With the summer holiday season coming to an end, and after hearing no end of COVID-related horror stories (delays, cancelled flights, staff shortages, passport issues) from friends and family who decided to travel by air to destinations afar for the first time in several years, I thought I would spend some time exploring climate solutions in the aviation sector.

As I noted in my recent presentation to the BC Aviation Council May Conference 2022, Transportation in the aviation sector affects our climate through two main ways. The first, and most obvious, is via the emissions of greenhouse gases associated with the combustion of jet fuel. In 2020, international (not including domestic) aviation was the 10^th biggest total emitter of carbon (171.15 Megatonnes) world wide (behind China, USA, India, Russia, Japan, International Shipping, Germany, Iran and South Korea). In total, aviation accounts for about 2.5% of global emissions of carbon dioxide.

The second main way that aviation affects the climate system is through the creation of contrails. Contrails occur when moisture in jet exhaust condenses in the high altitude cold ambient environment to create lines of thin cirrus clouds, comprising ice crystals, whose net effect is to warm the Earth further. While innovation in flight path planning is ongoing in an effort to reduce contrail formation, off the shelf solutions to replace jet fuel appeared elusive, until recently.

On August 6 and 7, 2022 I attended the Abbotsford Air Show to learn about innovation in the aviation industry and the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), sometimes known as biojet fuel. I was quite excited by what I discovered as it appears that Canada is uniquely positioned to be an international leader in this area.

It was evident to me that the aviation industry is deeply concerned about their greenhouse gas emissions and that they are investing heavily in carbon-neutral technology pathways. While we can expect to see the increasing use of electric engines, hydrogen fuel cell technology and even potentially hydrogen combustion from onboard cryogenic storage tanks, these will likely only be available for commuter, regional and short haul flights (<120 minute with < 150 passengers) over the next decade or two. Unfortunately, such short-haul flights only account for about 27% of global carbon dioxide emissions from the aviation sector whereas medium and long haul flights account for the remaining 73%. And so, if we want to reduce emissions from the aviation sector over the next few decades, widespread adoption of SAF made from renewable organic waste will be required.

A number of companies, including Neste, Lanzajet and World Energy have either been recently established or are already heavily invested in producing SAF using renewable ethanol from waste (such as cooking oil) as an initial focus. Of course, establishing sustainable supply chains for organic waste that don’t involve food stocks (e.g. Canola) or limited supplies of cooking oil will be needed if SAF is to scale up globally. Other companies (e.g., Licella, Ensyn, Steeper Energy etc.) are also heavily invested in exploring the potential of non-food source related waste (e.g. from forestry, municipal waste, sewage, waste plastic etc.) as feed stock for renewable fuels.

And herein comes the potential opportunity for British Columbia and Canada.

First, the University of British Columbia’s Department of Wood Science is already considered an international leader in biofuel research and hosts the British Columbia Sustainable Marine, Aviation, Rail and Trucking (BC-SMART) consortium. British Columbia and Canada are well positioned to capitalize on investments in research and innovation in this sector.

Second, British Columbia has no shortage of wood or other organic waste that could potentially sustain domestic supply chains for biofuel production.

Third, wood waste, such as slash piles left behind after logging activities have concluded, are often either burnt in situ, left to decompose, or eventually act as a fuel source for wild fires. Removing this waste and converting it to biofuel has significant environmental co-benefits.

Fourth, wood waste is distributed throughout British Columbia, and in particular rural BC. Capitalizing on the opportunities afforded by the harvesting of wood (or other organic) waste would provide distributed economic opportunities for indigenous and non-indigenous communities across our province.

In 2018 I wrote extensively about the challenges and opportunities associated with greenhouse gas reductions in British Columbia. In particular, I noted that embedded in the confidence and supply agreement that I signed with the BC NDP in 2017 was the following commitments:

Climate Action

1. 1. Implement an increase of the carbon tax by $5 per tonne per year, beginning April 1, 2018 and expand the tax to fugitive emissions and to slash-pile burning;
   2. Deliver rebate cheques to ensure a majority of British Columbians are better off financially than under the current carbon tax formula;
   3.  Implement a climate action strategy to meet our targets.

While British Columbia is on track to dramatically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in the years ahead associated with our Clean BC climate plan, one of the policy commitments we didn’t deliver on was an expansion of the carbon pricing to slash pile burning. This is important since if a price is attached to slash emissions, an incentive is created to avoid this potential liability and so forestry (and other) companies would be given an economic reason to extract slash from forest operations. Such a price could be set directly (on emissions) or indirectly (via regulation) as was done for fugitive emissions in the oil and gas sector.

So in summary, it strikes me that the sustainable fuel sector for long haul transportation represents an incredible opportunity for innovation that British Columbia and Canada can capitalize on. The economic, environmental and social benefits of investments in this area appear to be far-reaching.

Coming back to the Abbotsford Air Show, one of the planes that I toured was the Boeing P-8A (pictured above). The P-8A is a military plane designed for long-range reconnaissance, surveillance, and submarine detection missions. And here is why this is important.

Canada is in the final stages of a procurement process:

“To equip the Canadian Armed Forces with a long-range manned Command, Control, Communications and Computers (C4) and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) and Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) aircraft with extended capabilities to replace the CP-140 Aurora.”

The Boeing P-8A represents a solution that may meet the needs of this procurement. Why this is interesting is that the P-8A is already capable of operating on 50% SAF and Boeing has committed to meet a 100% SAF capability by 2030.

Touring the P-8A felt like I was exploring a repurposed Boeing 737 for good reason! The P-8A has a Boeing 737-800 body,  737-900  wings, a 737 cockpit and a 737 engine with a substantive increase in available electrical power. Fully 86% of the commercial components within the P-8A are common with Boeing’s 737 series, the world’s most prevalent passenger jetliner.

Figure: Four images taken inside the Boeing P-8A illustrating its galley and washroom similarities with the Boeing 737 passenger jetliner.

While I do not have the expertise to assess the military capabilities of the P-8A, I learned that 156 of them with over 450,000 logged flight hours, are in military use worldwide (in the US, India, UK, Norway, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea).

Figure: Four images taken inside the Boeing P-8A showing its military workstations and the sonobuoy storage/release systems

Figure: Two images of the underside of the Boeing P-8A wing indicating wing pylons that allow for the attachment of up to 3,000 lb weapons.

What excited me most about my tour of the Boeing P-8A at the Abbotsford Airshow is that I came away with a sense of optimism and hope for the future of the aviation industry. Imagine the potential for the Canadian military to show international leadership by investing in a sustainable replacement for its CP-140 Aurora fleet that would create a local market for sustainable air fuels produced from locally-sourced slash and other organic waste. While scaling up the use of SAF in the global aviation industry remains a challenge, Canada can do its part positioning itself as a early adopter and international leader in the area.

Last week I wrote about BC NDP’s Bill 17: Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020 that proposed amendments to the Clean Energy Act allowing BC Hydro to:

1. Implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Remove BC Hydro’s self-sufficiency provision. That is BC Hydro is currently required to hold the rights to enough electricity from generating facilities solely within the province to meet its projected energy demand (more on this below).
3. Remove Burrard Thermal from the list of heritage assets which would allow BC Hydro to dispose of, or develop, this asset.

In my blog post entitled Bill 17, Burrard Thermal, BC Hydro self sufficiency and clean electricity, I detailed a series of amendments that ensured:

1. BC can still implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Burrard Thermal will be removed from the list of BC Hydro’s heritage assets;
3. BC Hydro’s self sufficiency requirement for average water conditions at their legacy hydro electric dams is retained;
4. The definition of clean electricity reverts back to the original Clean Energy Act.

That blog post, together with my exchange during Question Period with the Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources on July 15th, provides a comprehensive analysis of why I proposed the amendments. I conclude the post with this:

I have communicated my intention of supporting the bill at second reading to both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals. If the bill fails at second reading, I won’t get a chance to introduce my amendments during committee stage and I fear that its positive aspects will be lost. That is, the preverbial baby will be thrown out with the backwater. The onus is ultimately on my former colleagues in the BC Green Party to indicate whether or not they support the Bill as it stands, or the amended Bill as I have proposed. Under the “good faith and no surprises clause” of the Confidence and Supply Agreement Premier Horgan and I signed in 2017, the BC Greens will have to communicate their intentions to government prior to the bill being called for debate.

In an odd press release and through an an even more odd, and unsupportable amendment, the BC Greens made it clear that this Bill will die on the order papers. And this troubles me.

The press release appears to be tone deaf. The feedback my office received from Indigenous communities has been almost exclusively on the government’s proposed removal of the self sufficiency clause (see my blog and also my Question Period exchange for more details). Yet the BC Greens propose no amendments in this regard and instead make the bizarre claim that more consultation is needed. The BC Greens could have either proposed to support my amendments to remove the self sufficiency clause, which has been sitting on the order papers since July 14, or introduced similar amendments themselves. This would ensure that the very positive aspects of Bill 17 are passed in a timely fashion. They chose not to, thereby ensuring Bill 17 will die on the order papers.

Unfortunately, the BC Greens’ proposed amendment is unsupportable and in my view shows a lack of understanding of the complexities of the energy file. I too heard feedback from stakeholders that the definition of clean electricity was problematic. However, many of the people raising this issue didn’t realize that the existing Clean Energy Act has very similar regulation enabling legislation. My amendments ensured that the existing definition remained in place for clarity.

Below I reproduce all definitions so I can expand upon this:

The various definitions

1) Existing definition in Clean Energy Act:

“clean or renewable resource” means biomass, biogas, geothermal heat, hydro, solar, ocean, wind or any other prescribed resource;

[there is no definition of clean electricity]

2) BC NDP government proposed change:

“clean electricity” means electricity

(a) generated from a clean resource, or
(b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

3) My proposed amendment to government’s change:

“clean electricity” means electricity generated from a clean or renewable resource;
         (a) generated from a clean resource, or
         (b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

4) BC Green proposed amendment to government’s change:

“clean electricity” means electricity generated from a renewable non-fossilized resource, including biomass, biogas, geothermal heat, hydro, solar, ocean and wind;

(a) generated from a clean resource, or
(b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

You’ll see that the government proposed to essentially leave the definition of “clean electricity” up to regulation. My amendments simply reverted the definition to what has been in place in the existing Act for more than a decade.

The BC Greens basically took the existing definition in the Clean Energy Act and added “non fossilized resource”. While at first glance this might seem sensible, it is problematic for a number of reasons:

1) “non-fossilized resource” is not defined in the bill.
2) Their definition of “clean electricity” may in fact preclude aspects of the establishment of a hydrogen economy. One of the main ways to generate hydrogen is to use steam-methane reformation and partial oxidation to strip it from methane molecules.
3) Despite the BC Green claim, leaving in: “clean resource” means a prescribed resource means that the definition of clean electricity and clean resources is not in fact stronger. It is, ironically, weaker.

In summary, it appears to me that rather than doing what is right and ensuring that the key aspects of the bill are retained while more work is done on the self sufficiency clause, as I proposed, the BC Greens have chosen to introduce 11^th hour politically-motivated amendments as a face-saving exercise.

I am profoundly disappointed in the BC Greens for forcing the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater on Bill 17. As I noted earlier, under the “good faith and no surprises clause” of the Confidence and Supply Agreement Premier Horgan and I signed in 2017, the BC Greens should communicate their intentions to government prior to the bill being called for debate. I’m not sure what the BC Greens were thinking, but I certainly understand why the BC NDP might not choose not to bring this bill forward for debate in light of the uncertainty created by the BC Green position on this file.

Over the last few days there has been a flurry of emails to MLAs around the province concerning BC NDP’s Bill 17: Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020. These emails articulate opposition to the removal of BC Hydro’s “self sufficiency clause”.

Let’s take a look at this issue in more detail.

Bill 17 proposes changes to the Clean Energy Act and Utilities Commission Act to give BC Hydro the ability to consider a range of energy resources and asset options as it prepares its Integrated Resource Plan.

The bill has been put together in what teachers reading this will recognize as a “two stars and a wish” format. That is, sandwiched between two very positive changes is one that is creating a great deal of concern.

The bill proposes amendments that will allow BC Hydro to:

1. implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Remove BC Hydro’s self-sufficiency provision. That is BC Hydro is currently required to hold the rights to enough electricity from generating facilities solely within the province to meet its projected energy demand (more on this below).
3. Remove Burrard Thermal from the list of heritage assets which would allow BC Hydro to dispose of, or develop, this asset.

You’ll get absolutely no argument from me about the importance of implementing a 100% clean energy standard. The bill does not require 100% of BC’s electricity to be produced from clean sources, but it does set up a reporting structure and the intention is clearly to move in that direction as part of CleanBC, which the BC NDP government and I developed collaboratively in 2018. The requirement for 100% clean electricity would have to be set through regulation (Order in Council) and presumably that would occur after consultation with Washington, Oregon and California as to the precise definition of what is considered “clean electricity”. Presently, about 95% of BC’s electricity is generated from renewables.

You’ll also get absolutely no argument from me about the needs to mothball Burrard Thermal. Burrard Thermal was shut down in 2016 by the previous BC Liberal government after announcing it would do so in 2013. It sits on 78 acres of waterfront property in Port Moody that could be put to better use. What’s particularly strategic about the location is that it already has transmission lines to the area and so could supply power to heavy users of clean electricity. In fact, this strategic asset could be used as a carrot to attract to our province industry looking for access to clean energy as a means of demonstrating corporate leadership and developing green branding. Ever since I got elected in 2013, I have been pointing out that British Columbia should be using its abundant clean electricity resources to attract cleantech and manufacturing industries here. And so I am very supportive of government’s intentions in this regard.

What’s more troubling is the removal of BC Hydro’s self-sufficiency provision. In reality, BC Hydro does not actually have a stringent self-sufficiency clause in place, although we used to. That’s because on February 3, 2013 the BC Liberals relaxed this clause (to protect ratepayers from hydro increases) by changing the requirement for BC Hydro to be self sufficient for average instead of critical (i.e. the most adverse sequence of stream flows occurring within the historical record) water conditions at their legacy hydro electric dams. Back in May 2019, I expanded on BC Hydro’s lack of self sufficiency in a series of questions I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Much like the BC Liberals wanted to protect ratepayers from hydro increases, the BC NDP clearly want to do the same. The removal of the rest of the self sufficiency clause would create electricity trading opportunities with the United States via the highly successful power trading arm of BC Hydro — Powerex. The US is awash with very cheap solar power that Powerex could purchase during the day and at night, when the sun isn’t shining, they could sell back hydro power from our legacy dams at a premium. The arbitrage opportunities are boundless and it is no doubt that this would a) protect ratepayers from hydro rate increases and b) bring in much needed revenue to our province.

But here’s the twist, in doing so, we will likely put the final nail in the coffin for BC’s once vibrant clean energy sector.

When the BC NDP introduced Bill 17: Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020 on June 23, I immediately determined that it was problematic. The problem was not with the desire for BC Hydro to keep rates low or use our legacy dams like batteries (one of my very first blog posts upon getting elected was on this topic), but rather that some of the unforeseen consequences and missed opportunities had not been fully explored (see for example my question to the Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources on July 15, 2020). And so I immediately set out to work with the BC Legislative drafters to propose amendments to the Bill (reproduced below). The amendments have been sitting on the order papers since July 14 and will be moved during committee stage for Bill 17.

The amendments ensure that:

1. BC can still implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Burrard Thermal will be removed from the list of BC Hydro’s heritage assets;
3. BC Hydro’s self sufficiency requirement for average water conditions at their legacy hydro electric dams is retained;
4. The definition of clean electricity reverts back to the original Clean Energy Act.

Should these amendments pass, the positive aspects of Bill 17 will be retained whereas the more troubling components will be removed.

I have communicated my intention of supporting the bill at second reading to both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals. If the bill fails at second reading, I won’t get a chance to introduce my amendments during committee stage and I fear that its positive aspects will be lost. That is, the preverbial baby will be thrown out with the backwater. The onus is ultimately on my former colleagues in the BC Green Party to indicate whether or not they support the Bill as it stands, or the amended Bill as I have proposed. Under the “good faith and no surprises clause” of the Confidence and Supply Agreement Premier Horgan and I signed in 2017, the BC Greens will have to communicate their intentions to government prior to the bill being called for debate.

I look forward to the exciting opportunities for innovation that present themselves with the removal of Burrard Thermal from the list of BC Hydro’s heritage assets and the move of BC to 100% clean electricity.

Proposed Amendments to Bill 17

17   Mr. Weaver to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 17) intituled Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020, to amend as follows:

SECTION 1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

1 Section 1 (1) of the Clean Energy Act, S.B.C. 2010, c. 22, is amended

(a) in the definition of “acquire” by striking out “used in relation to the authority” and substituting “in sections 7, 12 and 15”,

(b) by adding the following definitions:

“clean electricity” means electricity generated from a clean or renewable resource;
         (a) generated from a clean resource, or
         (b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

“compliance period” means a prescribed period; , and

(c) by repealing the-definition of “electricity self sufficiency”, and

(d)(c) by adding the following definitions:

“grid-connected customer” means a person in British Columbia who receives service through a direct or indirect connection to the British Columbia electrical transmission grid, other than a person in the Northern Rockies Regional Municipality;

“regulated person” means
         (a) the authority,
         (b) a prescribed public utility or class of public utilities, or
         (c) a prescribed person or class of persons who deliver electricity to grid-connected customers; .

SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

2 Section 2 is amended by adding the following paragraph:

(a) by repealing paragraphs (a) and (n), and

(b) by adding the following paragraph:

(q) to serve grid-connected customers with clean electricity.

SECTION 3, by deleting section 3.

SECTION 4, by deleting section 4.

SECTION 6, by deleting section 6.

SECTION 8, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

8 Section 37 is amended by adding the following paragraphs:

(a) by adding the following paragraphs:

(a.1) for the purposes of the definition of “clean electricity” in section 1 (1), deeming electricity delivered under any of the following to be clean electricity:
         (i) a specified contract or class of contracts;
         (ii) a specified rate or class of rates;
(iii) a specified international agreement;

(a.2) a regulation made under paragraph (a.l) may prescribe that of the electricity delivered, a specified percentage is deemed to be clean electricity;

(a.3) prescribing resources for the purposes of the definition of “clean resource” in section 1 (1);

(a.4)(a.1) prescribing a period for the purposes of the definition of “compliance period” in section 1 (1);

(a.5)(a.2) prescribing public utilities, classes of public utilities, persons and classes of persons for the purposes of the definition of “regulated person” in section 1 (l);  ,

(b) in paragraph (c) by striking out “sections 6 and 13” and substituting “section 13”, and

(c) by adding the following paragraphs:

(j) prescribing requirements for the purposes of section 19.1;
(k) prescribing matters that must be addressed in a report prepared under section 19.2 (1);
(l) for the purposes of section 19.2 (2), prescribing requirements respecting the preparation, verification and submission of reports, including, without limitation, the following:
         (i) respecting the form and content of reports;
         (ii) respecting who may conduct verifications;
         (iii) respecting the conduct of verifications;
         (iv) requiring reports or statements in relation to verifications, and respecting the form and content of those reports and statements;
         (v) respecting the dates by which reports must be submitted to the minister.

SECTION 10, by deleting section 10.

SECTION 11, by adding the underlined text as shown:

11 Sections 44.1 (8) (b), 44.2 (5) (c), 46 (3.1) (c) and 71 (2.1) (c) and (2.5) (c) of the Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 473, are amended by striking out “sections 6 and 19 of the Clean Energy Act” and substituting “sections 6, 19 and 19.1 of the Clean Energy Act”.

Today in the legislature I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources how he reconciles his government’s claim that it is committed to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples while at the same time introducing measures that will restrict their opportunities for clean energy economic development. I also asked him whether he was willing to instruct B.C. Hydro to declare force majeure on the existing Site C construction contracts, as opposed to the IPP contracts, to save billions upon billions of ratepayer dollars, and instead instruct B.C. Hydro to issue calls for power at market rate for any future power needs.

Below I reproduce the text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Many Indigenous communities in British Columbia anticipated being able to sell surplus electricity to B.C. Hydro. Despite this government’s professed commitment to reconciliation, the decision by B.C. Hydro to cancel its standing offer program has placed these communities in a very difficult position.

As I’m sure the minister is aware, reconciliation is a multifaceted process that involves building genuine, long-lasting economic partnerships with Indigenous communities. Otherwise many such communities will continue to struggle economically. More recently, with the proposed changes to the self-sufficiency clause in the Clean Energy Act, First Nations aspiring to become clean energy producers will be dealt yet another serious blow.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. How can this government claim that it is committed to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples while at the same time introducing measures that will restrict their opportunities for economic development?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question. Let’s begin by remembering that the old government signed insider deals for power at five times the market price. That created a $16 billion obligation owed by British Columbians. That’s $16 billion in unnecessary costs.

We are committed to keeping B.C. Hydro rates low and building a low-carbon economy for people. Maintaining affordable electricity is critical to electrifying our economy and meeting our CleanBC goals. The standing offer program was not compatible with this.

Our government understands — and I acknowledge the import of the member’s question — that many Indigenous communities view small-scale private power as economic development opportunities. Indeed, when we suspended the standing offer program in February 2019, we exempted five projects in development that had significant First Nations involvement.

I agree with the member that it’s important to support Indigenous communities in clean energy economic development. Just last month we announced $13 million for four clean energy projects to help remote communities get off diesel.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Over the last decade, numerous First Nations have banked heavily on clean energy projects as an economic development strategy. Many have entered into agreements with independent power producers to do the same. On Vancouver Island, for example, 13 of the 14 Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations are either current or perspective stakeholders in renewable energy products. The Tla-o-qui-aht Nation has poured over $50 million into clean energy projects and has plans to spend an additional $100 million.

Successful endeavours, such as the T’Sou-ke Nation’s solar farm in the Premier’s own riding, have helped get Indigenous nations off diesel, while others that have received financial backing from the government promise to do the same. For many Indigenous communities across British Columbia, the opportunity to sell excess electricity is a vital component of their future economic plans.

My question, once more, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Will the minister instruct B.C. Hydro to declare force majeure on the existing Site C construction contracts, as opposed to the IPP contracts, to save billions upon billions of ratepayer dollars, and instead instruct B.C. Hydro to issue calls for power at market rate for any future power needs?

To remind the minister, market rate is not 20 cents a kilowatt hour. It’s not 15 cents a kilowatt hour. It is a few cents a kilowatt, as is demonstrated worldwide with the price of solar and wind being lower than the price of coal and natural gas combustion in most jurisdictions.

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: Once again, I’d like to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question. As a government, we are committed to working collaboratively with Indigenous communities on opportunities for economic development. We consulted widely, including engagement with Indigenous nations, on the Comprehensive Review of B.C. Hydro: Phase 2 Interim Report, which includes the proposal on the self-sufficiency requirement.

I think it’s important to note that the changes that we are proposing will not happen overnight. They will allow B.C. Hydro to consider out-of-province energy, as one option — one option among many — to providing clean and affordable energy, as part of their next 20-year plan. These changes support our climate plan, CleanBC, and they allow B.C. Hydro to continue purchasing power from First Nations-owned projects.

My ministry has a wide range of programs that support Indigenous communities to transition to clean energy and improve energy efficiency. For example, we’ve invested $5 million in the B.C. Indigenous clean energy initiative. This initiative supports community clean energy projects. I appreciate the member’s questions on this important topic. Our government will continue to work with Indigenous communities to identify clean energy opportunities.

Today the BC Government released the final report from Dr. Alan Winter, BC’s former Innovation Commissioner. As noted in the accompanying government press release, Dr. Winter’s report makes the following recommendations:

1. fund the establishment and operation of “innovation precincts” across B.C.;
2. support the development of emerging technology clusters;
3. use the CleanBC plan as an economic driver;
4. incent and protect intellectual property; and
5. invest in leadership talent development strategies.

Over the last two years I had numerous meetings with Dr. Winter as he developed his final report. Needless to say, I am very supportive of the report’s recommendations. His recommendations will be invaluable in helping B.C.’s tech sector to advance and are of particular importance, given our collective challenge of economic recovery in the wake of COVID-19. B.C. is well placed to support and apply technology and innovation as we build a sustainable, low-carbon economy that will benefit all British Columbians.

The BC Government also released the final report of the Emerging Economy Task Force today. As noted in the accompanying government press release, the report made 25 recommendations presented within five key strategic priorities:

1. embracing technology and innovation
2. leveraging B.C.’s green economy
3. building a highly skilled and adaptable workforce
4. ensuring an effective enabling ecosystem
5. demonstrating public sector leadership

An Emerging Economy Task Force was proposed as a means of addressing how technology, innovation and global trends are changing business and society. To stay competitive, B.C. must anticipate the challenges and opportunities associated with change and how they impact the many sectors of our economy, from forestry and mining to tourism and clean technology.

Prior to the release of the reports I met with the Michelle Mungall, Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness, and Rick Glumac, Parliamentary Secretary for Technology to brainstorm ways of moving forward with the innovation agenda. It’s clear to me that government is excited about the potential for economic advancement in the ways outlined in the aforementioned reports. I look forward to working with the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary as the reports’ recommendations are implemented.

The creation of an Innovation Commission as well as an Emerging Economy Task Force were key aspects of the strategy for the new economy component of the BC Green Party Platform  that I championed in the 2017 Provincial Election. I was delighted that the BC NDP shared my vision and agreed to including both as key elements of the Confidence and Supply Agreement.

Over the last three years it has been a distinct pleasure working with government, Dr. Alan Winter (Innovation Commissioner) and Ms. Kathy Kinloch (Chair, Emerging Economy Task Force and President of BCIT) as these reports were developed. I wish to extend my sincere thanks to all members of the Emerging Economy Task Force, as well as Dr Winter, for their exceptional work that will be invaluable as we move forward with a post COVID19 recovery plan.