Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Okay, we’ll call to order and resume discussion on Bill 31, clause 2.

13 words

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

I appreciate the response from the minister, but I still don’t think that answered my question. Was the federal government consulted on Bill 31, including Mr. Solomon?

27 words

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Just to be clear, did the minister and the minister responsible for artificial intelligence speak to the federal minister responsible for artificial intelligence on Bill 31 specifically? Was that something? With that, my broader question wasn’t, I don’t think, answered in the last response. What federal feedback and what federal consultation actually happened on Bill 31?

56 words

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

I haven’t been engaged in discussion on Bill 31 in this committee stage yet, but I’m happy to join the discussion. It relates to my own riding as well. That’s why I’m choosing to rise today to speak to it. Overall, clause 2, we’re talking about allocation — allocation for different purposes, allocation by cabinet for power in this province. I’ll use an example from the community of Mackenzie in my riding. The Canfor pulp mill was closed a few years ago, unfortunately, impacting hundreds of jobs in the community. Large-scale infrastructure not being there has been a socioeconomic harm. Since that time there, obviously, was a surplus of power that was in the community of Mackenzie. Because of that, it wasn’t being used. B.C. Hydro…. At the time, there were options available. There was a cryptocurrency operation that set up. Iris Energy has built a bitcoin mine in Mackenzie. Other proponents have looked at the community as well because of that surplus power. There was a surplus power up to a certain point that Iris needed. Then there was a second surplus that was still not allocated yet. B.C. Hydro actually took that away from the community of Mackenzie and allocated it elsewhere. Part of that, of course, is there’s a system impact study process. As we’re talking about this bill overall, part of the rationale that the government, I believe, is trying to use is that the system impact study process is broken. It’s not working as it was intended. The queue doesn’t work anymore, that system, for the industrial proponents that want to access the power in B.C. Hydro’s system. With that, we have LNG projects, mining projects and the Port of Prince Rupert that are looking at it potentially as an option to get onto B.C. Hydro’s grid. But what they also need to look at is the fact that communities need to be involved in those discussions on allocation. In Mackenzie’s example, B.C. Hydro took allocation away from their community at their discretion, but there was no discussion with Mackenzie whatsoever. When they’re looking at brownfield renewal for that site, redevelopment potential for that site, at that former Canfor pulp site…. They’ve now lost that opportunity to offer power to that industrial customer unless they can figure out a way to navigate the system impact study process. I guess my question to the minister is: with this new model, how are communities actually going to be consulted about the allocation of power, in a community like Mackenzie?

422 words

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Members, calling Committee of the Whole on Bill 31 back to order. Having reviewed the amendment, it’s deemed to be in order, so we’ll allow for debate on the amendment. The member has already spoken. Minister, if you’d like to respond, please go ahead.

44 words

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Good afternoon. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 31 to order.

14 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

11/19/2025

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Hon. Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. Given that Bill 31 passed earlier stages of consideration with majority support, the Chair votes in favour of the motion for third reading of the bill. Bill 31 has been read a third time and has passed.

56 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

11/19/2025

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Members, the question is third reading of Bill 31, intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. Division has been called.

19 words

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025

Section A reports Bill 31 complete without amendment.

8 words

Thank you. I very much appreciate it. It’s certainly helpful information. I do not intend to range too far outside of the scope of the minister’s portfolio, much as he might have fun doing it. So would I, because we’re both big nerds. Now, again, having gotten into the scope of the go west document, the reason for my questions is in part simply because there is, obviously, new messaging, new proof points, new assumptions and new ideas being articulated in that document. I am just trying to backfill a little bit my understanding of how that corresponds with the approach being taken under Bill 31. I’m looking to the section on the North Coast transmission line, page 24 in the go west document, which talks specifically about the NCTL as the project that can also support western Arctic defence capabilities and a future potential intertie with Yukon. Again, obviously, there are very good reasons why the listed purposes articulated in the bill as it stands are there. I’m just wondering whether a similar level of conversation is being had around the western Arctic defence capabilities that are envisioned to be enabled by the NCTL. Why don’t we see any reference to that use, which is, again, specified and clearly meant to be foregrounded in the context of a government that is eager to partner with the federal government, who are eager to spend money on defence-related items? I’m just trying to understand the correspondence and correlation between the approach that has been articulated in the context of Bill 31 and this new messaging about the purpose of the law, as articulated in the go west document.

277 words

Hon. Adrian Dix

BC NDP

11/18/2025

Well, I’m always enthusiastic, and I think members of this House know this. I’m always prepared to have an estimates debate. That would be great. Perhaps we could set a time outside the legislative session to have it, but we are on clause 2 of Bill 31. I like to have free-wheeling debate. I think it’s good for the Legislature. It’s why we’ve been having debate that’s sometimes outside the scope of the legislation. I think that’s a good thing, in general, as long as we don’t do it the whole time because we’ve got a bill, and we’ve got business to work on. I would say, in terms of imports and exports of electricity, over the last 15 years, B.C. Hydro has imported more electricity in seven of those 15 years than it’s exported, and, in eight of those years, it’s exported more than it’s imported. Typically in drought years, we like to build up the reservoirs, and we import more. In other years, we export more. B.C. Hydro is in a good position in that regard. What is always true, and I’ve said this earlier — and I’ll just refer, on a lot of the historic questions, to my discussion with the member from Kelowna yesterday, where we talked about the recent demand for power and the impact of conservation measures like LED lighting and the impact of demand in the forest sector, which, as the member knows, has declined significantly over time; that’s just a fact, and we’ve laid that out — is that what we’re seeing at B.C. Hydro is more valuable power being exported than imported. The outstanding people at Powerex — I know that members of the opposition have visited Powerex, and they know when I talk about it, and I’m sure the member does, from his experience at B.C. Hydro — do a brilliant job in marketing British Columbia in the United States and in neighbouring provinces such as Alberta. Last year, even though we imported more power than we exported, we made $600 million in the proposition from Powerex. That’s because we have a richly flexible system that allows us to use power — it’s stored behind the dam — when it’s most valuable and sell it when it’s most valuable and sometimes import it when it isn’t, including importing from power that we have access to under the downstream benefits. All of that is the general discussion from his estimates question. I wanted to give his estimates question due respect. I also think that this has been the achievement of B.C. Hydro, 12 percent below the rate of inflation in incredibly inflationary times over the last ten years. I’m not saying there aren’t other high-cost issues in B.C., from housing to everything else. We all know that. B.C. Hydro has been one that has weighed in on the other side. Now, between 2001 and 2017, hydro rates increased 54 percent above the rate of inflation in that period of governance in B.C. Again, we’re not having an estimates debate, so I will not pursue that any further. I’ll just leave that for the member to consider. I think what this legislation does is really allow B.C. Hydro to do what it should do, which is act in the public interest of B.C., and ensure we have the electricity for industries that are producing the most jobs, ensuring paced growth in these sectors and managing issues just like all these other jurisdictions, which are dealing with some of the same things. An insatiable short-term demand…. We don’t know what the long-term demand will be. I remember reading stories in 2000 about the internet and how it was going to take up all the electricity and everything else. That didn’t prove to happen in the same way. Industries such as AI and data centres inevitably, I think, will become more efficient in terms of their use of electricity. But now the demand is extraordinary, such that Alberta received, when it opened up requests, 14,000 more than the entire hydro, their whole system of requests for electricity. All of those things are there, and I would recommend, because I think this is the right approach on section 2 that we’re taking, that this section is supportive of ratepayers, is supportive of a paced economic development in these precise sectors and ensures access to power for sectors that produce more jobs, more royalties and more revenue.

741 words

I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, back to order. We are on clause 2. Recognizing the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

28 words

Hon. Adrian Dix

BC NDP

11/18/2025

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

The member is advocating for the Quebec model, and I don’t agree with that. What I believe is that the Legislature…. We do this consistently. In the discussion of another bill today, brought forward not by the member’s party that’s been in this debate so far but around another bill…. One of the reasons that bill was so significant is that, I believe, as much as possible, you need to put things in legislation. We should say what we mean, and we should have a debate in the Legislature about what we mean. These rapidly scalable industries, AI and data centres, have huge opportunities for us, but we’ve got to be able to meet that demand, which is rapid demand, in a way that’s consistent with our means and protects the interests of ratepayers. I haven’t asked for the power to do that and then am determining after the fact that power by regulation. I’m here saying that we’ve done that analysis, and we’ll have that debate this afternoon, and these are the reasons why we’ve chosen these three industries. The criteria that we’re going to apply to these three industries will be set by regulation. I’ve also been straightforward about what I think they’re going to be. We’ll have a process about that that will involve people, but this is straightforward. The member says we have to come back to the Legislature if we want to change that. You bet we do, because I believe in that. I believe that the Legislature should have this debate about which industries…. If I want to say that there should be an allocation framework for AI and for data centres and for hydrogen for export, that should come to the Legislature, and we should debate it, just as the member may believe there should be one for other areas, and he may take occasion in this debate to make that case. I think this is the way you do it. You put that in the legislation, the criteria by which you make the individual decisions. Data sovereignty, climate, jobs, Canadian content, etc. — that those provisions are rightly in regulation. But I haven’t been hiding what they are either. I’ve been saying in speeches in the Legislature, and I’ll be saying them throughout this afternoon, that response. I think that’s the right approach, not to give the government regulatory authority in advance and then make decisions about them. I mean, it’s making that analysis and then bringing that to the Legislature for debate. Members may disagree and say that we should raise electricity rates massively to meet data centre demands. They can make that argument in the Legislature, and I’d be looking forward to that debate. But I’m saying, clearly, what we want to do, which is to have an allocation framework that applies to rapidly scalable industries so that we can give B.C. Hydro the means to manage the electricity grid in the public system and to promote economic growth in B.C. That’s why we’ve engaged in this policy, which is consistent with actions taken across North America, with a problem that’s facing us now. Waiting around for that is not what we should do, so I’m bringing legislation to the Legislature, Bill 31, and we’re having a discussion about it. I think that’s the right way to do things, and that’s what we’re doing.

564 words

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, to order.

18 words

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act (continued)

Section A reports progress on Bill 31 and asks leave to sit again.

13 words

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Members, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31 back to order. Copies are being distributed as we speak. I would like to recognize the member for Salmon Arm–Shuswap to make some comments about the proposed amendment before a ruling is made.

43 words

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Thank you to the minister. Moving on to procurement and the infrastructure itself, Bill 31 creates a new framework for ownership, asset transfers and partnership agreements for the North Coast transmission line. What it does not clearly set out is how this project will meet the province’s obligation to support Canadian manufacturing, protect ratepayers from long-term operating losses and ensure the use of the most efficient transmission technologies available. My question is: can the minister confirm whether the agreement that cabinet may delegate under Bill 31 will contain explicit requirements for buy-Canadian procurement in the use of high-efficiency, low-cost transmission components, such as advanced conductor technologies and modern HVDC systems or next-generation insulated cables, so that the North Coast transmission line delivers the maximum efficiency for the taxpayer?

128 words

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, to order.

19 words

Section A reports progress on Bill 31 and asks leave to sit again.

13 words

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

The minister has touched on the importance and the idea of B.C. Hydro supporting economic development. I think that certainly brings us into a relevant, broader subject. The government’s second backgrounder to the Bill 31 news release concedes that there is a 7,000 megawatt backlog of industrial demand waiting for electricity. Those 7,000 megawatts represent tens of thousands of jobs that could already be contributing to B.C.’s economy — mining, forestry processing, manufacturing, hydrogen production and data centres that can’t move forward because B.C. Hydro doesn’t have the generation capacity, not the transmission capacity. In my initial second reading speech to this bill, I illustrated the idea as we’re rationing power like wartime butter. I’m just wondering if the minister can clarify. Does this transmission line solve the backlog of generation capacity?

132 words