

Claire Rattée: Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Another project that I wanted to talk about in my riding is the Tamitik Status of Women’s building that should have been open already. I understand that this ministry has a significant role to play in that building. As I hope the minister is already aware, it’s essentially going to be offices, housing, a women’s shelter, a daycare facility.

It’s a beautiful building, and it’s been sitting there for quite a while now, completely built, because there were issues with the plumbing that was done. I guess they super-chlorinated the pipes and didn’t drain them. They turned on the plumbing, and someone got burned. Now this building is sitting empty.

I am wondering if the minister is able to give me an update on where that project is at so that I can relay that back to the people in my community.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, we’re aware of the challenges. The not-for-profit had an issue with the contractor, and then they had to sue the contractor, and it became quite the ordeal. We are expecting to have that open early in the new year.

Claire Rattée: I was wondering if I could also maybe get an update on the dementia care facility in Kitimat. I understand that this would not be something that would solely fall under this ministry, but I do believe there is some crossover there. Again, that is a project that is desperately needed in my community and seems to be incredibly delayed, so if I could get an update on that, please.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think that project would be under health care. It’s not under ours. So it might be a better question over there.

Claire Rattée: That’s fair. Sorry, I was hoping that maybe there would be some crossover there.

Another thing I wanted to talk about, just on the topic of seniors in general and especially in my riding. In Terrace, we have, essentially, effectively about a 1 percent to zero percent vacancy rate, and we have very little for seniors housing, even just market seniors housing. There are plenty of seniors there that could very comfortably afford to purchase something else that would be better suited to their needs, but there is just nothing available for them.

We’ve run into an issue in that community where if there was new seniors housing built that was purpose-built for that, it would open up a lot of the homes in Terrace that could then be bought by young families and so on. It’s created a real issue around vacancy, simply because we don’t have anywhere for seniors to transition to.

I’m wondering if the minister can provide me with an update on what kind of investments they’re looking at making in the community of Terrace to try and alleviate that strain.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member is probably aware of a project for seniors that’s under construction right now in her community. It’s at 3221 Eby Street, no connection to the Premier. That’s targeted for seniors.

Now, there’s also a community housing fund intake coming. So if the member is aware of not-for-profits that are interested in the space in their community, it would be a good time to give them a heads-up that there’s an intake coming.

We changed the format for how the community housing fund intake happens. We’ve learned over the years that it became a challenge for some providers in smaller communities to compete against big communities. Now we’ve allocated units per region, so you only compete against your region.

We’ve also made a change this time. We haven’t announced it yet, but it’s coming soon. Instead of having one intake, we’re going to have a bit of a rolling intake. If you put an application in and you were close but didn’t get it, you still have an opportunity to get into the intake of the year. Also, it gives time for those that haven’t done the pre-work to still have space to be able to do it to get into the intake.

The community housing fund will be opening in the coming months, so there’s an opportunity for more senior housing in the community.

Claire Rattée: Yeah, it’s kind of a difficult one. The main two communities in my riding actually have very significant challenges when it comes to housing, yet they’re incredibly different communities and different needs.

On the one hand, you have Kitimat, which has a very high vacancy rate, which has precluded it from much of the funding through B.C. Housing. The problem is that most of that housing is not appropriate for seniors. We have very few apartment buildings that have elevators or access. It’s just completely unrealistic to expect seniors to live in the majority of the housing that’s available in Kitimat.

Then, like I said, in Terrace we’ve got essentially a zero vacancy rate and one of the highest and most disturbing rates of homelessness in the province. From the last homelessness count, one in 83 people in Terrace was homeless.

I’m curious as to what criteria B.C. Housing is using right now to determine funding for rural and remote communities and if my communities are actually being fairly equated into that. It seems that we have a significant issue, like I mentioned previously, with hidden homelessness, which isn’t even accounted for in those numbers.

We know particularly of young women, especially in Indigenous communities, that are couch-surfing and things like that. That hidden homelessness is really not being addressed effectively. Like I said, a number of seniors are living in increasingly unsafe living conditions, because they’re living in split-level homes — much of the housing up there is — or in houses that are far too big for them, and they have no other options.

I’d like to better understand what the criteria are and if we’re actually being fairly calculated into that, because of the significant challenges that my communities are facing.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: On the second question of assessment, I can share with the member the document that guides our decision-making, and how points are scored, etc. We can share that with the member so that she has a sense of how decisions are made. It’s a pretty transparent process from B.C. Housing, and I’m so happy to do that.

I can share with the member that in Terrace, we have opened 47 units of Indigenous housing, 22 of women’s transition housing, and 45 just defined as “other rental.” Then we’ve got, in progress, 82 units for the community housing fund and 22 Indigenous housing units. That’s in Terrace.

For Kitimat, I don’t have the exact numbers. I can share that with the member, as I said, in writing.

Claire Rattée: One more question for right now, and then I’m going to pass it off to one of my colleagues. It’s around B.C. Housing not being tied to the rental increase caps that every other landlord in British Columbia is tied to. I believe that this year the annual rent increase is about 5 percent.

I don’t understand why B.C. Housing, which houses some of the most vulnerable citizens, is exempt from those protections. I’ve got a number of constituents right now that are facing those challenges. One just had their rent increased by 35 percent, and they’re being told from B.C. Housing that they basically signed away their rights to that when they signed their lease.

Again, we’ve got people with significant concurrent brain injuries and mental health issues and that don’t understand what it is that they’re signing off on. So now this person, for example, is facing eviction. This is a story I’ve heard numerous times in my riding.

I’d like to better understand why B.C. Housing can increase the rent more than what every other landlord in British Columbia is allowed to.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It would be great if the member could share specific examples — not in this setting, but maybe offline. There was a little bit of confusion on our side, given that B.C. Housing, for example, all the supportive housing and anything that’s directly managed by B.C. Housing, is at the shelter rate.

If it’s, say, for example, rent-geared-to-income, maybe that was the case, but if it’s something else, then perhaps you can share it, or we can talk offline.

Claire Rattée: As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, my office has tried to contact the ministry a few times now and has not received a response.

The only thing keeping this man from being evicted right now is the fact that we have started that process to appeal it, but they are basically saying that he is going to be evicted regardless. I can share that it is the Willows building in Terrace. I’d be happy to speak with the minister privately about the specific constituent, because I would really like to get them some assistance.

With that, I will hand it off to my colleague.

Misty Van Popta: I just have one more question I want to circle back on, in regard to the building code change regarding radon. Yes, radon was in the national building code in 2010. The B.C. building code brought in a regional approach to radon mitigation in 2018, mainly east of the Coast Mountains, and it was a toughened requirement.

[5:50 p.m.]

Then the 2020 national building code, the current one we’re using, has the following note, A-5.4.1.1, which says the following: “In addition to an air barrier system, other measures may be required in certain regions of Canada to reduce radon concentration to a level below the guidelines.”

The B.C. building code 2024 introduced passive sub-slab depressurization in all of B.C. So we went from a regional approach, a city-by-city approach. In the 2018 building code, there was an actual list of each city and whether it’s required or not. In 2024, we changed it to every new house not only needs to do radon mitigation but also do an increase — gone beyond what is called rough-in and gone to a passive sub-slab depressurization system.

I just want to ask why, if the current national code doesn’t say that rough-in is required everywhere, did B.C. change from a city-by-city approach to an all-province approach, and not only rough-in but a passive slab depressurization assembly system?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just want to confirm. Is the member referring to an info bulletin No. B24-03, March 8, 2024?

[5:55 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: It’s the government of Canada website, actually. Sorry. If you can clarify at what point I’m referring to what bulletin.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It may be helpful to the member as well. There’s a bulletin that lays out the rationale and the decisions from the province. I’ll get that to the member. We have lots of time, so we can come back to this topic if the member wants.

Does that work? Okay, so we’ll get the team to print off a version for the member.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Langley–Walnut Grove, without her electronic device.

Misty Van Popta: Sorry. I was looking at the bulletin.

Yes, sorry. I have read the building code bulletin that came out from the province outlining the changes. My question has more to do with why we’ve moved away from a regional approach to an all-province approach.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not allowed to read off electronic devices, but there is a section in this document that actually answers the member’s question. Perhaps I can print it and get somebody to bring it in for her. Then if the member still wants to discuss it, we can do that.

Rosalyn Bird: We’re going to switch topics here for a little while. Some similar questions were answered earlier, so we’re going to go back to SROs for a little while. I have a number of questions.

The first one is: how many SRO buildings has the province, through B.C. Housing, purchased since 2019, and how many total rooms do those buildings contain?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We don’t have the information right now, by year.

I can share with the member that B.C. Housing owns 36 buildings, 2,330 SRO rooms, and I can share that the city of Vancouver also owns ten buildings and 770 rooms.

[6:00 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: Can you specify if those buildings include hotels, or are hotels separate?

The Chair: A reminder to ask your questions through the Chair, Member.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is just pulling it up. So we can maybe keep going, and then once we have the answer, I’ll provide it to the member.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the minister: could you repeat the first numbers that you gave me on the first question? So the buildings and the rooms, and then you had separated it. You had said buildings and rooms, and then you specified Vancouver.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: B.C. Housing owns 36 buildings, 2,330 rooms, and I was just talking about that the city of Vancouver owns additional buildings and units. If that’s not important to the member, then that’s fine. But the first number is B.C. Housing’s number.

Rosalyn Bird: The buildings in Vancouver — I’m curious why there’s a separation there. The 36 buildings that you’re talking about outside of Vancouver, that’s over the remainder of the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Sorry, I may have confused the topic.

B.C. Housing owns 36 buildings, 2,330 rooms. That’s in Vancouver. The other number was what the city of Vancouver owns, which is separate. So that’s where I may have confused the member.

The member’s question was: “What does B.C. Housing own in Vancouver?” The answer is 36 buildings, 2,330 rooms.

Rosalyn Bird: Actually, the question specifically was: how many SROs do we have across the province, not just Vancouver?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: As I mentioned to the member, the team is just pulling up the numbers for outside of Vancouver. It will take a few moments, but I’m happy to take other questions while we’re waiting.

Rosalyn Bird: As of now, how many SRO hotels/rooms does the provincial government own and operate directly through B.C. Housing in Vancouver and across B.C., and are any of those buildings…? Are there subcontracts to those buildings, or does B.C. Housing operate all of those?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All of them are operated by not-for-profits. B.C. Housing doesn’t operate them directly.

[6:05 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: Can you explain the process of how those organizations are determined?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: They all go through an RFP process. They are reviewed, and decisions are made by B.C. Housing.

Rosalyn Bird: Are the reviews done on those organizations and those housing units yearly to determine how many people have moved in or have moved out? Is there any oversight on their policies and their practices?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are clear expectations laid out in all of the contracts. We do an operation review every three years and a financial review every year.

Rosalyn Bird: What is the total amount of money spent in 2019 on acquiring SRO properties provincially? Under which budget programs or line items were these purchases funded?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m happy to answer questions about the document here. But asking questions about a budget in 2019? The team doesn’t have that information. It’s way outside of the scope of what we’re doing in estimates today.

Rosalyn Bird: I will revise the question.

Can you tell us the amount of money that you have spent in the past fiscal year on acquiring SRO properties provincially and under which budget programs or line items they were purchased?

The Chair: Again, Member, just a reminder to ask those questions through me.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the rephrase, but we’re talking about the fiscal year that we have here now, so that’s the information I have available for the member.

Rosalyn Bird: Through to the minister: can you specify, then, in your current budget for the upcoming year, how much money has been designated to SRO purchases and/or hotel purchases and the amount of the contracts for those facilities to be operated?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There’s no budget specifically to buy SRO buildings. We have a supportive housing fund which is $85 million in operating and $170 million in capital. It’s possible that that fund could be used for a purchase, but there’s no specific pot for buying buildings.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: could you explain that a little bit more? I’m a bit confused about that.

You must have something that you have laid out for the next fiscal year to determine how many more SROs, or those types of buildings, you may need to acquire in order to address the housing shortage, particularly with communities that have individuals that are significantly disadvantaged.

Could you explain how that process works through the ministry and whether or not it is in conjunction, possibly, with the Ministry of Health?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the reason why we’re all chatting here is that we actually are moving away from SROs. As a province, we’ve been moving away from SROs. We think that having self-contained units is a better way than SROs.

This is the budget for supportive housing. The member is asking: “What’s the specific line item for us to go out and purchase?” There’s no specific budget. This is the budget that’s available. We are actively looking for opportunities to construct supportive housing sites. On the rare occasion, if there’s a purchase that becomes available, this is what would be the fund. But there’s no specific line item for that.

Rosalyn Bird: Just to clarify, it is B.C.’s housing plan to actually move away from the SRO model completely? Is that over the period of the next year or next few years?

I’ll do a follow-up question with that one. If you are moving away from that model, what will be done with those buildings that are currently being operated as SROs?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the confusion might be that the member’s definition of SRO might be different than what we’re thinking about. SRO is a structure. There are SROs mostly in Vancouver, the odd building outside.

Perhaps I’m just a little confused on the member’s definition on that. I want to provide the right information, so if the member can share the understanding of what is being referred to, then we’ll be able to provide different answers.

Rosalyn Bird: My understanding, or one of the understandings many people in the province have, around SROs is, for example, there have been a number of hotels that have been purchased by the current and previous governments. They are considered to be single resident occupants because they are individual hotel rooms.

However, it has always been my understanding that those types of housing complexes, whether it’s a hotel or an older dormitory-type building, are used as a temporary housing with the intent to move them into a permanent rental and/or ownership situation as they better themselves in life.

We’re trying to determine how many of those types of housing units are being currently used by the province and if there’s an intention to continue purchasing or using that type of housing in the future.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, that helps us, because the definition of SRO for us, from the Ministry of Housing, are units that don’t have a washroom, don’t have a kitchenette. It’s just the room. So that’s, I think, where some of our confusion was.

Let us try to get some more information on the hotel purchases, because they often…. They can have a kitchenette. They often have a washroom. So they’re distinctly different than SROs. But that being said, let us try to get some information for the member.

Rosalyn Bird: I would appreciate that. Actually, that information would be very helpful.

If we could actually sort of reframe the questions that I asked earlier. We are looking for information specifically around hotels not just in Vancouver but across the province: how many rooms are currently occupied; how many of those buildings we actually own where there are vacancies; and if, in fact, this is also included in the model that the ministry has mentioned they may or may not be moving away from.

If you could specify that also — whether or not you will continue to be purchasing hotels and using them for individuals that are struggling and trying to better themselves.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Since 2020, 41 buildings have been purchased, or hotels, and that’s 2,004 rooms. I should share that those dollars come from, essentially, HEART and HEARTH, some emergency use. So you’re able to purchase something because there’s an urgent necessity in a community.

[6:20 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: You had indicated earlier that the SROs are just single rooms, that they often don’t have a kitchenette or even a bathroom facility. The 36 buildings that you were referring to at the beginning, when I first started to ask questions, as well as the buildings in Vancouver…. Those actual individual rooms — I just want to clarify — do not actually have bathrooms or any type of kitchen facilities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The SRO definition for the city of Vancouver is what we follow. There may be the odd occasion where there’s a washroom in the units, but most often it’s shared washrooms, shared facilities amongst all the residents that live there.

Rosalyn Bird: How many people generally are in these types of buildings? Are the numbers similar to hotels? I’m trying to figure out what the difference between those buildings is. And like you said, you are purchasing hotels, which are usually used in emergent….

I know up in Prince George, there have been at least three hotels that have been purchased. My understanding was all three of those hotels were being managed through B.C. Housing.

Could you describe to me what the average size of those buildings is in Vancouver, and why and/or in what circumstances would you purchase a hotel over one of those types of buildings?

Is the ministry intending to purpose-build accommodations for the individuals currently residing in these types of residences in the future, in order to move away from either model?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The SROs that we have, in particular in Vancouver, were, for the most part, units that people already lived in, but they were privately held. Multiple governments have purchased them to protect the people, renovated them and then kept that affordable housing available for the public. That’s the difference between, let’s say, the purchases of hotels, which were largely done post-COVID just to get people indoors.

Prior to the member coming in, we were talking about a Johnson Street hotel being purchased by Rich Coleman when he was the Minister of Housing. It was an urgent matter. There was an encampment in the city of Victoria. They purchased the Johnson Street hotel and moved everybody indoors. The purchase of hotels is done to be able to get people indoors real quickly.

The member’s question was around redevelopment. There are the SROs in Vancouver. Yes, we are committed to working with the city of Vancouver and the federal government on a redevelopment plan, moving folks into more self-contained units and then redeveloping those sites.

In other parts of the province, hotels that we purchased could be considered for redevelopment of different housing — community-housing-fund-related, affordable housing for seniors, etc. I hope that answers the member’s questions.

Rosalyn Bird: Could you help us understand, then, what the process will be to move people, particularly in communities like mine, Prince George? We do not have, that I’m aware of, an SRO that you would find in Vancouver.

[6:30 p.m.]

There is a lack of affordable housing for lower-income people in Prince George — in the North, in general, actually. Can the minister please explain or help us understand what the transition plan is from hotels to permanent housing?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We went through this previously, and I’m happy to talk about it again.

We have a community coordination table where we’ve got folks from the city, I believe, at the table. We’ve got not-for-profit providers, Indigenous community leadership, community-integrated specialists, all at one table where they identify multiple things. They identify individuals that are, say, at Moccasin Flats or at an encampment and identify what type of housing is appropriate for individuals to move them in.

We also use similar tables to identify individuals that are in supportive housing that are ready to move out in different types of housing. The way we do it is in two ways. One is through community housing fund investments in community to build out units and then to create a flow. The other one is rent supplements. We have rent supplements that are available for individuals that are able to be able to live on their own. That table uses rent supplements to get people into market housing.

I can share with the member that in Prince George, through the community housing fund, we’ve built 57 units. We’ve got, through the Indigenous housing fund, 50 open, and we’ve got 119 units that are in process right now. We’ve got 89 women’s transition housing fund units that have opened. And we have a community housing fund that will be doing an intake for more housing units in the coming months.

If the member is interested or, perhaps, knows of a not-for-profit that would be interested in…. Maybe the city would be interested in partnering with a not-for-profit. This is an opportune time to be able to get in an application so that we can get more housing online in the community.

Rosalyn Bird: Prince George is an interesting city in that it’s a fabulous place to live, but it is not without our challenges in regards to the community and the individuals that are currently using those types of properties.

I was wondering if you can help explain or help me or people in the province better understand where those funds…. You said initially that those hotels are purchased through emergency-type funds because you need something right away to move people in. Moccasin Flats is an excellent example. It is almost empty, thanks to these types of projects.

However, I would be curious to know where the funding comes from to continuously maintain properties like the North Star hotel that has a large number of units and is currently under mass renovation and, without an actual plan of knowing how long people are going to be there or how long it’s going to take to build purpose-built housing, where that funding is going to continuously come from to make those units livable.

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I thank the member for the question. There are multiple pieces there.

I first want to give a shout-out to the city of Prince George. I’ve had an up-and-down relationship with the mayor and council. It started up, and then it went down, and now it’s fantastic. It’s, I think, an example of what you can do when everyone works together in that community.

I want to give a shout-out to Shirley Bond as well, who did some great work, asked similar questions to the member, some tough questions. We were able to bring partners to the table. The Indigenous community was also at the table, and we signed an MOU, as the member knows, to be able to commit a lot of resources to the community to address, in particular, the challenge of Moccasin Flats.

I’ve been to Prince George a ton. The member is right. It’s a fantastic community. The fact that we were able to deploy so many units to get people out of the streets, out of Moccasin Flats, get them indoors…. I believe we’re at six people on site. All of them are being offered housing often. Certainly hoping that all of them take that opportunity to move indoors.

We also know that there’s a disproportionate amount of people that are in the encampments that are Indigenous. So that’s why 119 Indigenous-led homes is a significant number for a community, and it’s done with the planning and the thinking that when we bring these units on, we’ll be able to get a lot of the Indigenous community members into culturally appropriate, safe housing.

That’s part of our flow, but there are more needs than that. That’s why the community housing fund is important.

The member also asked a question about some of the older buildings and upkeep. We have a capital renewal fund, so there’s a fund that is available for our own buildings and also one fund that’s available for not-for-profit-owned buildings so that they can do upkeep and some of the renovations that are needed on their sites.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: can you also help us have a better understanding or explain to us how the insurance works for these particular types of buildings and/or residents? If it’s a third party that is operating a program or the housing at a hotel, do they pay that insurance, or does that insurance come out of the housing budget?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If it is a building that is owned by B.C. Housing, we have our own insurance, internally, to be able to provide insurance. If it’s a building that’s owned by not-for-profits, then part of their operating subsidy includes the amount for the insurance. Those are the two pieces.

Not-for-profits that operate out of B.C. Housing buildings often get their own operating insurance for just operating. Those are the three different ways insurance can be covered.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: is it possible for you to provide an average cost? If you are using a hotel to house approximately 100 people…. I believe the North Star, when it’s finished, will hold approximately 100, possibly more units there, but 100 for sure.

What is the cost of insurance on a building like that annually and how those insurance rates…? Are you aware of them fluctuating, depending on whether or not it is either a wet or a dry living facility and how that would impact the budget?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member is probably referring to some operators who are concerned about their insurance rates being a little higher or going up. In response to that, the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association has launched their own insurance. There is a good opportunity for some of the not-for-profit providers to be able to use that insurance. That was designed to mitigate.

Again, for our own buildings, we just do our own insurance, so it’s hard to give the member a number on that. I’m happy to provide something; it’s difficult when it’s our buildings.

Rosalyn Bird: I’m going to turn my questions over to my colleague. She has a couple of follow-up questions regarding the same topic. Then I’ll reserve to come back.

Claire Rattée: On the topic of insurance…. Specifically, I’m thinking of one example that was given to me recently of one of these sites, which was operating on Johnson Street here in Victoria. I had a woman approach me; her husband had been living in one of them. It was a wet facility, and he had overdosed, tragically, and passed away in this facility.

On the topic of insurance, she was told from people that worked there that his body had been dragged from his room out into the hallway because there were concerns around him passing away in his room privately without anyone around, and how that impacted the insurance.

Apparently, this is a common practice. Many of the workers there will actually pull bodies, when somebody has an overdose and passes away, so that they’re in a common area, because there is an impact to the insurance in some form. People are supposed to be monitored; that is, I would assume, the issue.

I’m wondering if the minister could speak to that, please.

The Chair: Minister, just a quick reminder to our members about their electronic devices in the silent mode.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, we’re rocking in here.

The Chair: That’s right. Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m trying to figure out which one of the members it is, but I won’t name names. I won’t name names.

The Chair: We don’t use names, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: No, we definitely do not, but we can use ridings. They’re all smiling, so I can’t tell you which one it is.

To the member’s question…. I know the member heard from somebody else, and it’s awful. That’s an awful situation to have happened. It’s not something that we’ve heard is common.

That said, it’s certainly a question of operating insurance for each operator. This is, again, why the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association has launched our own insurance so that the not-for-profits that feel like they’re in a vulnerable situation have an option to go to.

Claire Rattée: Again, this is secondhand information, but I think that it speaks to a broader issue that we’re seeing with some of these facilities and the way that they’re operating and maybe a lack of oversight or clear guidelines.

I’m curious if the ministry is willing to start to do some investigation into how these buildings are being operated. This is not an uncommon story. I’ve heard it many times. Also, as somebody that utilized this type of housing when I was in that position many years ago, I do know that there are significant challenges with them in the way that they’re being operated.

[6:45 p.m.]

I’ve heard a number of stories about people that are using these types of facilities and that will be kicked out partway through the month, after paying their rent, which comes off of their income assistance cheque, and then those same rooms will be rented again to someone else. It seems to be a cycle of almost looking for a profit and not allowing people to stay there for the full month. I would hope that the ministry, now that they’re aware of this issue, would be willing to look into it.

Another thing that I wanted to talk about — because this is again a very common issue, it seems, throughout British Columbia — is that there are organizations that are operating shelters, what are being considered as shelters, and charging $500 a month that comes off that person’s income assistance cheque. There’s one specifically here in Victoria, again, that is operating right now where they will have potential clients, I guess we’ll call them, sign an intent-to-rent form.

I don’t know how they can get away with this when it’s basically either a mat on the floor or a cot to sleep in, but people are being expected to pay $500 a month for staying in these units. They’re not units; it’s really just a large room with a mat on the floor or a cot.

I have seen proof of this, so I know this isn’t anecdotal. There have been a number of situations where this one particularly has had people sign these intent-to-rent forms. They’ve been approved. The ministry has then started to put that $500 a month towards this group, and the person, the client, was never informed.

I know people that had this money taken off their income assistance cheque multiple months in a row, and they’d never set foot in the building other than to sign that intent to rent.

Again, I’m curious if the ministry is willing to start actually doing a proper investigation into what’s going on and look at having a set of standards for these types of facilities so that people that are very vulnerable aren’t being taken advantage of.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I would say that perhaps the member can share the specifics with me offline, and we’ll have the team look into it.

I’ll just caveat that with two things. One is that the placements of people are done through the community coordination table, so there is a distance, a space, between the not-for-profit operator and the people deciding who goes in. I think that’s an important piece for that.

If the member has something specific, then we definitely will look into it. But it’s probably not an appropriate place for that.

Rosalyn Bird: I have also heard the same issue, just so you are aware, in Prince George, Kamloops and other communities up north, where you have operators that are in fact collecting multiple rents on a single unit, due to some of these individuals being very challenged. They will move from a location because they’ve had a challenge with somebody in that location and moved in somewhere new, but it has not been tracked.

That money continues to come in to the operator, even though that person has left and there is a new person in that residence. I just wanted to reiterate what my colleague was saying. That is, in fact, an issue that has been in many places in the province.

I do have a question, though, specifically regarding municipalities and/or cities. Can the minister please help us better understand? For these types of units, particularly the hotels — that’s a big thing with Prince George — is the municipality or the regional district going to be asked to fund, sometime in the future, the continued maintenance upgrade and any repairs that need to be done on those buildings as proper housing comes online for these individuals to transition to?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Can the member maybe share an example of the concern the member has? If it’s our building, then I don’t know why we would have the city take any of those things on.

Often when we’re redeveloping and we’re looking to build affordable housing, we ask the local government to waive DCCs or different things to help keep the costs low and the rents there. But if the member has concerns of other costs, perhaps an example would be helpful.

Rosalyn Bird: If I use the North Star as an example…. They are currently taking out the sliding patio doors because they want less people coming and going, and they want better control of that actual housing unit. Those types of expenses, I understand, would remain under your umbrella, because it is your building and you’re going to maintain it.

But if you have somebody that destroys a unit, if there is a new fire code or requirement that comes into place either through the city or the province, whether it be mandatory sprinkler systems or those types of things….

Municipalities and cities, communities across the province are struggling. And there’s been a lot of push down from the provincial government to local municipalities and regional districts to take up costs. So I’m looking for a commitment that these buildings, if we’re going to continue to use them until you have created an exit strategy, are going to be maintained and upgraded by the Ministry of Housing and that cost won’t be pushed on to cities or regional districts.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware of any time we’ve asked local governments to do that. We have a capital renewal fund that allows us to do those investments in our own buildings, and we have one for not-for-profits. I suppose a local government could sign an agreement with B.C. Housing on a condition that they would do specific things, but I’m not aware of any that exist.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: can you also explain what model Housing is using currently to determine the success of these types of housing projects? Is it a reduction of numbers of people that are living in a community like Moccasin Flats?

Some people would argue that that is or it isn’t a community, but it is very much a community. People moving into jobs? How are you tracking the individuals that are using these types of housing facilities or programs or units to see what their success rate has been?

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are multiple ways to assess what we believe is success. One is to ensure that if someone is homeless, that stay is as minimal time as possible, because we know that if someone is homeless for a long time, it becomes a lot more challenging for us to support them.

We also try to create flow between shelter, supportive housing, housing that’s got some sort of supports and market. That one’s a little bit more challenging because not everyone’s story is linear. People move. They’re doing well, and then they’re struggling.

There are some metrics that we track. SDPR tracks no-fixed-address cases to see how many cases there are, as one measure, to see if we’re moving the dial. I know that in Prince George, year over year, we have seen a 9.4 percent decrease. Surely it’s connected to the fact that we’re getting more people into housing and there’s more stability in their lives.

Of course, we track the amount of folks that are homeless and the point-in-time counts. All of these things help feed how we’re doing or how not well we’re doing in communities and where we need to scale up opportunities in a quick way.

Rosalyn Bird: Those are some interesting ways.

I’m trying to determine, and lots of people are trying to determine…. If there’s an exit plan from SROs or even hotel-type residences in the province, how and what are you going to be looking at in order to determine what housing you need, when you need it and how to budget for that if you don’t have specific metrics, especially when you’re operating housing units that have varying codes of conduct?

If you look at a wet facility compared to a dry facility, it’s unlikely that individuals that are using that housing are going to be able to transition to the next level of housing without actually getting the supports and the assistance that they need to move up the ladder.

Could you explain to us how you may or may not be working with the Ministry of Health to make sure and/or encourage those types of support so people can actually process or transition to the next level of housing?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member also acknowledging that it’s not linear. It’s not just 1, 2, 3. Folks bounce. The challenge is that some people need more time in a specific place. This is something….

I mean, I was asked about this a couple of weeks ago in our transition housing. When people are in a transition house and they stay well beyond that, there are a lot of variables. Kids are finally adjusting to the community, school. So we’re flexible. We don’t want to be saying: “Sorry, it’s one year. You’ve got to go.” It really depends on where individuals are on their journey.

We track a lot of different things from our providers. I can share a Kelowna example. The data they’re collecting…. They have identified goals, for every individual, that are in sight. You have to do small goals to achieve where you want to be.

[7:00 p.m.]

So 94 goals were achieved for personal development: to obtain ID, connect to services, attend regular programming around budgeting, time management and problem-solving; 89 goals were achieved for financial well-being, completing taxes, applying for and obtaining appropriate supportive funding, paying off any fines, and obtaining bank account information; 74 goals were achieved for mental health and substance use to connect to Interior Health services. That means people are attending some detox-related treatment services. We track that.

I know that in Kelowna, just because I’m on Kelowna, over 50 percent of individuals that have moved into those units have either connected with employment, moved on to market housing or connected again with family. That’s a big success. That’s a goal I think we all aspire to in every site. It’s not necessarily as successful, but we do track a whole host of things for individuals.

I suspect that’s what the member is getting at. How do we create flow? How do we ensure that people are still having an opportunity to be able to ladder out? Those are the things that we’re building out. Support people as quickly as we can, because we want their time of being homeless to be as little as possible. Support them the best way in the place that’s most appropriate to them, and then find ways for them to ladder. But be patient in that laddering so that you’re not pushing people to cause more harm along the way.

Rosalyn Bird: In the past, there has been some precedent set where, if there is a large-scale, world-popular event coming to a particular area of the province, they have relocated people to other geographical locations in the province.

This is something that the Prince George area and the northern regions have been challenged with. Prince George, in particular, is considered to be a hub of various services, and we have had numbers of people relocate to Prince George for a variety of issues. Sometimes it can be a natural disaster, but other times it can be communities and/or larger centres moving people into these areas.

Does the minister have any mechanism to look at that by region to determine how and what can be done in order to stop the fluctuation of numbers of people that are requiring these houses that they can’t actually predict?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I guess the question…. There are a couple things. There’s a whole bunch of things in there that I don’t know if the member was asking specifically, but I’ll try to just touch on them.

You know, I do hear a lot from communities that say that the folks who are homeless in our community are from elsewhere — they’re not people from here; they came from somewhere else — when the data shows that, usually, the majority of the people have lived there for a long time. Nobody goes to a specific community to be homeless.

[7:05 p.m.]

Now, there is, in cases of major hubs, a little bit of that — where folks come from outside because there are services available. I know, for example, of cases in Nanaimo, where there are a lot of recovery homes. People go for recovery homes, and then maybe they relapse, or they get kicked out, and then they’re homeless. In Nanaimo, we’ve seen cases like that as well.

The second piece is around relocating people for major events. There are no plans to relocate anyone for any major event.

I was chuckling because I was in the Olympics in 2008 in Beijing. I remember walking down the street and thinking, “This is great. Everyone said there’s so much population here. I don’t see anybody,” then, hearing a noise behind a giant billboard, realizing that the people were just there. They’d just billboarded all around them so that people wouldn’t see them.

The member is correct. In some places in the world, there is a bit of that. But if the question was, “Are we intending to do that here?” the answer is no.

Rosalyn Bird: To go back to that subject just for a minute, B.C. Housing owns a number of buildings across the province. I’m assuming that they aren’t actually designated for regions. It’s actually a question I have.

If, say, in Prince George and/or Kitimat, Williams Lake or Smithers, B.C. Housing purchases a hotel, would that hotel or those rooms be specified or designated to individuals living in that particular region, or will they move somebody from somewhere else in the province into that housing unit?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Chair, I’m hoping that after this question, we can take a short time for my team to get dinner, if that’s okay with everyone.

The question around…. Maybe I’ll just use an example. Let’s say there’s a supportive housing building in Prince George. We wouldn’t just move people from Quesnel to Prince George to be at the supportive housing site.

If an individual that was in Quesnel said, “Hey, I’m actually from Prince George, I’ve got family there, and I’d be more successful if I were closer to my family and my community,” then of course we would use the community access table to identify the individual and say: “Their family is from here. This is their community. Their parents are there, and having them closer to their parents will mean a higher likelihood of success.”

In that case, we would do that, but it’s not a common occurrence to move people from one community to another community just because there’s a bed available.

I hope that answers the member’s question. We can canvass this more at greater length, but Chair, if you can allow us a short break for food, it would be great.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. That is a good suggestion. It has been a while since a break. We’ll stand in recess until 20 minutes after.

The committee recessed from 7:09 p.m. to 7:26 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we are contemplating the estimates of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Rosalyn Bird: I’m just going to ask one last question, and then I’m going to reserve some time for tomorrow and switch subjects for tomorrow. This is a bit of an odd question for the minister.

Can you help us better understand the relationship with B.C. Housing and Community Living B.C.?

If Community Living B.C. has a building or purpose-builds a building for individuals that are challenged, but generally different challenges than the ones we’ve been talking about for the past hour or so, where does B.C. Housing fit into that? Is that a relationship that you share with the Ministry of Health?

I just don’t understand who those buildings belong to. There are more questions around those types of housing.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question.

The relationship between B.C. Housing and CLBC is, if an operator would like to purchase a property, they’ll use the services of B.C. Housing to, essentially, do the transaction. B.C. Housing will help purchase, will help facilitate that whole transfer, the purchase and transfer. In many cases, B.C. Housing also will do just the property management for the CLBC clients, but it’s limited to that space. Most of it is sent through SDPR.

Linda Hepner: I’m going to continue asking questions around B.C. Housing and NGO partners. The management of B.C. Housing partnerships, particularly with non-governmental organizations and charities, has raised serious transparency, efficiency and equity concerns. High-profile controversies, most notably involving Atira Women’s Resource Society, have exposed troubling oversight failures.

[7:30 p.m.]

To the minister: in light of recent controversies involving B.C. Housing partners like Atira, will you immediately table a comprehensive and transparent flow chart outlining every NGO, politically connectedcharity or private entity currently receiving public funds through B.C. Housing, along with the details of those financial arrangements? It’s really hard to determine how it all flows, and that kind of a chart would certainly assist us, if the minister could do that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m happy to provide some information, but the member said in the question “organizations that are politically connected.” I’m not entirely sure what the member is referring to, and perhaps we can get clarity on that before we proceed.

Linda Hepner: Yes, let’s just use all non-governmental agencies, NGOs, and charities as the parameter for a flow chart and where those funds are allocated and the amount of public moneys going through that B.C. Housing, along with those financial statements.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are over 800 not-for-profits operating in this space. Perhaps if the member has got something specific or a specific contract the member wants information on, we can try to provide it.

But providing 800 organizations and information…. That’s a bit much here.

Linda Hepner: I think that a flow chart that would recognize what the names of those charities are and some accountability in terms of the financial contracts through those charities with B.C. Housing would be very useful. We would be more than happy to accept a binder, even though I accept that 800 is a lot.

I think, for the purposes of clarity, when I’m trying to understand what does B.C. Housing exactly do and to whom are they contracting or subcontracting…? It is incredibly difficult for flowing. So a flow chart of at least their majority of contractors would be very useful. I would think that the minister could provide that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Eight hundred different not-for-profits — it’s a bit of a challenge.

The member wants to know flow. Perhaps the member can clarify what the member is referring to when there is talk of flow.

Linda Hepner: Well, each of those entities has contracted through B.C. Housing, and the interests that we have are who are the charities and what are their contractual obligations and a better understanding of exactly what B.C. Housing is doing.

When you see the amount of money that B.C. Housing gets from the government ministry, it is fundamentally the most significant money. How that flows is incredibly important.

[7:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are a few things there.

First off, there is a lot of financial oversight. It’s important to note, and I shared this answer earlier, that there are yearly reviews done. There’s an every-three-years operating review that’s done. There’s a check and a requirement that everyone is operating under the Societies Act.

The members refer to NGOs and charities. We only deal with not-for-profits. I think that’s an important distinction I just wanted to put out there. I can share with the member the 800-plus organizations that get support from the province. They provide all of their audited financial statements, publicly available, online.

Linda Hepner: I think, since B.C. Housing is getting funding from government and these are public funds, that it is only fitting that the minister can provide the names and the financial arrangements that have been made by B.C. Housing, for us to better understand the flow of those moneys.

Am I to understand that the answer was that we’ll get some of that information but the rest of it is minutiae that you don’t want to share?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can’t provide it at this moment, but if the member wants to know which not-for-profits B.C. Housing works with and how much money goes to them, then we’ll get that to the member.

Linda Hepner: That would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Given the Atira controversy, can the minister outline what, exactly, oversight and accountability measures have since been taken to ensure the public funds and assets transferred to NGOs and private entities are safeguarded?

That was, really, part of the first question of: let’s know, first of all, who they are.

Then, secondly, can you tell us what measures have now been implemented since the Atira issue?

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Obviously, we’ve taken some steps with Atira. It’s a very unique situation. It’s not something that you see in other not-for-profits. There are three things in particular that I’ll highlight.

One, we have an independent observer that attends meetings now, board meetings, with Atira.

Second, they are working on a remediation plan on all the items that were identified in part of the review that was done about Atira.

We’ve also ended our operating agreements with Atira on five properties that are owned by the Provincial Rental Housing Corp. Those contracts have been assigned to other not-for-profits.

We’ve taken some considerable steps with Atira, and we’re going to continue to monitor it.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for that response, Mr. Minister.

I do have a question now that is relative to my community. Surrey’s B.C. Housing registry wait-list has grown over 208 percent in the last decade, yet your current budget identifies no urgent or major projects for British Columbia’s probably now largest city.

Minister, can you explain precisely how parity or geographic equity is determined when your ministry allocates housing projects, particularly given the stark disparities evidenced by Vancouver’s concentration of housing and below-market housing project units compared to the significant shortfalls that we now see in Surrey?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: First I want to make sure the member knows it’s not a wait-list; it’s a registry. People on that…. It doesn’t mean necessarily that they’re all still waiting for housing. Often people find themselves appropriate housing, but they leave their name on the registry. That’s an important distinction between the two things.

That said, certainly, I think there’s a significant need of more investment in affordable housing south of the Fraser. I can share with the member that since 2017, we’ve already completed 1,500 homes. That’s more homes south of the Fraser than more than 30 years before that — that’s significant — in the last seven years.

I can also share with the member that there are 644 units that are underway right now in Surrey. There is Harmony. That is 91 units under construction. We expect that to be complete in spring 2027.

[7:45 p.m.]

There are 60 units under construction on 13559 Bentley Road. We expect that to be complete this fall. We have another 85 units that are under construction with Metro Vancouver, with the housing corporation. We expect that to be complete very soon.

Then we’ve got a whole host of projects that are in development phase. Kekinow Native Housing Society, 106 units. The member is aware of PICS and some of the investments we’re making there. We’ve got another 62 units with Kekinow Housing Society; and another 50 units for Kekinow Housing Society — these are all Indigenous housing projects; and one 65-unit project that’s with the Fraser Region Aboriginal Friendship Centre.

On top of that, we are in active conversation with the city of Surrey on a whole host of additional projects that we think we can bring online.

There has been a significant investment in affordable housing that’s been needed, and we have a lot more coming.

Linda Hepner: I recognize the Indigenous housing and the Aboriginal housing units that you have described. I’m curious to hear: are the other housing projects you have described Metro Housing, or are they being built by B.C. Housing?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There is only one project that’s with the Metro Vancouver Housing Corp., and we have provided support for that. The rest are all not-for-profits or Indigenous housing projects in the community.

Linda Hepner: I wonder. Your recent budget identified approximately $1 billion for 1,570 units, resulting in a staggering, by the way, average cost of about $636,000 per unit. Can you explicitly confirm how the remaining approximately $1.8 billion of your total $2.8 billion housing budget is allocated? How many units will it create, and how much is earmarked for direct housing construction versus social services within housing units? That difference.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The next round of the community housing fund, I think, is what the member is referring to. It’s likely that Surrey will see a significant amount of housing as part of that fund, but there’s still work to do. The fund will be opening up in the coming months.

Linda Hepner: No, I think what I’m referring to is that in the current budget allocation of $2.8 billion, $1.8 billion is already allocated. Are you suggesting that the extra $1 billion is next phase?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Is it possible for the member to refer us to which line item the member is sharing with us?

Linda Hepner: How many units will the $2.8 billion housing budget that has been allocated…? How many more units will it create, and how much is earmarked for direct housing construction versus social services within housing units within the existing budget?

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We were trying to find an answer, but it’s challenging because I think the $2.8 billion refers to the entirety of the dollars that B.C. Housing gets. That’s operating; it’s everything. So I’m not entirely sure of the member’s question.

I will say that the funding portfolio includes projects that are under construction, so dollars get booked year over year. It also includes the next round of community housing fund, which we’re going to be launching, which will be more than 6,000 additional units. So there’s just a lot included in that number.

If the member is asking the amount of new units that we can expect in the budget for just the community housing fund, it’s more than 6,000 new additional units.

Linda Hepner: Just to clarify, did the minister say 6,000 units? What I was trying to get to is if we’re now spending $1.8 billion to create, at $636,000 a unit…. We’re spending $1.8 billion. We have $2.8 billion. Are we spending the rest making $636,000 units, or are we spending part of that money to provide social services within those units? That’s basically where I was going, if that clarifies it at all.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I apologize to the member. We’re just a little bit struggling with the frame of the question.

The member refers to the complete budget. There are just so many things that go to that. Yes, there are units. There are operating subsidies. There are a whole host of other things that happen.

We’re happy to go through individual items, because that might be more to where the member is going. But just the general number, it’s difficult to provide an answer. I just don’t understand the premise of the question.

Linda Hepner: It’s on page 38 of the budget and fiscal plan.

I’ll move on to another question. You could take a look and see if that better clarifies for you. Does that help? Okay.

In the meantime, I’ll ask the question of the minister: how specifically can we fulfil the minister’s promise of reducing construction costs through lower government borrowing rates in light of the government’s recent fourth credit downgrade?

[7:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Maybe the member is trying to be edgy and political on it, but the premise of the question, I believe, and the member can clarify, is: how do we help projects lower costs?

The way you do it is by creating more certainty, by ensuring that decisions can be made faster so that builders are not sitting years waiting for basic approval. They understand the rules. They understand what their cost structures are going to be. The cost structures are transparent, and there’s no behind-the-scenes negotiating. Those are the elements.

Now, there are a lot of projects, a purpose-built rental for example, that use government financing to be able to be advanced. We have provided in the past, through HousingHub, some loans to projects for market rentals.

What we heard and we know is that the federal program is the one that’s the most popular. A lot of people access that. We’ll see what the federal government does in the coming weeks and months ahead. If there’s an opportunity to leverage some of the low-cost financing for private sector projects, that’ll be a great thing.

Linda Hepner: Given that the federal government is not really in play at the moment, for you to be able to answer this question with any degree of certainty…. I would reserve the right to, at some point, better understand how that financing would flow through to the provincial government and whether or not those funds would be provided to lower the rates given to local governments in any applications for assistance.

In the meantime, I wonder if any housing projects at all have subsequently seen Crown land transferred to private operators or any NGOs.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There was a program under the previous government where publicly owned land was sold off to not-for-profits. That program ended some time ago.

If the member is asking if we have, I guess, passed on any title of Crown land, I’m not aware of, at this time, any projects of that kind.

[8:00 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Just to clarify, no housing projects that have been developed by either B.C. Housing or any of the NGOs contracted by B.C. Housing have received Crown land. Have those projects that they are now operating received any Crown land transferred to their name?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just want to get a clarification. Is the member referring to Crown land as in provincial, government-owned land owned by the Crown or referring to B.C. Housing land as a Crown corporation? I’m just trying to understand where the member is trying to go with this question.

Linda Hepner: I’m referring to projects that B.C. Housing undertakes and provides supportive housing units on land that is Crown land or land that is really provincially owned land and that, in the efforts of providing the support services and providing the housing units, the operator, B.C. Housing, transfers that land over, into their name, from Crown land.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks for the clarification from the member. All supportive housing projects…. Part of the program is there’s a requirement that it has to be PRHC-owned land. I think that answers the question.

Linda Hepner: So that answer is no.

Okay, thank you. I saw a nod.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, the answer is the answer. I don’t know if the member is referring to something else. All I can say is the member asked about supportive housing, and all supportive housing has to be on PRHC land. That’s one of the requirements of the program.

Linda Hepner: I’m going to ask you one more question in this particular category. That is around long-term lease arrangements and whether or not we have any long-term lease arrangements with our contractors and our suppliers.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We have long-term leases on our own land. Often there are 60-year agreements for the land for operating.

Linda Hepner: That’s why the flow chart would actually help us better understand what goes on with respect to B.C. Housing and some of the NGOs. Did I hear the minister say that the long-term lease is as long or as short as 16 years?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Sixty.

Linda Hepner: Thank you to the minister. I thought 16 was a rather short time to have a housing lease. Boy, you really almost set me up for some great questions there. I defer that, and say thank you for that.

[8:05 p.m.]

I’m now going to turn it over to one of my colleagues.

Gavin Dew: One of the issues that I recognize has been canvassed a bit during prior conversation is around short-term rental. I know that there have been a number of questions that have been asked in that regard. I do want to just layer a few on top in that regard that are specific to issues affecting my riding.

The minister was distracted for a moment, so I’ll just mention I’m picking back up on short-term rentals, a couple of issues affecting Kelowna and my riding specifically. I’d like to better understand….

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:06 p.m.

The House resumed at 8:06 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Susie Chant: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I call continued estimates for Ministry of Housing in the main chamber and the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation in the Douglas Fir Room.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 8:08 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Housing and Municipal Affairs
(continued)

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We’ll call this House back to order, and we’ll ask the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,513,975,000 (continued).

Gavin Dew: Picking up where I left off, I am going to circle back to canvass a couple of questions with regard to short-term rental. I recognize that short-term rental was discussed previously. I hope to ask some new questions here.

What I would like to start by understanding is what economic impact analysis was undertaken by the Ministry of Housing with regard to the effect of short-term rental regulations on tourism, both prior to and after implementation.

[8:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There was an extensive analysis undertaken at the time to determine what areas should be exempt from the principal residence requirement.

The analysis included prevalence and concentration of dedicated, year-round, short-term rentals as a proportion of all dwellings in 2022-2023; tourism income dependency; proportion of MRDT from STR platforms versus hotel operators. The analysis was done also on the size of communities in different regions, for determining population cutoff for the application of the principal residence requirement for rural areas.

Gavin Dew: I found myself confused in Tourism estimates when I asked the Minister of Tourism what input tourism had had into analyzing this very question. The minister and his staff appeared to be completely unaware of any studies undertaken.

I’m just hoping the minister could maybe expand a little bit on whether there was any discussion between the two ministries that would help to provide a more nuanced understanding of exactly how decisions were made and will continue to be made, going forward, between those two ministries.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I understand why. It’s a new Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture and a new Deputy Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture. We did engage with the Ministry of Tourism and the team of folks that were there. Of course, as we move forward, we’re going to continue to monitor impacts, both on supply of housing, rents, etc., and on potential impacts on tourism.

Gavin Dew: I hope the minister will indulge me in asking one or two more questions that relate to the tourism implications of STR, despite it being dubious, in terms of the scope of the ministry. I am struck by the fact…. I have conversations regularly, in my riding, about the expectation that we are hopefully in a moment of patriotic tourism.

Certainly, with the call to action from the Premier, I think the expectation from a good number of tourism operators, including in communities like Kelowna, is that British Columbians, and Canadians more broadly, will make the choice to do their tourism here at home. I expect that that will likely create upward pressure on demand for tourism facilities, housing, short-term rentals and hotels — a whole litany of different areas.

I’d like to understand whether any work has been undertaken by the Ministry of Housing or, by extension, by Tourism, to understand what the implications of that summer of patriotic tourism are likely to look like.

Might it consequently be time to move just a little bit faster on addressing short-term rental regulations, particularly in jurisdictions like Kelowna — which, for example, as of October 2024, had a 3.8 percent vacancy rate but is still some time away from meeting the requirement of a 3 percent vacancy rate for more than two consecutive years, as laid out by the ministry, around STR regulations?

[8:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m sure the member is aware of the report that the city released, so I won’t go too much into the details. Some of the information the member is referring to is in that report.

Of course, we continue to monitor this. We were following the numbers in line with what the report from the city highlighted last year. Of course, there were additional challenges. I think there was a feeling amongst many that people were worried about wildfires, etc., and that had an impact in the entire region.

To the member’s question about if we will be monitoring and doing analysis, going forward, of course. Do we expect an increase in people wanting to travel across B.C.? Likely. We’ll see how it goes through the summer. We’re in fact encouraging people to travel throughout the summer.

We did have still vacancy available in hotel capacities in the region, and we’ll certainly monitor what happens this summer as we go forward.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the answer from the minister. What I’d like to better understand…. Obviously, we currently have a significant amount of housing capacity that should be coming on stream soon in Kelowna. As the minister is aware, we’re currently standing somewhere in the range of a 3.8 percent vacancy rate.

The question of whether or not we have the opportunity to unlock greater capacity and to unlock people’s ability to do what they wish with their property for this summer tourist season is a decision that, I would argue, probably should have been made some time in Q1 of this year in order to enable that to actually be absorbed by the marketplace. People make decisions around tourism and where they’re going to go sometime in advance.

People make decisions about the disposition of what they’re going to do around things like short-term rentals sometime in advance. It seems as though…. If the answer is that the ministry will be monitoring it over the summer, it strikes me that that means that’s a no to the opportunity to make changes for this upcoming tourism season, which will be underway very soon.

Recognizing that fact…. Recognizing the 3.8 percent vacancy rate and what appears to be a trend toward a higher vacancy rate; recognizing, as well, that the way that the regulations are structured to allow municipalities to apply for an exemption to STR legislation if they establish a 3 percent vacancy rate for more than two consecutive years, I wonder if a municipality such as the city of Kelowna, which demonstrably has a rising vacancy rate and demonstrably has tourism impacts….

I fully recognize the minister’s statement around concerns around wildfires, soft economy, upward rate pressures. All those things are also variables contributing to a soft tourism season last year, but all these factors are in place.

If the city of Kelowna were to come to the minister and ask for an earlier exemption, on the basis of the market factors that are in place today, now to unlock the ability to make those changes for this summer tourism season, would the minister and the ministry take that request in good faith, or would they force the municipality to abide by the letter of the law in terms of the regulation and legislation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member knows the answer is that it’s a two-year average, and we would need to see the average above 3 percent for two years. Maybe a contrary opinion to that would be….

[8:20 p.m.]

I’m certainly not hoping to see people vacate units because they see an opportunity to see increased short-term rentals. We are seeing rents come down. It’s good for people in the community. If Kelowna continues to see the vacancy rate as the member has suggested, that’ll be something we could consider next year, but the city of Kelowna has not reached out to me for this request. At this point, it’s a hypothetical conversation.

That said, I would want to stick with the two years, because I think it’s important. It was in the legislation. We want to make sure that it’s not a blip and that it’s something that’s consistent so that people in the community see a benefit from it as well.

Gavin Dew: I recognize that there are hypothetical aspects to the question, but there’s also a very non-hypothetical aspect to the question that does not have anything to do with vacating units. That is the example of purpose-built developments.

In my riding, there is a development called Aqua that I’m sure the minister is familiar with. Over the course of approximately 14 years of development and go-to-market there, it was always clearly understood that that particular development was, in fact, purpose-zoned and purpose-built for short-term rental.

I have a number of constituents who purchased units in that building and who are facing the very non-hypothetical situation that they are going to be paying $5,000-a-month mortgages and will not be able to rent their properties out for anything approaching the ability to pay that mortgage. A typical spread we’re talking about is a $5,000-a-month mortgage with possibly that unit being rented out for $3,000.

That is an individual who has invested in good faith in a unit with an understanding of what the rules were and what the law was at that time and who is now going to be on the hook for $2,000 a month in subsidizing that unit because, to quote them, their “property rights have been taken away from them by this government.”

There has not been what you would typically expect in terms of grandfathering purpose-built STR developments like this.

I get calls in my constituency office every week. I get emails every week from people who are facing the very non-hypothetical situation that they have to figure out what to do when they take possession of these units that, to reiterate, they’re paying $5,000 a month for. If they are so fortunate as to find a long-term tenant, the rent is likely to be on the order of $3,000 a month.

Will the minister acknowledge that this is a pretty serious issue that folks who have bought into these developments are facing and that the lack of grandfathering is pretty impactful for, in some cases, the retirement savings of individual retail investors? I had several of those in my constituency office this month for whom this was a significant part of their retirement savings.

Again, their retirement savings are now going to be drained, and they’ll be left with the choice of either subsidizing rent by $2,000 a month or selling a unit at a loss, which they purchased in good faith with the understanding that laws and regulations would be stable and predictable and forward-looking.

Could the minister just speak to that specific challenge, please?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for advocating for his constituents.

I can share with a member that our team met with the developer in 2024 to talk through their challenge and provided them an option to move to a strata hotel. That information was made available to the developer, the steps to do that, so that people could operate in a way that allows them to have some flexibility like, in fact, happens in other communities.

[8:25 p.m.]

If the strata council decides to change to comply with strata hotel exemption criteria, they can do so. That option is available. It was shared with the developer, and it wasn’t taken up. But that option is still available for the strata council if they choose to do so, and we can circle back if they want to have further conversations.

Gavin Dew: I’m certainly aware of the strata hotel conversation. I won’t profess to be a lawyer, but I have had conversations with a number of owners who are aware of the strata hotel issue and who expressed a significant amount of concern or a belief that the ministry was misunderstanding the nature of real estate and real estate finance with that suggestion.

The challenge is that…. Again, their understanding of the situation is that you cannot simply take a development that has been pre-sold years in advance, go back in time and restructure the nature of the development. There are not only complexities to the nature of change in the development, the equity structure, the legal structure, the contract structure, questions and challenges around how many owners would have to be on board with that kind of a change….

While I understand that it may seem like an elegant solution from a superficial perspective, the amount of complexity and, indeed, the amount of cost required to pull that off by individual unit owners, who are already taking a bath financially both on a month-by-month cost basis and also on a long-term equity basis, may be out of reach. So I would submit that that is not, in fact, a workable solution in the eyes of the individual unit owners who are being directly affected by this.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Chair, I was multitasking, but I didn’t hear a question. I think it was just a general statement from the member, unless there’s a specific question.

Gavin Dew: My question, I suppose, would be: will the minister acknowledge that offering a solution in the form of conversion to a strata hotel — which, according to the owners of units, who have taken legal counsel on the matter, is unworkable, would be significantly expensive and would be complex in terms of unwinding the structure of the development, the structure of contracts, effectively undoing agreements that have been made — not only is unworkable and expensive, but is also, frankly, a terrible precedent in terms of basic jurisprudence and policy in this province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Let’s say that the developer couldn’t do that at the time. My point is that the strata council coming in can still do that. That option is available for them, and if they would like to meet with our team to discuss that, we’re happy to do that.

Gavin Dew: Again, I fail to understand why the burden should be placed on individual investors who’ve entered contracts in good faith. The general sentiment among individuals I’ve spoken with around the matter is that they feel as if their basic property rights and the rule of law have been disrespected in this process.

I suppose the broader question…. It’s a time when we desperately need housing supply, with the recognition that a significant amount of the capital stock that goes into building rental housing in this province comes from individual retail investors.

Will the minister acknowledge that creating this kind of uncertainty, denying grandfathering that would be typical and taking a, frankly, flippant attitude toward the property rights of these individuals is quite likely proving a disincentive to retail investment into the development of the very rental properties that we need in this province in order to provide affordable housing for people?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We continue to see record investments in rentals, purpose-built rentals. There are headwinds, but we continue to see that here in British Columbia. I expect that we’ll continue to see that into the future as well.

Gavin Dew: I would be curious as to whether the ministry has any significant breakdown of the investments that are being made and whether those investments are being made primarily on an institutional basis or on a retail basis by individual mom-and-pop investors.

[8:30 p.m.]

Further, has there been a reduction in rental stock being made available in the marketplace — particularly secondary rental stock, basement suites, those kinds of property types?

Again, I hear on a regular basis, in my riding and elsewhere, significant concern from people who either are the types of individual retail investors that would typically, say, buy an apartment while their child is going to university and then put that onto the market or who might put their basement suite onto the market.

Over and over again, from those individuals, what I hear is concern that the dramatically changing rules, the uncertainty around rules and the instability of the rules are a significant disincentive to them either investing on a retail basis into rental units or making their individual existing basement suites, secondary suites, things of that nature available on the marketplace.

Is the minister saying that there has actually been robust analysis undertaken of that kind of activity in the marketplace and that he or his ministry has found that there has not been any effect on undermining investment and undermining units being put to market, or has there simply been no study?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: What I’m saying is that the member is describing a doom-and-gloom situation in the province that we have not seen at this point. We continue to see investments being made in purpose-built rentals. We continue to see people building fourplexes, looking to build sixplexes, with the landlord being in one of the units and renting the other units. And we’ll continue to monitor that as we go forward.

Gavin Dew: I think that a number of my constituents would be quite shocked to hear their regular, everyday coffee shop conversations being described as doom-and-gloom situations. I think that, quite honestly, it’s insulting to individual property owners and investors to characterize their rational concern about the stability of the marketplace and about the investment conditions for building or freeing up rental stock in this province as being doom and gloom. I think that’s quite unfortunate as a characterization.

I’ll go back to my prior question because it wasn’t answered.

Has the ministry actually undertaken any robust analysis of the effect of their STR and other policies on creating a lesser appetite for investment in rental stock from retail investors, or for individual property owners opening up secondary basement suites, things of the like?

Has any actual work been undertaken in that regard, or is the ministry simply uninterested in hearing what I’ve heard from a number of constituents, and others have had too — that the changing policies have actually resulted in units being taken off the market or not being put on the market that could be contributing to our overall supply?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share that we’ve seen a dramatic increase in purpose-built registrations since 2017. We have averaged 13,051 registrations per year from 2017 to 2024, compared to 2,400 the years before. I just want to say that again into the record. We have seen an average of 13,051 registrations per year between 2017 and 2024, compared to 2,400 per year between 2002 and 2016.

We have seen, in the past four years, some of the highest total housing starts since the information started to be tracked in 1955. We are seeing, when it comes to small-scale multi-unit, which is more mom-and-pop, a 155 percent increase compared to the previous year. Infill development units — we’re seeing a 190 percent increase compared to the previous year.

I appreciate that the member says he’s got some friends who are investors who are concerned. I understand what he is saying. What I am saying is that we are seeing the numbers, and we are still continuing to see investments in this space, and we will continue to monitor into the future.

[8:35 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I really reject the minister’s insinuation that “friends who are investors” are concerned. I think this constant drumbeat of ideological framing around every small business owner and every individual small-scale mom-and-pop property owner somehow being demonized by this government so casually is really quite grating.

I think a lot of these folks who, again, are the individuals who own, say, an underutilized single-family property in a neighbourhood where they’re interested in unlocking a basement suite, making housing available…. When they hear that kind of rhetoric and see these kinds of market signals coming from the Housing Minister, I really do think it’s a deterrent to those individuals participating in providing housing stock.

I would ask the minister again: does he really think that that kind of rhetorical framing is helpful to trying to stabilize the housing market and get people to free up units that could be made available to house people and families?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ve shared facts with the member. The member says that there’s a doom-and-gloom situation. I’m not referring to the people that came to him. I’m referring to his comments. What I’ve shared with the member is real data about where we’re at and what we’re seeing. That’s what I’m sharing with the member.

To his comments about monitoring, of course we’re going to monitor this as we go forward. We have people investing in housing right now. We have people investing in rentals right now — record pace. I don’t know what the member….

Maybe the member is trying to put on a performance here on the camera, and that’s fine. It’s politics. But I’m giving the member some solid data on where we’re at with housing starts because the member suggested that all of a sudden, no one is investing in rentals. That’s just not proving out in the data that we have, and we’ll monitor that as we go forward.

Gavin Dew: Since the minister is committed to providing data, I assume that he will then undertake a study that will look into whether or not the material and unpredictable changes that have been made to housing policy under this government have, in fact, led to secondary units not being put onto the market.

I think that this back-and-forth gamesmanship is silly. At the end of the day, I believe I’m asking a very reasonable question about whether analysis has been undertaken about a significant market dynamic. And that market dynamic is that the exact kind of rhetoric that this minister is using, the exact kind of aversion to any facts or data points or analysis other than what he’s got in front of him, is somehow unhelpful or hostile.

I’ll leave that, and I suppose I’ll go back to short-term rental for a moment because I find myself rather confused.

I spent a considerable portion of the election this fall going to debates and engaging with NDP candidates in Kelowna. Universally, every one of them stood up on stage after stage and were quoted in articles, and they said repeatedly that they were supportive of a made-in-Kelowna solution for short-term rental. They indicated that they had had discussions with the Premier with regard to that made-in-Kelowna solution and that there was an openness to that made-in-Kelowna solution.

I’ve seen those words never appear ever again after the election. I’m just wondering. Is the Minister of Housing aware of discussions around a “made-in-Kelowna solution” that was advanced by his fellow candidates repeatedly to the public in Kelowna, in an attempt to mollify local concerns about the one-size-fits-all sledgehammer policies that he’d brought to Kelowna, or were those just election-time nuances that should be written off because they didn’t mean anything?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Candidates represent their ridings. That’s what all candidates do. If a candidate runs and wants to advocate for a specific issue in their community, they have the right to do so. If the member wants to talk to a candidate, they can. What I’m sharing with the member is the position that we have right now, as a government, and we’ll continue to analyze that as we go forward.

What I can share with the member, which I’m sure is important to the member, is that we’ve seen an over 9 percent decrease in rents for people that live in this community — over 9 percent, some of the largest decreases in rents for new units in the entire province.

That’s what we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to make sure that there’s more vacancy of housing, more units available for housing for people in the community, and we’re trying to stabilize rents. We’re going to continue to prioritize the people in the communities who need housing, who need more affordable housing.

[8:40 p.m.]

The member talks about some folks that have raised concerns. I get tons of emails from people in Kelowna who share their situations of finally getting a place to rent for their family and what that means. During a housing crisis, I think that we all could agree that that should be a priority for all of us.

Gavin Dew: I noted the conspicuous absence of an answer to the question which was, again, about what exactly was the made-in-Kelowna solution to short-term rental that every NDP candidate in Kelowna was advancing.

Has that moved forward? Is there any discussion? Or should Coun. Loyal Woolridge in the city of Kelowna assume that he was duped by the party that he was running with, who gave him false hope that he would actually have influence on housing policy?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think that as I mentioned before, candidates have the right to advocate for what they believe is in the community. I believe they said if they were elected, they would bring that here, and they would advocate and take positions. I think that’s appropriate for candidates.

The councillor he’s referring to is well-respected and liked and is from Kelowna and has a unique perspective of what he wanted to bring forward. He was unfortunately unsuccessful. If he as a councillor or mayor and council want to bring different positions forward, they have the right to do so in their capacities.

I think it’s important to note that there were a lot of candidates that ran last election for the B.C. Conservative Party who had some pretty extreme views. Does that mean that those are the views that you’re going to be bringing forward to this House? People had the right to raise their concerns and bring their voice to the table, and when they get here as elected officials, they have the right to do the advocacy they want on behalf of their constituents.

Again we can spend hours — I’ve got hours — for the member to keep asking the same question and me to give similar answers. But fundamentally, the reason why we brought these changes in is because we’re in a housing crisis, and people are struggling to afford housing in our communities.

When they see the housing stock continue to be bought by investors, and they don’t see an opportunity to be getting into the market, when they see housing being made just available as mini-hotels, and they’re struggling to be able to afford rent, they want action. And they got action.

What we’re seeing from that are some of the largest decreases in rents year over year in the province, and Kelowna has some of the highest. I think that people that are desperately looking for more affordable housing are happy about that and sharing that.

At the same time, we’re seeing record numbers of housing starts. We continue to be leaders in the country. If there are new data points that come forward that raise concerns, we’ll explore that at that time.

Gavin Dew: What I am hearing is that, effectively, the political voices and advocacy raised by an NDP candidate in their own riding was always going to fall on deaf ears, and that’s awfully disappointing because, again, that was a position that was held by every NDP candidate locally. I think that the people of Kelowna have certainly heard how much the NDP care about them.

If we’re talking about politics, advocacy and advocating for positions taken during the election, I just hope that the minister will indulge me in asking him to explain a letter that went out on October 7 in the middle of the election to residents of Predator Ridge. It was addressed to the member for Vernon-Lumby, as well as various folks in the community.

It thanked the member for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents as well as to Brad Pelletier and the mayor of Vernon “for helping bring this unique situation to our attention.” And “I agree the resort nature of Predator Ridge means it should have an exemption to B.C.’s speculation and vacancy tax, similar to Big White and other resort communities. “I’m looking forward to working with you after the election to fix this and ensure we can create strong tourism jobs at Predator Ridge while preserving homes in the city of Vernon for families.”

It’s signed by the Premier.

What I’m seeing here is a letter distributed during the election which attempts to curry political favour by making decisions around the speculation and vacancy tax, seemingly subject to the outcome of the election.

[8:45 p.m.]

Effectively, what I’m trying to understand here is that I’m being told by the minister that those candidates in Kelowna who wanted a made-in-Kelowna solution really never had a shot in influencing policy. But when there was a swing riding in play, the Premier had no problem signing his name to a letter that appeared to promise a policy outcome in exchange for re-electing his government.

Could the minister maybe just help me understand the rationale behind the decision to send that letter out in the middle of the election?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can’t comment on the specific letter. I don’t have the specific letter, but I can share with the member that Predator Ridge was able to operate as a strata hotel. It’s similar to, and the member wasn’t here, an issue that was in Parksville with several strata hotels that had unique ways of operating. That option is available for folks that the member mentioned here as well.

Gavin Dew: I assume the minister will have no problem in responding in depth to the letter if I provide it to him?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just responded. Predator Ridge was able to operate as a strata hotel, similar to Parksville. If the member wants to go back into Hansard and see the extensive debate around the short-term-rental legislation, he’ll see that this was canvassed at great lengths. If Aqua wants to operate as a similar format under strata hotel, they, too, would be exempt.

Gavin Dew: The letter references speculation and vacancy tax as well. Will the minister care to comment on the promise to review the speculation and vacancy tax at Predator Ridge as outlined in the letter?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Speculation and vacancy tax is with the Ministry of Finance, and the member is free to raise that there.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. I’ll certainly raise that with the Ministry of Finance and inquire as to what the Ministry of Finance thinks about the Premier promising tax changes in a swing riding in the middle of an election. That strikes me as being rather problematic.

Just to help me understand the way this government operates. Am I correct in understanding that, in the riding of Vernon-Lumby, the Premier was happy to sign his name to a promise to make a material tax and housing change in a swing riding? Perhaps we should be looking as to how that has progressed since the election.

Just to reiterate the minister’s answer. It sounds as though that’s in the riding of Vernon-Lumby, where the NDP was elected. I’m curious to understand: would the made-in-Kelowna solution for short-term rental have been moved forward if the NDP had elected an MLA in Kelowna?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Quite frankly, it’s a ridiculous line of questioning, because there were changes made to ensure that strata hotels were exempt. I don’t understand what this member is not understanding. Predator Ridge fell under that, and same with a whole host of strata hotels in Parksville.

I appreciate the member wasn’t there, but those that were here will know this was a big deal. This was canvassed in the House at great lengths. We worked with opposition MLAs to ensure that strata hotels were exempt. If this particular property wants to operate as a strata hotel, like Predator Ridge, like the ones in Parksville, they can. That exemption is there.

[8:50 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Again, the letter specifically is referring to the speculation and vacancy tax and makes specific reference to making those changes to support tourism jobs.

The exact argument advanced by NDP candidates in Kelowna during the election was that a made-in-Kelowna solution to short-term rental was needed, in large measure, to support tourism jobs. I’m really struggling to understand the incongruity here and the minister’s discomfort with providing an honest answer. I’m very, very confused here. Could the minister please just help me understand? Perhaps he can illuminate for me….

This is a very important matter around housing in Predator Ridge. He’s the Minister of Housing. I wonder if he can just let me know what decision process would have led to the Premier making a written commitment to make a change to housing policy, in a swing riding in the middle of an election, and publicizing it via a letter to residents of that area.

Would that have been a cabinet-level decision? Would the Minister of Housing have been involved in that decision? Help walk me through the specific policy basis for that promise made. Or was that just pure politicking?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member wants me to help him understand. I don’t think there’s anything I can say to help this member understand any of the things I’m saying. I’ve shared on multiple occasions with the member that the property of Predator Ridge operated as a strata hotel. Maybe the member needs this in writing. I can give the member in writing: the Predator Ridge operated as a strata hotel.

There are rules under the legislation that say that strata hotels have a definition. If you’re operating in those rules, in legislation, you are a strata hotel, and you are exempt. It’s similar to what was happening in Parksville with multiple sites. So it’s difficult to help walk the member through. I’m trying to walk the member through as slowly as I can, but the member seems to be struggling to understand that.

I’ll say it again: Predator Ridge had an exemption because they were under strata hotel, similar to the hotels in Parksville. I’m happy to repeat this multiple times so that the member can get it.

Interjection.

The Chair: Kelowna-Mission, one more attempt at this.

Gavin Dew: Let me just try this one more time, really slowly, for the minister. The issue at hand is the speculation and vacancy tax.

The question I’m asking is: what was the policy discussion undertaken by this government that led to the Premier making a written commitment, which the Minister of Housing says he was unaware of — a written commitment, made in the middle of an election, promising a change to the spec tax treatment of a jurisdiction within that swing riding?

I’m really struggling to understand what the policy basis would be for a government to be issuing promises of changes to housing policy, in writing, in one riding — those are apparently promises that will be kept — but simultaneously to have multiple, credible NDP candidates promising housing policy changes in another riding, which the minister now says weren’t worth the paper they were written on or the videos they were spoken on.

I’m just really struggling to understand: was there a housing policy symposium convened? Was there a cabinet meeting at which cabinet decided how they would treat these things? How did the minister come to be unaware of a written promise, made by the Premier in a swing riding during an election, to change housing and tax policy? Just help me understand that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Clearly, the member is struggling to understand. I don’t think there’s anything I can do to help this member understand at this point.

Predator Ridge operated as a strata hotel, so they were exempt. If the member is unclear on what I’m saying, perhaps the member can go back into Hansard later this evening and see me repeat this answer to him seven times. It’s similar to Parksville, which had hotels. Now, maybe it was six. I apologize; it was many times.

The member asked about speculation and vacancy tax. I’ve said, multiple times, that the speculation and vacancy tax is with the Ministry of Finance, and the member can canvass it there.

I just don’t understand how the member is struggling to understand that during an election, candidates were advocating for specific policies. Candidates are free to advocate for policies that they think are important for them. And I’m not sure, in particular, what the member….

You know what? We have another 14 or 12 hours, and I’m happy to continue this lovely exchange tomorrow. But for the sake of everyone else….

I move that this committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:55 p.m.

The House resumed at 8:56 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and asks to leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

George Anderson: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 8:56 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:33 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 are 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 and 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 and also people working in the environment, people working in 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. And 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 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, that people need to be heard. The most important thing is not a yes or no on a decision, often, but the time frame in which the decision is made.

If you’re in a regulatory process, you have to accept yes or no 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 — 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 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, with Treaty 8 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.

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, and we’re going to make progress by action.

What industry wants, when I talk to industry, is a demonstration of that on the ground. Sometimes putting together processes that have larger plans is an alternative to taking action in the present. 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 and also as industry, 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. 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.

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 the message that I’ve received from industry — and also from First Nations, also from other groups — that we need to get to decisions and take action. 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. 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. My preference, my approach and my direction have 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.

It’s my expectation to be personally involved in that as well. 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. 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.

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. My understanding is that 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. I’m fortunate enough that I have a recreation property at a beautiful place called Powder King. I can tell you for a fact that 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 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 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.

It’s 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, significant economic and social impact on our personal health and on our health as a community. 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, and 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.

With respect to LNG, for example — that’s principally what the member’s question is about, I think — and the actions we’ve taken, I laid out the principles or guidelines we’ve used to assess LNG projects. These have led to LNG projects occurring, in that discussion. 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. What’s interesting about, say, the Cedar project is what we know it displaces: other higher-emission LNG projects. We have a project that is an achievement of the First Nation, of many people in the community, of all the workers.

That project and LNG 1, 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 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.

That’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.

[1:55 p.m.]

Our task, I think, as reasonably as possible, is to have low-emission LNG. 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.

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. Also, there’s an advantage for the actions we take on climate change.

People may wish to seek ways not to do as much. It’s important that we have, and that we do have, an LNG industry that’s the best in the world. 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.

For my next question, though…. Given that we’ve recognized the importance of how clean, 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. We thought of this, and I expected the member to ask the question. I asked for a thorough response to come through, by people much smarter than I am, to assist me in that task. 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. 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 is 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. There are very strong and different views on both sides, at least in my experience of reading on this question. 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. So 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…. It 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 on renewable projects, by 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 via the Chair.

Larry Neufeld: Yes, thank you.

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

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: 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 are decisions to be made on these questions, including by the companies themselves and the people involved, the proponents of the project themselves. 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.

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 reflects 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, and also in terms of the economic development that comes from that production.

Larry 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: “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.

Larry Neufeld: Table A5 on page 139 of Budget 2025 indicates the budget is developed by projecting a natural gas sales cost of $1.30 Canadian per gigajoule. The well-known accounting firm Deloitte has forecast the 2025 sales cost of $1.00 Canadian 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.]

Larry Neufeld: Just to be clear, am I understanding that the 30 percent 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 Minister of Finance has done is to 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 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 year, you’d find a pretty dramatic increase in revenue from these sources.

If you looked 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.

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: 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. 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: 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 on 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.

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, 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.

One of the arguments for diversifying our markets…. There’s what we do and what they do. In terms of what we do, we have to maximize the benefit for the 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 to him and reiterate that 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.

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. 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, the B.C. population has grown, our industry has changed, and energy efficiency is now built into our homes: LED lighting, wind draft stoppers, three-layer windows, heat pumps — you name it. Yet in the last three years, we’re consistently seeing a net import of electricity. 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 the net…. 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. Is that exactly why B.C. Hydro launched the call for power campaign and asked the public, industries and investors to help generate more electricity?

My question is a simple one, as well, to start off. Will the minister confirm that B.C. is projected to face an energy deficit over the next ten 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 has 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. What we do in our system is…. We’re able to hold water behind dams, 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…. That was the explanation for the last two years. 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 that I believe we need more power, if we look at the projections, leading out. We put forward a detailed resource plan to the BCUC, which 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.

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 are significant, and we have a growing population. I think 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, if 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. That includes this call for power and others that are to come that will involve all kinds of renewable energy.

Hon Chan: My question was: is B.C. going to be projected to face an energy deficit? 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.

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. 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 are 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, 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.

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: 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 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: 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.

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. We’ll have an opportunity to debate this at length at that time, because it’ll be legislation before the House.

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

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.

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.

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. 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 there is 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. 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.

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 this change reduces 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…? 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 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. The member obviously knows this, so I find the question not that serious a question. But that’s okay. I don’t get to ask the questions. I only get to give the answers.

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 emission targets and to take action against climate change. So that’s what’s happened.

The Premier announced 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. 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 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?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, there’s significant accountability. Today we tabled, in the Legislature, our climate accountability report. We are required, and 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 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.

You talk about accountability. The reason we have legislation in place is to ensure that it’s reported — that the public knows it, the member knows it, and 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. 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 effect 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.

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

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…. There’s another target: 60 percent below 2007 levels by 2040. 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, in many ways, in heat pumps; and is 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 have got to take measures now that allow us to meet targets.

[3:00 p.m.]

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

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 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, 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, and 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 GHG 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 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 and 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 and 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: 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 some of the discussion of those very projections, and the information, 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 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. 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 modelled both by the climate action secretariat of the government of B.C. and by the federal government.

Hon Chan: 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.

Can the ministry tell us: if a legal requirement is not being met for 3.5 years, why is there such a legal requirement? 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 the report — for this coming year, the one in November — will be based on is 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 at the end of fiscal year 2023, which is always the intention. You can’t…. These are not immediate things.

To say it’s a 3½-year delay is just false. The report was delayed, though. Ordinarily, it would be done and tabled in November. It will be tabled this November. It’s based on the information that’s received that has to be tabulated accurately into the past and then produced. Then there are projections into the future that go through a similar, rigorous approach.

To say that it’s been delayed 3½ 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: The government’s greenhouse gas emission inventory is also out of date. 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. Then we follow their provision of that national inventory information with our own provincial inventory.

Hon Chan: From the most recent data, B.C. is nearly 20 megatonnes 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 tonnes avoided in B.C., including 3.3 million tonnes avoided in 2023.

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 and support businesses like Tidewater in Prince George, for example.

[3:10 p.m.]

Other businesses, including agricultural businesses in Delta South and other places that have…. In Richmond and other places, they have a positive effect. In other words, the CleanBC plan isn’t one program; it’s many programs. 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 tariffs, our economy is at risk. Will this ministry allow our economy to grow while relaxing the GHG emission target — especially considering that 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. 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. 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.

I believe that building a dynamic, clean economy in British Columbia that supports industry in British Columbia is a competitive advantage for British Columbia. 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 and 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 were 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 that sees the necessity of action on 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 regularly read the Wall Street Journal or New York Times to see article after article showing investment in places like Texas, Iowa and other places in renewable energy in the United States.

I think the world is going in this direction. 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.

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, I mentioned that last year we imported 20 percent of our electricity, yet those nine new windmill projects combined will only generate about 8 to 10 percent of our electricity use.

As we expand heat pump initiatives, EV adoption and electrifying everything in the name of climate solutions, these projects won’t be ready for close to ten years, and these nine windmills will not even meet last year’s target of our electrical needs.

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 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 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 have 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. So $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, it’s not NDP excellence, just B.C. excellence in what we do. So 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 would 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 constant engagement, 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, the 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 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: Well, 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, in 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 a result about as variable as it could get.

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.]

On 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.

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 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 than 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 then?

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 is because of their value and because 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, actually, we kind of know that by 2031, we can expect that a full 8 percent of electricity demand can be online, which is good but not adequate.

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, 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 will 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.

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 ZEVs, zero-emission vehicles, 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 year?

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. 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 of which is technology that’s behind our own tariff wall, shows that EVs are going to become better, battery charging is going to become better, and 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: 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.”

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 and 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 used EVs, 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. and also the government of B.C., successive governments of B.C. but particularly this government.

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 of EVs 200,000 strong now 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…. 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 part why B.C. is number one.

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

Hon Chan: 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 EVs 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, 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: Again, since our grid is not ready for a gas ban 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. 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 are now a significant number of EVs on the road, sometimes used EVs even get brought up from other jurisdictions to come here.

I think the question is: what’s the right approach? That’s what we’re working right now. 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.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon Chan: I mentioned about two weeks ago that I actually owned multiple EVs for nearly a decade. 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…? Have you guys evaluated the impact of the mandatory EV targets on affordability, especially in rural B.C.?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, yeah, for example…. 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 experience 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 one-fifth 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: First of all, I won’t 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: 5 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; 11 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…. 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. 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. 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.

[3:45 p.m.]

One of the reasons we have greater access to some CleanBC programs in the North is both to increase utilization and 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 road.

Hon Chan: 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: I know that members have lots of questions, and I like to answer them as quickly and as expeditiously 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 didn’t want him to just wait for the numbers.

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 visualize, 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 the expenditure that the member asked for.

Hon Chan: I understand you might not have the immediate answer. 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 cell — 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….

Interjection.

[3:50 p.m.]

The Chair: That’s acceptable.

Member for Richmond Centre.

Hon Chan: Thank you, Chair. Last question for my part.

Interjection.

Hon Chan: 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 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 ten minutes. Everyone is directed to please return by four o’clock.

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, the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions, Vote 23.

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

Going back to internal budget, previously the minister said: “There is a freeze on travel now, and the people won’t be travelling outside of Canada in the near future.” Is this a specific directive from the head of the public service or the Premier, or is it 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: 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, that I can’t get to or have a harder time getting to on the weekend, such as Fort St. John, 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, it requires approval.

David Williams: 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. 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: Can the minister 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: 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 and talk to the chair of the board, whom 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: 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, if 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 for this: $99,000 was provided for fuel cell passenger vehicles in all of 2024, and $8.2 million was provided for eight hydrogen-fuelling stations in 2024. Six are operational, and two are being built. Those are detailed answers. I just thought I’d take the opportunity to provide them. 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 that 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, 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. That was a contract, I believe, with B.C. Hydro. Is his question about B.C. Hydro, or is it about the Ministry of Energy?

By the way, I’m delighted that he calls his colleagues comrades.

David Williams: 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?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: That has not happened 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 with 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: These are B.C. Hydro lines that come to Vancouver Island, so we’ve got them. We own them. They’re ours. Of course, they’ve 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 the 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. 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: 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 we are getting the alternate 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 has 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 have 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 Power in his constituency. 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 financial circumstances. We were able to come together and work on an agreement.

There are some times, as is the case, when 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, provide him the list of the full number of facilities and where their contracts stand.

David Williams: 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.

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

Hon. Adrian Dix: So one project, two phases: one to Glenannan and 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 under the auspices of something called K’uul Power. 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 of the province and the economy. 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, 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.

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…. 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 keeping track at home. I like tomorrow — when we’ll provide more information on that.

The short answer is that we’re twinning an existing transmission line. We’re twinning an existing transmission line. While 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: The original timeline was 2030. By removing the environmental review, that should speed the process up, correct? 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: 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 an existing transmission line — really makes a lot of sense.

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: The project — is it still planned to carry the 500 kilovolts from Glenannan 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: 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…. I know that there’s an approach on the other side on this question. 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.

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. This takes service out to the northwest — northern power fuelling northern economies.

It is fantastic. 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. 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?

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. 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.

The Chair: Member for Kelowna-Mission.

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. It seems like something you’d want to know.

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.

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, and 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 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 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.

I would say 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, 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.

The Chair: Member for Kelowna-Mission, 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. 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.

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: 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.

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? 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.

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.

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.

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.

My question, Mr. Minister, is on Site C dam. The buildings that were up there are 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. 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 of 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 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 has 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: I would just like, from our caucus, to say a thank-you to the minister and his staff for the short and snappy answers, and I look forward to working with him 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 and 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, the member for Richmond Centre and all of the members.

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. I want to thank them, and I offer them that if they have more questions for us in this estimates process and provide those questions in writing, I’d be happy to respond positively to that.

The Chair: 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. 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.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

With respect to our integrated resource plan and what we’re doing, a lot of our capital investment at B.C. Hydro is to ensure the distribution of electricity. Some of it is in urban communities. If the member has recently been to Brentwood, in Burnaby, he’ll know the extraordinary development in that neighbourhood and 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 the forest industry, which is a major user of electricity.

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 it’s inexpensive.

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

[5:00 p.m.]

The member will know I won’t get into this debate, because it’s coming in the Legislature, but I also believe that projects need to be built and that part of dealing with climate change is building an alternative economy. That means building projects like wind projects in B.C., 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. 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. 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 helps 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. 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 and 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. 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 that 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 have 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. 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 in terms of the capacity it brings to B.C. Hydro’s system. I think it’s significant and in place.

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. 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 has occurred over time, 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 and B.C. Hydro are 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 quoted, $16 billion, 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 one follows the other. And 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.

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. 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. Understanding that there’s recent advice clarifying to net-zero ready for certain portions, 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 have 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, 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 I 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?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Our offsets are third-party verified, first of all. We have the most stringent requirements in the world. 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…. 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 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. 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. 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: You mentioned output-based pricing system. Can the minister provide a status update of the complete implementation of 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.

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. Ksi Lisims, 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. Anyway, the short answer is yes. We work closely with the federal government on this and adopt 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.

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. The investment, we believe, will be fruitful for B.C., both in economic development and 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 BC 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 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 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: 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, are 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 re-evaluating 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 of 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 that 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. We’re actively involved, including assigning Assistant Deputy Minister Viva Wolf and others to these issues.

[5:45 p.m.]

I intend, as well, to be actively involved in this issue, because we need more restoration of the land. 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 in the right place on this and we see improvements in restoration.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m just going to focus on 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 with enough of a fine-tooth comb to get into the methane piece.

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 for the industry.

We believe that we can meet our targets and that we’ll meet our 2030 targets in 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. An active federal government, which itself is driving economic development in 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 for this with the federal government. I’ve met and spoken on this issue with my federal counterpart — well, he was my federal counterpart, and he may be again — Minister Wilkinson, and engaged with Minister Guilbeault when he was the Minister of the Environment, on this question.

We, of course, increased our regulation on January 1. We 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. 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. I 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 by B.C. Hydro, by a public power, doesn’t get sucked up, so to speak, by 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 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 net-zero 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 — 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.

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 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 — 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 electricity, and to ensure that with our 100 percent public-owned Crown corporation B.C. Hydro, we get the maximum benefit of that.

Jeremy Valeriote: I will 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 the 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.

I would 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. So if you think of where these projects are, I think it’s very unlikely they’d be “baked into” anything.

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…. 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. I wouldn’t want to speculate on all that. I just say that I have seen some that are quite pessimistic. But I assume 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 on 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.

Jeremy Valeriote: I don’t have it brought up in front of me. I believe the David Suzuki Foundation did a study of this, 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, Canada 1 and 2, and Woodfibre from these net-zero requirements.

Given how quickly the climate is changing and how quickly climate science 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 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 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 clarify for my own edification? 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 — 1 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 we could move towards.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, 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…. 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 it be possible to do 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. My previous experiences have been a longer delay. So I’m almost ready to wrap up.

I think my colleague has one more. If we could do that one more, 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. The most recent example is the removal of the carbon tax because it was being removed in other jurisdictions in Canada.

My question is: 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 in oil and gas, 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.

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. The reason why that was important was that, of course, the federal government was imposing it anyway, right? So he was straightforward and clear about what the government would do, and we did it. There is a robust debate on that question, and 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. 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. 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. 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: 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 has had extraordinary value, and it was controversial at the time. Boy, 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 in said farms in Delta, which I visited recently, which have received exceptional support. In that sector, in 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 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, 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, in 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. 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, 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 roads, lease roads, and the well that’s being 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…. 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.

Where are the efficiency breakdowns provided for major energy projects like Site C dam, which have gone 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 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: 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 cost inputs 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 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 he loves doing projects in my region?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I love doing projects everywhere in B.C. 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 registrations 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 ask this is that there have been over three 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. In the majority of that plan, it’s not new projects, like the North Coast transmission line and others; 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 the 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.

Wildfire resilience in the service plan, that resilience as opposed to action on wildfire, putting wildfires out…. 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, wildfire 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, to engage that issue. 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 the 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. 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 8 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?

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? It’s base and firm power, so 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.]

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 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. The Site C dam only produces about one-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, a 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 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 of 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 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.

Those were our conditions. Those conditions have been more successful than the previous situation where we’d approved exactly no projects.

I think that one of the advantages B.C. has is its 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.

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 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 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.

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.

[6:50 p.m.]

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 or projects, is that funded by taxpayers or by private corporations?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Let’s say in general that it’s the responsibility of private customers to connect 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: I’ll 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. 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.

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.

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.

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, with the course of the project, the amount of consumption of our landfill, when it comes to disposing of products from the dam project. 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. 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…. 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, and you move the site. That’s not the case with this site.

This was the arrangement by B.C. Hydro. They have an agreement with the community that, of course, they need to follow through on. 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.]

I think everyone agrees that that would be desirable, but you still have to have someone prepared to take it. 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.

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.

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.

That said, these programs exist, and I think the potential for them to grow is significant. I agree with member. 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.

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? 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: 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: 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?

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: That issue was 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 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. 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 and 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 evolves.

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.

[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: 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 standards, 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, 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 has 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 a B.C. Hydro project they put in place.

[7:20 p.m.]

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 of 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…. 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 is, 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. The other is 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: 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 will 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, (2) 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 is that data published?

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. 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’s 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 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 kinds 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, in which I probably wouldn’t have survived too many winters in his community either.

In any event, there is a huge focus on regional equity. We see this with projects, which are producing economic growth in the North, and 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 of 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. 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 ratepayers of the province.

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, in the North, because of the central importance of the North to communities. Equally, the support for buildings, transportation and other areas also serves the North.

It’s true that there’s a greater uptake on EVs on southern Vancouver Island and in Metro Vancouver. 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 to 6 percent of new car sales in the northern B.C. regions, in a general sense.

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. That begins everywhere, but one of the places it begins is in the North.

Jordan Kealy: 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 region that you live in? 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 the 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. I agree with the member, and that’s precisely what we’re doing.

I’d be happy to brief the member on all of the extent of that. I think a 15-minute speech from me at this point might not be the right way to do that briefing, but I’d be happy to ensure that the member is 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.]

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.

The impacts 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 for that program, as it addresses other issues such as clean economic development and affordability.

Jordan Kealy: It’s interesting how you bring up fires and the climate right now, because my area is still on fire. 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 to burn over wintertime so that it can actually come back and start another fire. 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 the carbon capture?

What 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 in 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. 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 downhole when they could be putting it 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.

The benefits in the North — I see the member from Prince George here — is the low-carbon fuel standard, which 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.

[7:50 p.m.]

That’s transformation, potentially, something that we’re working on, 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 to 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 in 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. 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…. I recognize that is not the member’s region, but I’m sure he’s supportive of this. Instead of all of the power going from Site C south, to double our capacity to move that towards the northwest, I think, is a profoundly equitable thing to do and 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 we’ve seen 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 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, in the member’s community, and vice versa.

Jordan Kealy: I think there’s a little bit of confusion on what I was talking about when it comes to what’s offered to British Columbians in rebates. Whether or not it’s equitable in one region compared to another is what I was referring to. If the 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 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, from 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.

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 House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 8:10 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

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 Esquimalt Nations. The lək̓ʷəŋən people have lived, hunted and 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 Kamper, 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 join us throughout.

Ann 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.

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.

[8:15 p.m.]

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. It 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, that 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 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 that 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 to 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 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. It directly responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s call to action No. 80 and provides 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 remains 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. 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.

[8:25 p.m.]

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 initialled 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 and economic development, and continues government’s work with Métis Nation B.C.

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 and upholding First Nations jurisdiction over education, which includes enabling First Nations to certify and regulate teachers in their own schools.

We’re added 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 lands 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 are 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 show 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 have 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 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, which 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 that 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.

[8:35 p.m.]

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.

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…?

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. 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. 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. 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 and 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.

This government has budgeted $500 million 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 — and 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 in 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.

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.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:45 p.m.

Contents