2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, July 13, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 27, Number 8

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, JULY 13, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
PROJECT AGREEMENTS ACT

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am pleased to introduce Bill 30, the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act, 2015. This bill provides the authority for the Minister of Finance, with the approval of Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to enter into LNG project agreements on behalf of the province.

The bill describes the four areas of change for which the province grants an indemnity under an LNG project agreement. These are the only areas of change for which an indemnity is provided.

[1005]

They are changes to the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, changes to the natural gas tax credit under the B.C. Income Tax Act, changes to the Carbon Tax Act that are specific to the liquefaction of natural gas and, fourthly, changes to the greenhouse gas regulatory framework that will be set out under the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act and in the liquefied natural gas environmental incentive program described in the documents tabled today.

This bill describes the key elements of an LNG project agreement. It sets out those matters that must be contained within an agreement, including a threshold value for the impact of changes so that the province is not obliged to indemnify for minor changes. It includes the requirement that the indemnification provisions cannot take effect until the Minister of Finance is satisfied that the LNG project will proceed.

The bill also sets out the maximum term of an agreement and requires the minister to publish the LNG project agreement. Finally, this bill allows the agreement that has already been signed to be ratified with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I will table that agreement momentarily.

It is the preference of the government to proceed with second reading of the bill this day, and I can advise the House that we will be seeking leave of the House to do so later today.

Madame Speaker: So noted. Thank you.

Hon. M. de Jong: With that, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading later.

Bill 30, Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: I table the following documents: project development agreement in respect of the Pacific NorthWest LNG project between Her Majesty in Right of the Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Finance, and Pacific NorthWest LNG limited partnership by its general partner, Pacific NorthWest LNG Ltd.; the subsequent adherence agreements; and, finally, the liquefied natural gas environmental incentive program.

I table those documents.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

EXPERIENCE THE FRASER

D. Bing: British Columbia has many unique and distinguishing geographic features that make it one of the most beautiful places on earth. We have the coastal mountain range, the insular mountains that form Vancouver Island and Haida Gwaii, the Rocky and Columbia Mountain ranges and the rolling grasslands and forests of the interior.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The biodiversity of this province is amazing. Indeed, many British Columbians would be very surprised to learn that our desert grasslands even contain their very own indigenous northern scorpion. The northern scorpion is a relatively harmless creature. Its sting is no more dangerous to humans than a bee’s or a wasp’s, and it certainly hurts far less than a bite by the former member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Beyond a doubt, when all things are considered, one geographical feature that essentially defines this prov-
[ Page 8870 ]
ince is the mighty Fraser River. The Fraser River flows nearly 1,400 kilometres from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. The Fraser drains a watershed of 233,000 square kilometres, about one-third of British Columbia. In fact, all of Great Britain would fit into the Fraser River’s watershed.

It supports more than 300 species of resident and migratory birds, it supports 41 species of freshwater fish, and it produces more salmon than any other river system in the world. While salmon used to be present in river systems all over the planet, such as the Seine River in France, where we get the term “seine nets,” the Fraser has become one of the last remaining bastions of salmon habitat in the world.

For all of these reasons I’m pleased to put forward the following motion entitled “Experience the Fraser” on behalf of my constituents of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. The Fraser River is beautiful, and it is vital to our economy. For over 10,000 years First Nations relied on the Fraser to sustain their populations. Today all British Columbians rely on the Fraser for everything from power generation, irrigation and fresh water consumption. It is estimated that 80 percent of B.C.’s economic production stems from the Fraser.

Because we all benefit from the river it is necessary that we all become stewards of the river, and that’s how Experience the Fraser came into being. In 2009 the government of British Columbia partnered with the Fraser Valley regional district, Metro Vancouver, First Nations, local governments and interested groups to develop a vision.

[1010]

Experience the Fraser is a unique vision to connect communities, parks, natural features, historic and cultural sites along a 550-kilometre stretch of the river from Hope all the way to the Salish Sea.

The canyon to coast trail and the recreational blueway are the backbone of the project, but much more needs to be done. Just last week for the hon. Minister for Social Development and Social Innovation, my colleagues the member for Chilliwack, Abbotsford-Mission and Chilliwack-Hope joined me on Island 22 in Chilliwack to announce a $320,000 project to expand the trail system.

This project is a job creation partnership between the province and Ecoworks Landscape Services. During the six-month project workers will clear trails, build footbridges and construct boardwalks along the trail in Mission. This work will also include two viewing platforms in Chilliwack, plus the installation of trail signs along the whole pathway.

Mark Angelo, the chair emeritus of the BCIT Rivers Institute describes Experience the Fraser in the following terms: “The fact that we can develop a major trail network adjacent to one of the world’s most significant rivers in a developed region is an opportunity that doesn’t come around too often.” In short, we want Experience the Fraser to become the world’s greatest river destination for people coming to visit British Columbia.

We also want British Columbians to experience the Fraser themselves. Once completed, local residents will have access to some of the finest walking trails and recreational waterways on the planet. Forming a portion of Canada’s transnational trail, Experience the Fraser will create spaces to play, explore, walk and cycle, fish and camp. It will stimulate tourism and new business opportunities for local communities.

Once people experience the Fraser, the project will inspire protection of the river’s ecological health. It will inspire people to become stewards of the Fraser and encourage future generations to take care of one of the most important natural legacies that this province has to offer.

J. Darcy: I certainly want to join with the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows in speaking about the Experience the Fraser program today, a very exciting and worthy program that is truly about connecting Hope to the Salish Sea. Certainly in my community in New Westminster our municipal government, one of many partners in this project, has fully embraced it and gone over and above, I think, the mandate given to municipal governments.

They have built a new park, the Westminster Pier Park, which extends the walking area by the river in New Westminster by about a kilometre as well as providing concert space, park space and even a sand beach — an artificial one, mind you, but it feels the same when kids are sticking their toes in the sand — with sun umbrellas, a volleyball court and so on. So the objective of people being able to walk and cycle and play close to the Fraser and bringing families close to the Fraser and understanding it is certainly one that we can all support in my community.

As well, there are plans to build a bridge across the Fraser to Queensborough. And of course, the Fraser River Discovery Centre, which is an integral part of this program, is located in New Westminster — a wonderful educational centre where especially kids can come and learn about the working river, about the environment, about the culture and the history about First Nations and everything that makes up the mighty Fraser.

I note in the implementation plan for the Experience the Fraser program it indeed — and the member opposite has spoken about the Rivers Institute — also talks about the Fraser River Salmon Table, the Rivers Institute and many other non-governmental organizations as being very, very important partners in carrying out the objectives of Experience the Fraser, which is all about us becoming stewards of the Fraser River. And as the member opposite said, there is much more to be done.

I think it’s important to note that everything about government policy needs to also be in sync with the objectives. If we say that the objective is to protect the environment, to protect it as a working river, to protect the
[ Page 8871 ]
salmon run and so on, that also needs to speak to government policy that would do this.

[1015]

We certainly have reports from the Pacific Salmon Commission that talk about the unusually warm temperatures in the northeast Pacific last year and coming into this year, warmer than we’ve experienced in 50 years. On July 9 the Fraser River water discharge at Hope was about 4,057 cubic metres per second, which is approximately 30 percent lower than the average for this date, and the temperature in the Fraser River near Hope was 19.3 centigrade, which is 3.6 degrees higher than normal.

What this speaks to is the importance of this government not continuing to neglect and violate its own climate action targets, which we’ve seen in the case of liquefied natural gas. We’ve seen the lack of leadership on the issue of transit. If we are truly going to experience the Fraser and protect it in all of its aspects for future generations, including the vital role it plays in the health of the salmon industry in this province, we absolutely need to be true to the climate action objectives and respect them.

I would also note that in situations like the Mount Polley mine tailings failure we also saw very, very clearly a brutal example of one of the biggest failings of this government to ensure that there were adequate numbers of inspections in the mining industry, to ensure that the use of the tailings pond…. The amount of water and tailings were not able to grow incrementally over time and be allowed to continue to grow, and that has a direct impact on the Fraser River.

As we know, 25 million cubic metres of tailings and debris spilled into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake and ultimately into the Fraser River water system. The long-term effects on the Fraser River and on salmon dependent on clean, clear water are, frankly, yet to be known.

I certainly join with the member opposite in celebrating the Experience the Fraser program. It is a vital one for all of our communities, for our entire province, and it’s vital in every aspect. But if we’re going to be true to the goals of Experience the Fraser, we also have to be true to respecting climate action targets by the government of British Columbia.

D. Bing: I would like to thank the hon. member for her comments on this private members’ statement entitled Experience the Fraser. As I indicated in my remarks earlier, all British Columbians have a stake in protecting the ecological integrity of the Fraser River. Every single person in this province wants to see the Fraser protected from pollutants and potential contamination.

In response to potential oil spills, the Premier has been very clear that future developments must meet or exceed five strict conditions, including a world-class, green oil response to protect the mouth of the Fraser River delta and anywhere else along British Columbia’s coastline. We want to ensure that the Fraser River continues to be an important part of our ecological and economic heritage.

Experience the Fraser embraces environmental objectives critical to maintaining the health of the lower Fraser River corridor. We want to raise awareness about the health of the river through educational opportunities and direct experience with the river itself. We can only do this through partnerships with local government, First Nations, the provincial government and interested groups.

This is a project that has touched communities and people. It’s 550 kilometres along the most spectacular river system in the world, and we have a collective responsibility to protect it. I would encourage every British Columbian to take interest, to explore and experience the Fraser this summer, and see for yourself how important and beautiful the river really is.

PROTECTING B.C. RESOURCES
FOR A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC FUTURE

H. Bains: As visitors enter this beautiful building, our legislative building, and as they walk around the rotunda and look up, they witness four distinct paintings. They represent our four major industries: forestry, mining, agriculture and fishing. It reminds us how this province was built. It was built on and with those natural resources. Successive governments for over 150 years built policies around those natural resources to utilize those natural resources to create jobs for British Columbians in British Columbia.

[1020]

Wealth created through those natural resources was used and utilized to pay for our social programs and infrastructure, and it provided communities stability. The companies, at the same time, made profit for their shareholders. So it was a win-win situation for all. No wonder this province became the best province to live in and to raise your family and work.

But in the last 12 to 14 years that direction of government has changed. Now the multinationals, the companies, come first, and then the trickle-down economy hopefully will help those who are working in those natural resources.

We’ve seen the disastrous results in those 12 to 14 years. If you look at the forest industry alone, as a result of the lack of direction and leadership, we’ve lost over 150 sawmills in this province. Over 30,000 workers have lost their jobs. The export of raw logs — instead of processing them here and allowing our industry to utilize them to create jobs and maximize benefits out of those natural resources for British Columbia — has become the norm.

If you look at — in the other industries — mining, if we don’t export raw material, we import temporary foreign workers to take jobs away from British Columbians. HD Mining is one of those examples. Or if you go into wildlife, foreign hunters became the priority over our domestic and local hunters.
[ Page 8872 ]

LNG — no different there. You give away our resources and actually pay for companies to come and extract our natural resources for political gains. As a result of that leadership and direction, what we’ve seen is we get less value from our natural resources.

In the forest industry alone, I will give you some numbers that are startling. Compared to other provinces with a large forest sector, Ontario and Quebec, B.C. gets fewer jobs and adds less value in manufacturing and sales revenue out of each tree we cut.

Furthermore, while Ontario and Quebec have been getting better since the 1990s, B.C. has been getting worse. For every forest sector job in B.C., we need to cut about 1,400 cubic metres of trees. Ontario gets over four times the number of jobs from each tree they cut, and Quebec has three times more. In the 1990s we needed to harvest just under 800 cubic metres per job. Since 2002 it has been about 1,200 cubic metres for each job. While B.C. got worse, Ontario and Quebec got better and got more jobs out of each tree cut.

Compared to Ontario again, B.C.’s wood and paper manufacturing industries make just 1/5 of the sales revenue from each 1,000 cubic metres of trees and one-third compared to Quebec. These statistics compare the National Forestry Database counts of total provincial harvest and Statistics Canada’s numbers on employment from the survey of employment, payroll and hours, and manufacturing shipments.

To break it down a little further, Quebec uses about 476 cubic metres for each job. They harvest about 29.2 million cubic metres of logs, and they get about 61,000 jobs. Ontario uses 328 cubic metres per job, and they harvest a total of 12.6 million cubic metres for 38,000 jobs. B.C. — just look at this: 1,469 cubic metres per job or 68 million cubic metres of logs cut and 4,618 jobs. Ontario gets four times more jobs per tree cut or per cubic metre.

Furthermore, B.C. has gotten worse — about 15 percent — than 1990. From 1991 to 2001 an average of 787 cubic metres harvested per job. From 2002 to 2012 an average of 1,200 cubic metres harvested per job — a 52 percent increase. Ontario and Quebec got 14 percent and 13 percent better respectively over this time period, using less wood per job supported. So you can see that trend — that the government has shown no interest in giving policy or direction so that we could utilize our natural resources and get more value from our natural resources and create more jobs.

[1025]

The forest industry, on the sales side, per 1,000 cubic metres harvested in 2012 — let’s do some comparison there as well. Compared to Ontario, B.C. produces 1/5 of the value from each tree we cut and one-third compared to Quebec. Again, in Quebec they got about $467,000 per 100 cubic metres harvested in 2012. Ontario got $805,000 per 100 cubic metres harvested. In B.C. $160,000 per 100 cubic metres harvested. Those are very startling and very worrisome statistics. Those are not my statistics. Those are from Statistics Canada.

So B.C. has gotten 15 percent worse since 1990. We got 15 percent less sales value out of each tree cut when we adjusted for change in industrial forest product prices.

When you look at….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. Morris: Listening to the member for Surrey-Newton, I’m wondering whether I’m living in the same province, listening to the details that he was espousing there.

B.C. has gone through some unprecedented times with resource development in the last decade or so. First, I’ll talk a little bit about mining. We’ve seen more mines opened up in the last dozen years than we ever have seen before in British Columbia — Thompson Creek minerals and Mount Milligan in my particular area, employing about 450 people.

We’ve got some other larger projects that are on the verge of coming on line here over the next couple of years in British Columbia as well. The KSM project, about 65 kilometres northwest of Stewart, B.C., has the largest gold-copper deposits in the world. The projections are that this particular mine will employ 1,000 people a year for the next 50-plus years in British Columbia.

AuRico Gold is another one that’s opening up in my riding. There are several projects that we have in British Columbia that show that B.C. is leading Canada with exploration and development and looking at mining as a significant contributor to the B.C. economy.

The member opposite talks quite a bit about forestry and compares, in my view, apples and oranges between British Columbia and Quebec and Ontario. British Columbia just went through a devastating issue with the mountain pine beetle destroying a lot of the interior forests of British Columbia.

The amount of wood that has been salvageable from that has decreased significantly over the past five to ten years. So when you’re comparing the amount of product that you get out of a cubic metre of wood in Ontario or Quebec compared to what we get out of a cubic metre of wood in British Columbia, there are significant differences there.

In relation to that, as well, I don’t know whether the member has taken into consideration the impact of our bioenergy sector that we have in British Columbia and the wood pellet industry that we have in B.C. We are a world exporter of wood pellets to Europe and other places in the world here. The utilization of the residual fibre that we have on the landings in British Columbia has been reduced significantly as a result of the pellet plants, as a result of the bioenergy plants that we have. Conifex Timber just opened up a new one in Mackenzie. We’ve got one operating in Fort St. James.
[ Page 8873 ]

We’ve got several of these bioenergy plants that are utilizing the residual fibre right across the province, and we’ll have more and more of those plants coming on stream throughout the province as well. Technology is changing. The utilization of residual wood fibre is contributing significantly to the economy of British Columbia.

We’ve provided jobs for 2014 in British Columbia. There are 60,000 jobs in forestry alone in British Columbia, and 3.1 percent of B.C.’s total GDP comes from the forest industry.

[1030]

Forest revenue in 2012 and 2013 was $562 million; forest product exports in 2013, $11.6 billion; and capital expenditure intentions for 2014 alone, as these companies reinvest in their mills, $557 million. This is significant in the province of B.C.

Part of the comparator that the member opposite has used…. The amount of wood that we produce in British Columbia per job is reflective of the amount of money that these companies have put into their new equipment and the new processes that they use to reduce….

A lot of it has reduced the amount of harm and injury to resource workers in the forest sector, but it’s also increased the efficiency of our sawmills and our logging operations right across the province here, which increases revenue, of course, to the companies themselves but also increases revenue to the province. The forest industry is doing very well in this province. It’ll continue to do very well in this province in the projected years ahead.

The member mentioned LNG, and we’re going to be talking lots about that over the next little while in this House. LNG is a brand-new industry that British Columbia has never experienced before. It’s going to have a significant imprint not only on the economical benefits that we have for British Columbia but the social benefits that will result from that industry coming on board.

H. Bains: I think what I hear from the member opposite is that the message is…. Ignoring the facts isn’t going to solve the problem. The facts are the facts, and all you have to do is look at the national forestry database and the StatsCan statistics. They are startling. If you look at what they are saying, we are extracting less value from our natural resources, and we are getting less jobs per unit that we harvest than anywhere in Canada or at least the other major forestry regimes.

I think one of the things that the member has ignored is that…. Pine beetle is one of the issues, of course. But since the mid last decade, 2005-2006, look at the log exports alone. In 2013 over seven million cubic metres — the most ever in the history of this province. Seven million cubic metres of logs have been exported. In the meantime, we have industry here demanding those logs. They are saying they are unable to maximize their capacity because they can’t get those logs.

As a result, British Columbian companies are not reinvesting here in B.C. They’re investing in the United States — major Canadian companies: Canfor, West Fraser, Interfor. Thirty new sawmills have been purchased or built in the United States over the last ten to 15 years. In 2001 it used to be only two or three. So that just shows that the industry itself doesn’t have trust in this government or this province to invest in B.C. That’s one of the areas.

As a result, if you look at our remanufacturing sector, half of the companies in the value-added sector have gone out of business since 2002 — half of them — while employment fell by 40 percent and sales fell by 60 percent. Russ Cameron, president of the Independent Wood Processors Association, says that his members have suffered because of the inattention of the B.C. Liberal government. B.C. Liberal government policy favours the regional monopolies. That’s how he puts it.

There’s no support coming from this government, no leadership coming from this government, no direction on how we can actually manufacture our natural resources, utilize our natural resources, create jobs here, add value. That’s the future. That’s how you grow an economy, not by simply giving away our natural resources. We can’t give away our natural resources.

When someone decides to come and invest in mining or other places, you bring in temporary foreign workers. They go first in the lineup. We’ve seen it time and again. British Columbians, in many cases, are not even in the lineup. That’s the problem.

You cannot ignore the facts. We need to start to use our natural resources, create jobs in B.C. and make them benefit British Columbia.

PARTNERSHIPS IN CLEAN ENERGY

L. Larson: It is my pleasure today to speak about the great partnerships our government has developed with respect to clean energy projects and initiatives.

[1035]

These partnerships with the private sector, including several with First Nations, have resulted in independent power projects, or IPPs, that have provided power to B.C. Hydro since 1980 and are now capable of supplying over 20 percent of B.C.’s energy needs. To be blunt, we would face a significant electricity supply shortage without them.

Just like anything else, building new power projects costs more today than it did decades ago, whether B.C. Hydro or the private sector builds them. The private sector is better suited to develop many small projects across B.C. and assume some of the development and the cost risks that can help B.C. Hydro ratepayers.

B.C. Hydro’s integrated resource plan, IRP, includes a clean energy strategy to maintain the clean energy diversity of the provincial electricity supply. The IRP also focuses on expanding the role of First Nations in the clean
[ Page 8874 ]
energy sector. The 2013 IRP actions support economic development by maintaining a cost-effective supply of electricity for its customers and pursuing actions such as the continued and expanding standing offer program, all of which have direct and indirect economic benefits, some in the IPP sector.

For example, according to Clean Energy B.C., the IPP projects currently under construction represent 2,850 construction jobs across B.C., including 700 jobs for First Nations people in many small remote communities. Biomass projects help protect forestry jobs by helping forest companies generate additional revenue.

Even with Site C, the integrated resource plan identifies the acquisition of 1,500 gigawatt hours per year of new IPP projects in the next decade and contemplates new energy procurement in addition to Site C if demand greatly exceeds forecasts. With the development of B.C. Hydro’s Site C clean energy project, more firm energy will be available to support the development of IPPs by backing up intermittent resources such as wind.

The Merritt green energy project is the second biomass project being developed in British Columbia by Dalkia and Fengate, following their project in Fort St. James. The $235 million Merritt project will create a 40-megawatt, state-of-the-art, biomass-fired electricity generation facility. The project will consume approximately 200,000 tonnes of dry biomass fuel, most of which is sawmill waste, and create 285,000 megawatt hours of renewable electricity and will create enough power for more than 40,000 homes a year.

The fuel source for the Merritt green energy project will come from local sawmills, and any emissions will be reduced through state-of-the-art equipment. The power produced will be sold to B.C. Hydro under a 30-year electricity purchase agreement, which will commence once the construction is completed, expected in October of 2016.

Construction of the Merritt green energy project will create 250 construction jobs and 80 direct and indirect jobs during its 30-year operation. Once completed, the operation of the project will be done by Dalkia under a long-term operations and maintenance agreement. The Lower Nicola Indian Band will also receive benefits from the impact benefits agreement signed, providing employment and investment opportunities.

Also in the Fraser-Nicola, the Kwoiek Creek hydroelectric project is a 49.9-megawatt run-of-river project that will sell power to B.C. Hydro. The Kanaka Bar Indian band will receive 50 percent of the proceeds from the hydro project and 40 percent of the 250 construction jobs. The project is developed by Kwoiek Creek Resources Limited Partnership, a partnership between the Kanaka Bar Indian band and Innergex Renewable Energy Inc.

This project is enabled with funds from B.C.’s First Nations clean energy business fund, which aims to increase First Nations participation in the clean energy sector. The project is located 14 kilometres south of Lytton and west of Kanaka Bar on the lower reaches of the Kwoiek Creek, a tributary of the Fraser River, near the Fraser Canyon.

On the western side of the area is the Jamie Creek hydroelectric project. The Jamie Creek project is an agreement which will allow revenue-sharing with three First Nations. The Bridge River Indian band, the N’quatqua First Nation and the T’it’q’et Nation will share $60,000 per year over the life of the project once fully operational. This hydroelectric project is also organized through B.C.’s First Nations clean energy business fund, promoting First Nations participation in the clean energy sector.

[1040]

Developed by Boralex Inc., this run-of-river generating facility will create 22.2 megawatts, enough to power more than 6,000 homes. The facility will generate 70 gigawatts annually on completion and has a 40-year electricity agreement with B.C. Hydro.

The Clean Energy Act ensures clean or renewable electricity generation continues to account for at least 93 percent of total generation, except for the purposes of natural gas liquefication, making us a leader in North America.

Thank you very much, and I look forward to making my closing comments.

G. Heyman: It’s a pleasure to rise and talk about the important contributions of the clean, alternate energy sector in British Columbia to both our power needs and advancing technologies, and creating jobs around the province.

The member for Boundary-Similkameen has given a fairly comprehensive description of a number of projects that are currently being built or have been built, some of the advantages that accrue to those projects.

A review of the Major Projects Inventory shows that there are many, many projects in varying stages of development, proposal or evaluation. It’s important for us to note, however, that for these projects to benefit British Columbians, for them to deliver on the employment potential and the spinoff economic benefit in regions around the province, there has to be a need for the energy.

Many people in the sector that I have talked to have expressed serious concern, going forward, that the demand for energy simply won’t be there, and their future is extremely limited over the next 20 years. That’s a concern, because by any objective lens applied to this sector, it offers tremendous opportunities for British Columbia.

Let me use some numbers that were created by the Pembina Institute very recently that are based on existing projects that have either been built or are in the process of being built. They show that small hydro or run-of-river projects have the potential to create 37,000 direct and indirect jobs per 2,000 megawatts in the construction phase and 380 annually in the operating phase.

For wind, it’s 21,000 in the construction phase for 2,000 megawatts and 740 operating, going forward. Solar is a whopping 57,000 per 2,000 megawatts, with 600
[ Page 8875 ]
operating jobs annually. Biomass is 66,000 direct and indirect jobs per 2,000 megawatts, with 8,000 operating jobs, going forward.

These megawatts, in terms of energy output, would be more or less enough to power 450,000 homes. So that’s a benchmark there. There are tremendous advantages in investing in a mix of renewables around British Columbia. Let me elaborate on some of them, as the member for Boundary-Similkameen has pointed out.

First of all, incremental additions to our energy capacity take advantage of rapidly changing technologies and the price for those technologies. That’s a great benefit for ratepayers. It’s a great benefit for the province.

Building a number of smaller projects around British Columbia creates regionally distributed employment and economic benefits. They generate ongoing greater employment opportunities than large projects, and there are, as the member has pointed out, significant First Nations benefits and employment opportunities. That’s critically important not just for the nations themselves, who have a great interest in seeing this sector thrive, but also for the surrounding communities.

Let me return for a moment to the issue of cost of technology and pricing. The technologies are changing. The U.S. Department of Energy indicated a 20 to 35 percent fall in wind turbine prices since 2008. In the case of solar, Citibank in the U.S. estimates that the price of an average solar panel falls by 30 percent whenever installed solar capacity doubles in a given region.

[1045]

South of the border we’ve seen a veritable tsunami of rooftop solar as prices have dropped. As prices drop, we see prices drop even further and installations grow.

In the U.K. they’re very close to having small-scale solar installations provide 15 percent of their power needs. There are now around 700,000 small-scale installations, enough to power 655,000 households in the U.K. The average solar panel now costs around 75 percent less than it did just five years ago and continues to fall.

We look forward to partnerships with the clean energy sector, and it’s important that we see this sector as an effective economic pricing model for power and energy needs in British Columbia.

L. Larson: Thank you to the member for his comments.

Our clean, renewable power industry is thriving and benefiting all British Columbians. According to industry, British Columbia’s clean, renewable energy companies have already invested more than $4.5 billion. Independent power producers generate and support more than 2,700 jobs, including 690 jobs for First Nations in cities and small towns across B.C.

B.C. currently has four operating wind projects: the 144-megawatt Dokie wind energy project near Chetwynd, the 102-megawatt Bear Creek Mountain Wind project near Dawson Creek, the 142-megawatt Quality Wind project near Tumbler Ridge and the 99-megawatt Cape Scott wind farm on the northern tip of Vancouver Island.

In fiscal 2014 B.C. Hydro spent $887 million to purchase 11,025 gigawatt hours of power from IPPs. This equates to 21 percent of B.C. Hydro’s costs for 19 percent of its energy supply. B.C. Hydro has 92 active electricity purchase agreements, EPAs, with IPPs today, supplying approximately 20 percent of B.C.’s energy. One-third of these EPAs were signed prior to 2002.

Approximately 30 additional EPAs are in various stages of development and will help to meet B.C.’s growing electricity needs over the coming years.

Since 2006 we have contributed approximately $10 million in funding support for energy efficiency and clean energy development in First Nations and remote communities.

All grid-connected power projects built since 1994 are producing clean electricity from sources such as run-of-river, wind and biomass. All power projects are subject to rigorous environmental approvals, which may include the B.C. environmental assessment process, the Canadian environmental assessment process, the Water Act and the Land Act.

Since 2011 our government has invested more than $6.9 million to more than 100 aboriginal communities to support participation in clean and renewable energy opportunities through the First Nations clean energy business fund. To date, our government has 36 clean energy revenue-sharing agreements with 29 First Nations. We have also provided clean energy equity investment funding for eight First Nations.

Our government is very proud of these projects and partnerships that have contributed to a more prosperous province for all of its citizens.

RESPECTING NEW PARENTS’ RIGHTS

M. Mungall: It’s great to be back here in the summer months. Although the Kootenays are definitely the most beautiful place in the world in the summer, I do appreciate the reprieve from the heatwave there.

I want to talk this morning about some of the rights that new parents have in this province and, sadly, how they’re not being realized here in B.C.

In the last century the women’s and labour movements have made great strides in securing families’ maternity and parental leave rights when welcoming a new child into the family. Realizing these rights. You might be surprised to hear that realizing these rights first began in 1921 right here in British Columbia.

I won’t belabour how those rights were expressed and exercised at that time. It was very progressive for the day — maybe not so progressive from today’s standards. Nevertheless, that’s where the history began.

We move forward about 50 years, and in 1971 we see unemployment insurance starting to provide financial
[ Page 8876 ]
support and, therefore, financial security that new families often need. We know that this is the case when families need to take time off of work. They’re often faced with the fact that they’re going to be losing wages and, therefore, the ability to pay for the new costs that always come with new babies.

[1050]

Unemployment insurance, back in 1971, decided that they would start to provide families with a portion of their wages. Today that continues. The program is now employment insurance, and every new mother is entitled to a full 17 weeks off of work and to claim her employment insurance benefits. All parents have access to 35 or 37 weeks — it depends, but the maximum here in B.C. is 37 weeks — of parental leave in the first year of parenting a child.

These benefits — the ability to take time off work securely, the ability to have some financial insurance program while you’re taking time off work…. The benefits of those have been researched, and the research is in that this is a good thing to be doing for both parents and children — but, most notably, for all of us.

We all benefit as a society when children have the time needed in that first year of life to bond with their parents. We’ve learned that this attachment plays a very important role in the development of children right into adulthood. It’s bonds that last a lifetime. It’s the ability to learn. It’s the ability to seek out supports. A lot of things that in our day-to-day life we often take for granted start at that early age.

Of course, the financial security is also important, because child poverty truly benefits no one. No one in our society benefits from child poverty, especially children just starting out in life. They need food. They need shelter. They need the basics to be provided for them. They need a roof over their heads. Everybody needs that, particularly when they are most vulnerable as children.

While on leave, parents are able to access their employment insurance that they paid into while working. I think that’s an important point — that parents have paid into their employment insurance while they’re working. It’s their insurance to collect.

That generates, normally, about 55 percent of average weekly earnings that they’re allowed to collect. For low-income families, they are eligible to receive a family supplement so that they do not sink into deep poverty, and that can bring them up to about 80 percent of their wages.

These rights are for all Canadians, including parents who work part-time, even parents who rely on income supports because they have a disability or for another reason. Those are their rights. However, this government is having trouble understanding those rights, and this is how that takes place.

If somebody is receiving PWD or income supports, they are allowed to work up to a certain amount. This government has even acknowledged that they are allowed to work and that it’s important in terms of having employability skills. But each person is also allowed to take time off of work, should they need to, to have a baby or to go on parental leave. They then collect their EI that they paid into.

The sad reality is that when they do so, they tell the government that they’ve collected their EI, and then this government takes their mat leave and parental leave benefits away dollar for dollar every month. No longer do they have their full wages when they need them most — they have a new baby in the family, with new costs — but they don’t even have their EI, and they are plunged into poverty.

This program of taking away EI benefits from new parents is doing nothing other than contributing to child poverty in this province, a province that has had the highest rate of child poverty for ten years. This is wrong.

[1055]

If the federal government makes a law that entitles people to access their employment insurance for maternity leave and paternity leave, only to have a provincial law that says they’re going to take it away and treat it as a revenue source…. This is morally wrong in our society and absolutely ignores the rights of families, the rights that the labour movement and the women’s movement have fought for, for close to a century. It’s time that we saw change in this province. I look forward to hearing the comments from the member opposite.

D. McRae: I know we do share some common values, values that mean making sure that vulnerable British Columbians have those supports. I remember last May the member opposite talking in the media about a specific incident with a mother who was expecting. She was a mother. She had two existing children, I understand, and a husband who was unable to work. I believe the husband — according to the media, anyway — suffered from severe medical depression.

They were on income assistance or PWD and getting about $1,400 a month, and the mother was able to earn about $1,000 a month. I know there are some challenges. A thousand dollars a month will not be earned when the baby is born in the fall. If income assistance was there for her, it would be at most about 80 percent, so about $800.

One thing the member opposite failed to remind people at home and in this chamber is that there are a number of tax credits available both provincially and federally to families — for example, about $7,000 for one child under the age of six. If you have two children under the age of six, you get to about $13,500. If you have three children under the age of six, it could be up to $20,000 — dollars which were not accounted as income.

That being said, one of the things I’m really proud about this government is that we’re continually looking for ways to evolve supports for vulnerable British Columbians. I just want to give the members opposite and those at home some examples.
[ Page 8877 ]

I was really pleased to see, in Budget 2015, the Finance Minister rise in this chamber, obviously talking about how we’ve balanced the budget. We are in a surplus. We’re moving forward and making key investments. And one of those key investments we were able to do was we were able to bring about an exemption for child support for families on income assistance. I think that is absolutely essential. Why do we do it? It is the right thing to do.

We did it because we also heard from British Columbians. During Accessibility 2024 conversations it was loud and clear that this is something people wanted to see improved. We had consultations with specific social groups and individuals and heard it. I was really pleased to see that 5,400 children or 3,200 families were impacted in a positive way by that key social change in this government.

We didn’t stop there. The single-parent initiative that the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation brought about in early March, I think, is, in my time in government, the single most impactful social change that we’ve seen since I’ve been elected. It impacts over 16,000 single parents, and over 20,000 individuals — our children — could be impacted as well.

Now, what happens in the single-parent initiative? Well, tuition and education costs for programs that last up to 12 months will be covered by the government. We’ll do that to make sure families have an opportunity to engage in the workforce.

As a parent myself, I know there are extra challenges. Child care is always a challenge. Now, fortunately, I was in a situation when I was working as a teacher that I was able to make a reasonable wage and make those payments, but sometimes people on low income cannot. That’s why in this single-parent initiative full child care costs are covered during the training time, and transportation for the parent to go to school and get home from school is also covered.

This is giving parents an opportunity to make a real impact not just in the here and now but for the lives of their children. And when they’ve done their training, we’ll cover child care costs for another year after that training is complete. Families will also receive health supplement coverage for one year after training is complete. That includes dental and optical assistance. And premium fees are exempted for MSP and PharmaCare. This will help families make sure that they are looking after their children going forward.

Those are just two, but I’ve got a third one. Before we made the single-parent initiative announcement there was an increase in monthly earning exemptions in early March as well.

I’ve stood in this chamber many times and in many different areas in this chamber, both at this end of the Legislature and at that end, and I’ve talked about how the work is not done. We want to make sure we’re listening to British Columbians. We want to make sure we are making those key social changes that will have a real impact on individuals, be they adults or be they children or be they families.

[1100]

I’m really pleased to say that in my time here I have seen some significant change go forward. Not only that, we have also seen an opportunity to increase the number of post-secondary spaces in British Columbia to a record number in the history of British Columbia. Why? Because we want people to have the opportunity, if they are so inclined and so make the sacrifice, to maybe train to become a doctor in northern British Columbia or maybe become a welder in Campbell River or maybe go to Victoria and become a high school teacher.

The reality is that one of the things we can do is provide those key supports in the social sector but also, at the same time, make sure we do it at an affordable rate and we grow the economy so those jobs are there for individuals that when they enter the workforce, they can actually help themselves and help their families. Those who cannot be helped — we want to make sure we continue that good work. I’m so proud that we’ve done it to date.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

M. Mungall: I find it interesting, and not surprising, that the member opposite has pointed out some of the new announcements that have occurred this year from this Liberal government. He should feel proud that this Liberal government decided to end the child support clawback and put forward an initiative that’s going to help single parents get into the workforce.

It took a while for this government to get there. The member did not mention that the call to end the child support clawback came from this side of the House and was able to go out and talk to people all across British Columbia who added their voice to the call to end the child support clawback and began pressuring this government to do just that. I do want to commend the member opposite that he actually listened, because that doesn’t happen very often with this government.

That came about because it was an idea coming from the New Democratic caucus. Another idea that this government has implemented around the single parent initiative — well, those were things that existed in the 1990s under a New Democratic government. I know opposite members of the House always like to say that there are no ideas coming from this side, but time and time again we see them take them. That’s fine, as long as we’re doing the good work of the people of British Columbia.

Luke Dickinson and Katie Aldred, Jessica and Tony Alford. They are families right now being impacted by the maternity leave clawback. They’re hoping to see that this government will take this good idea of ending the mat leave clawback and run with it once again. For them, what this is going to mean in their households is the dif-
[ Page 8878 ]
ference between making all the bill payments, making sure that they’re able to get diapers, putting enough food on the table, to be able to take the children to the doctor when the doctor is needed, to buy a crib — to do so many things that are necessary, some of the basic necessary things that are involved with raising a child….

They are losing income and trying to match their budget with $1,000 a month lost in income. It’s a struggle. They’re desperately worried that they’re going to be able to stay in their home and continue paying rent.

I think that we owe it to Luke. We owe it to Katie. We owe it to Jessica and her husband, Tony. But most importantly, we owe it to their children, and we owe it to all British Columbians, to make sure that no policy in government is creating child poverty from day one.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call private member’s Motion 20.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 20 without disturbing the priorities of other motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

[1105]

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 20 — B.C. HYDRO
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

M. Morris: I’m privileged to rise in the House today and move the following:

[Be it resolved that this House support BC Hydro’s plans to continue to invest in its provincial infrastructure.]

Our government believes in getting to yes on economic development, and getting to yes on economic development means making investments that support it. That means investing in our hydro infrastructure to support British Columbia’s future.

Over the next 20 years B.C.’s population is expected to increase to nearly 5.7 million. That means we’ll have to support the energy needs of 1.1 million more British Columbians and the economic activity that they’ll surely generate.

Between 2010 and 2014, B.C. Hydro put 661 projects into service and was under budget by 4.75 percent on a budget of $3.33 billion. B.C. Hydro is forecasting capital expenditures, on average, of $2.4 billion per year over the next ten years. Currently there are hundreds of B.C. Hydro capital projects underway that, together, make up one of the largest expansions of electrical infrastructure in B.C.’s history.

Let’s talk about what this looks like in the Peace River region, the heartland of the natural resource development. Over the next ten years annual load growth in the South Peace is expected to be about ten times the rest of British Columbia.

Electricity demand in the South Peace–Dawson Creek area is growing at an unprecedented rate due to natural gas exploration and development in nearby Montney shale gas deposits. This project, expected to be completed later this year, will help connect these operations to the B.C. Hydro system, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions in the process.

Site C, another project that we’ve heard about in the Peace, will provide a century of important benefits for British Columbia, including a large amount of clean and renewable energy, dependable capacity and flexibility, regional economic development, job creation and increased government revenues and benefits for communities and First Nations alike.

South of the Peace, the northwestern B.C. economy is growing, and so is the demand for electricity. The existing transmission line to the area from my home community of Prince George just can’t carry enough electricity to meet the forecast demand.

Rather than build a new transmission line, which would cost more than $1 billion, the existing line’s capacity can be boosted by up to 60 percent by adding three capacitor stations along its length, which is what B.C. Hydro plans to do through the Prince George to Terrace capacitors project.

From Terrace additional electricity could be moved north, south or west to meet the requirements of new industrial developments with clean electricity. This project is expected to be completed in 2018.

The northwest transmission line, which came into service in July of 2014, is a 344-kilometre, 287-kilovolt transmission line between Skeena substation near Terrace and a new substation near Bob Quinn Lake. It will open up world-class mineral deposits, new mines and clean energy projects and will power Red Chris mine, employing 350 people, including many First Nations.

In addition to Red Chris, five proposed projects will connect to the northwest transmission line. The KSM mine, Shaft Creek, Hard Creek Nickel, Mount Klappan and Galore Creek mines will be coming on line.

The project costs are expected to come in under $716 million, or about $30 million less than the revised budget of $746 million approved in the spring of 2013. All of these projects are examples of how this clean and reliable resource can contribute to the economic growth and our quality of life here in B.C.

While we continue to invest in the province’s power infrastructure, we’re also committed to looking out for the best interests of ratepayers. Under our ten-year integrated rate plan, we are keeping rates low and predictable so families can have certainty about their hydro rates, and at the same time we’re supporting investments in new and aging infrastructure.

Low-cost, reliable power is critical to economic development and to our quality of life in B.C. It’s an import-
[ Page 8879 ]
ant competitive advantage for us here in the province. By investing in B.C. Hydro infrastructure, we’re working to move British Columbia’s economy forward to build a better future for all British Columbians.

A. Dix: The motion reads: “Be it resolved that this House support BC Hydro’s plans to continue to invest in its provincial infrastructure.” One feels, perhaps, it’s good to invite the Liberal government back to the herd on this question.

[1110]

You know and I know that B.C. Hydro, created in 1962 through successive Social Credit and NDP governments, did just that — invested in the province’s infrastructure. The result of those governments, Social Credit and NDP…. Over time, that investment in a public Crown corporation that would serve British Columbians, that would ensure, in the medium term, low electricity prices, would ensure the investment in economic development and would ensure a significant return when benefits accrued to the ratepayer.

That policy that has been in place for decades, for a generation and then another generation, was of course changed in 2002. What happened in those generations? What was the consequence of those generations of work? We had a B.C. Hydro that over time built significant increases in hydroelectric capacity and in electricity capacity in the province. They invested in our province, and then subsequent to that, they made investments in those resources through the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s and ’90s that had direct benefits to the assets owned by the province of British Columbia. We saw that through that time.

Then in the 1990s, after that period, after the Revelstoke dam was completed in 1984, B.C. Hydro, in some respects, shifted directions under the Social Credit and then NDP governments, investing in Power Smart programs and Resource Smart programs, which both increased the capacity of existing dams and invested in the future of the province.

In addition to that, as you know, hon. Chair — opposed by the Liberal Party — the NDP government of the 1990s also created the Columbia Power Corporation, which invested in such sites as Keenleyside — viciously and routinely opposed by the Liberal Party at the time. It benefitted and was owned by the people of the Kootenays and allowed the people of the Kootenays to benefit as a result of the long-term impact on their region of hydroelectric development in B.C. That was what happened.

Then in 2002, as you know, hon. Chair, the Liberal government changed direction. They barred B.C. Hydro from investing in infrastructure. They barred B.C. Hydro from investing in increasing the capacity of the system. They ordered B.C. Hydro, at a cost to B.C. Hydro, to subsidize private power development at a significant cost to the province. They didn’t just say, “We’re going to consider both,” as previous governments had done. They actually barred B.C. Hydro from doing precisely this — continue to invest in its provincial infrastructure.

At the same time, those major investments by B.C. Hydro were essentially precluded. We see this in 2008 in the Clean Energy Act. We see this in the smart meter infrastructure investment. We see it routinely now with respect to the current projects. They also refuse to allow the BCUC to review their spending plans. The result, of course: massive overruns and projects that were built either before necessary at extraordinary cost…. For example, in this period we’re going to lose $1.4 billion on power we didn’t need, directed to B.C. Hydro by the Liberal cabinet.

What we need, it seems to me, is for B.C. Hydro to do its job, investing in infrastructure, for the BCUC to do its job in reviewing those investment proposals from B.C. Hydro. We need, in other words, an end to this constant Liberal government interference that has cost the taxpayers of British Columbia and the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro.

Now, there is a quote from, oddly enough, Marx, which describes Liberal hydro policies: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” That is what they have done over time. That, of course, is Groucho Marx. This is the pattern they’ve done — so a return to the idea that B.C. Hydro would make sensible decisions, invest in their infrastructure, invest in the province’s infrastructure and that the people of British Columbia be the benefit.

If that is what’s being proposed here, then we are completely in favour of such an idea — the idea that B.C. Hydro be B.C. Hydro, a Crown corporation serving the interests and building the province of British Columbia.

M. Hunt: I am proud to be a part of a government that is saying yes to economic growth, that is saying yes to economic development throughout this province.

[1115]

We are committed to maintaining the electrical infrastructure and the aging infrastructure that we have and putting the investments into it. The major components need to be repaired. They need to be replaced. New infrastructure needs to be added, and we know that B.C. Hydro is currently investing $2.4 billion per year in order to maintain those current assets and to build the new infrastructure that’s necessary, including, of course, Site C project.

I always find it interesting when we come to these massive numbers, rolling it back into more the family area and how we work in our own personal budgets. Mr. Speaker, you may be aware — or you may not, because you don’t see it that often — that my car is a 1997 Camry, and I’m sitting currently at 492,000 clicks on my Camry.

The question comes: how do we save money when it comes to transportation? Well, it’s really, really simple. First, you get a good product. Secondly, you do the ne-
[ Page 8880 ]
cessary maintenance on it — simple things like your oil changes, doing your brakes, getting your timing belts done before they go and fall apart, before they create problems — and those upgrades that are necessary.

Now, of course, if we wanted to simply keep the rates low and artificially low, we could do nothing. But of course, the problem is that eventually somebody else is going to have to pay the dollars. Someone else is going to have to pay the dollars for us fixing the mess that we created by it. So, simply, that homespun illustration of my own home, my own family, how we make things work, is the same thing for the province.

We need to grow the economy. We’re talking about tech jobs. We’re talking about computerization. We talk about robots. All these things require electricity. We need to expand the electrical network. We certainly see it, as my colleague from Prince George has said, in dealing with mines, the Red Chris mines and the different mines. We need to be able to get the power to them so that they can, in fact, create those jobs.

Over the next 20 years we have 1.1 million people moving into the province. When I look at my own municipality of Surrey and the tremendous growth that is happening there…. We have a $94 million substation that’s being put in. People thought that this was a movie production that was going on because these massive lights are on this area, and work is going on all times of the day and night.

The reality is, if you just take Surrey as a really simple example, that Surrey has grown in the last five years by North Vancouver. North Vancouver has moved into Surrey. Over the next ten years all of Richmond will be moving into Surrey. Just think of the electrical demand, not only for the residential but for the companies that are coming, the businesses that are growing.

In fact, 2,000 new businesses a year come into the city of Surrey and grow in the city of Surrey. Obviously, we need the transmission line increased between the Interior and the Lower Mainland, and that again is another $725 million that needs to be spent for us to be able to continue to grow and develop our economy as we want to see it.

Obviously, there’s also the whole issue of seismic upgrading. We hear a lot about it about schools, but B.C. Hydro needs to do the same thing — $1.9 billion over the next ten years. These are all investments that need to be made for the good of the province so that we can continue to get to yes on economic development, the growth of jobs and the development and the projection of us continuing to grow the B.C. jobs as we’re doing in the B.C. jobs plan.

I am very pleased to support this motion and very pleased to be a part of continuing to maintain the good services of B.C. Hydro.

G. Heyman: First of all, I’d like to refer to some of the remarks from the member for Surrey-Panorama. He talked about how if we want to grow the economy, it’s important to have a good project, to undertake necessary maintenance. But what he neglected to talk about was making good decisions based on good business cases.

[1120]

I’d like to start my remarks by referencing some comments that were made by a joint review panel recently reviewing one of B.C. Hydro’s projects, which stated: “A second question is what alternatives may be available when that day comes.” The day being referred to is the day when we need more power than we currently have.

The chair, a well-respected gentleman by the name of Harry Swain, said: “One major alternative should have been fully characterized many years ago.” What he’s talking about is the failure of B.C. Hydro to review the opportunities presented by geothermal resources in the coast range, which are near the load centre. That was recommended by the B.C. Utilities Commission over 30 years ago.

The panel went on to say that little has been done. What we’ve seen from this government is successive refusals to review both the power demand, the cost of projects or the best alternatives at the B.C. Utilities Commission. We keep hearing promises from the Minister of Energy that at some point in the future we will proceed to review things at the BCUC, but when the chips are down, we’re not doing it.

There are many, many alternative forms of energy production available at a time of rapidly changing technology and rapidly dropping prices. A sensible government would allow B.C. Hydro to factor these alternatives into their plan for meeting energy demand in the future and have the B.C. Utilities Commission review the options. Why wouldn’t we take advantage of bringing on incremental power as technologies change and improve and as the prices of those technologies drop and drop precipitously? It can only benefit ratepayers. It can only create economic opportunities in every region of the province — most importantly for First Nations.

Yes, we need to invest in infrastructure through B.C. Hydro, but we also need to do it sensibly. We need to choose the best options. For that, we don’t need continued political interference in the activities of B.C. Hydro by this Liberal government. What we need is objective review by an independent commission that can report on the best options for the future of British Columbia and the future of British Columbians.

Let me finish my remarks for a couple of minutes by talking about, perhaps, what is one of the best infrastructure opportunities available for B.C. Hydro, and that’s demand-side management. That’s investing in conservation. According to B.C. Stats, basic energy efficiency upgrades on 480,000 homes could produce about 8,200 to 13,200 person-years of employment.

The Pembina Institute has said that more intensive upgrades of 100,000 homes per year would see 14,000 to 30,000 people employed. That’s all over the province. That
[ Page 8881 ]
conserves existing power and the power we produce in the future for needs that conservation simply can’t meet. It has the additional benefit of reducing rates for homeowners and businesses across British Columbia.

In their 2013 Resource Options Report Update, B.C. Hydro estimated that the total resource cost of demand-side management under a preferred option 3 was $35 per megawatt hour. That’s incredibly low, but a less aggressive option was chosen by B.C. Hydro.

The B.C. Sustainable Energy Association has given evidence to the B.C. Utilities Commission recently that showed that B.C. Hydro could achieve 9,000 gigawatt hours per year of additional load reductions — almost double the annual energy that would be provided by the Site C project in northeast B.C.

Let me simply close by saying there are tremendous opportunities in conservation that have not been appropriately reviewed by B.C. Hydro, the B.C. Utilities Commission or this government. It’s time we got on with the first priority, the first premise, which is: save power where you can.

R. Lee: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this motion. I think we are seeing a trend in our province. There is a demand — and it will continue to be a trend — for more clean hydroelectric power as our economy expands and our population grows.

[1125]

We are fortunate to live in a part of the world where there’s an abundance of resources to create hydroelectric power. This will help us achieve energy security to meet British Columbians’ full energy needs. About 95 percent of B.C.’s power comes from hydroelectric sources. The remainder comes from thermal generation plants. This means that B.C. does not have to rely on dirty power such as coal or nuclear power.

While last year B.C. Hydro projects such as Site C in the Peace region or the revamped John Hart generating station garnered much of the attention, there are smaller initiatives, and these are just as important in generating local power needs. In my neck of the woods we have seen a new $35 million, 2.8-kilometre underground transmission line built from Robert Burnaby Park to the New Westminster substation. This project also includes upgrades to the substation.

Why was this done? The answer is very simple: to meet the growing demand for electricity in New Westminster. Upgrading the New Westminster substation, including installing two new large transformers and replacing aging equipment, will help the city meet its power needs for the next 20 years. By making the necessary investments into hydroelectricity, B.C. Hydro is also able to keep customers’ rates low.

I’m not sure if everyone is aware, but in 2014 our residential rate comparison commission…. This is actually a study by Hydro-Québec. In their study Metro Vancouver had the lowest rate among 22 cities in North America. Only Montreal and Winnipeg, both located in provinces that also have an abundance of resources in which to produce hydroelectricity, had lower power costs. Toronto was reported as having electricity costs 40 percent higher, and this does not account for the rate increases that Ontario’s Hydro One announced last week.

The cost of electricity in New York — do you know what that is? Well, Hydro-Québec reported that people living in the Big Apple have to take a big bite out of their paycheques as they face prices three times as much as Metro Vancouver.

Let’s look at our costs compared to the rest of the industrialized world. In Hydro-Québec’s comparison, Vancouver’s costs were cited as just under ten cents Canadian a kilowatt hour. Converting into U.S. currency, that’s about eight cents now a kilowatt hour.

Based on recent numbers, households in the United Kingdom pay about double the amount we do. In Germany electricity costs are more than double, while Italy pays about 2½ as much as British Columbians do. Australia, France and the Netherlands, the United States and Belgium all pay more. And let’s take some pity on Switzerland and Denmark, as people in those two countries have to pay more than three and four times as much as we do, respectively.

I hope everyone here agrees that there’s a need for B.C. Hydro to upgrade, replace and build new infrastructures. On this side of the House we certainly do. We also know the importance of keeping the rates for consumers as low as possible. This is why a ten-year rate plan has been put into place.

I urge everyone here to do the same: to support this bill.

[1130]

M. Mungall: The motion is to “support BC Hydro’s plans to continue to invest in its provincial infrastructure.”

No doubt, there is considerable infrastructure for B.C. Hydro all across this province. But notably, in the Kootenays there are many, many dams. In fact, there are ten dams between my house and the 30-minute drive to the house of the member for Kootenay West.

The Kootenays generate 50 percent of the province’s overall electricity requirements — 50 percent. That’s why, whenever I see somebody from the Lower Mainland and they don’t have something quite nice to say about the Kootenays, I remind them that we have the ability to turn off their lights at any given time.

Some of the investments that B.C. Hydro has made in the Kootenays, particularly resulting from the Columbia River treaty…. It was signed in 1964 and has had a tremendous impact on the Kootenays. That resulted in three dams. But we don’t just have three dams. As I mentioned, there are ten between my house alone and the member for Kootenay West. But there are three dams that were particularly a result of that: the Libby dam, the Mica dam
[ Page 8882 ]
and the Duncan dam. It also allowed for the Waneta dam, as well as the Brilliant dam, to be expanded.

We have supported that. I think every member in this House supported those wonderful infrastructure opportunities. The Brilliant dam, for example, is a Columbia Power asset, so not necessarily a direct B.C. Hydro asset. But it’s all part of the system. That asset…. What happened most recently — it was completed in 2006 — was an addition of a second powerhouse located immediately downstream from the Brilliant dam.

For those who haven’t been to this part of the Kootenays, you might not even be able to tell the difference of where the dam is and where the generation station is and the powerhouse is. They’re so close together. I remember that project happening between 2002 and 2006. It was a very big deal for the region. It cost $205 million and is now generating more power — about 120 megawatts of capacity that would otherwise have just been spilled and have gone nowhere.

The Waneta dam expansion that’s currently going on and that is slated to end pretty soon here — it might just be around the corner — is another Columbia Power project, but it would not have been able to happen if it weren’t for B.C. Hydro as well.

This project is being done between a partnership of Columbia Power Corporation, as well as the Columbia Basin Trust and FortisBC. This is bringing on a considerable new amount — a 335 megawatt expansion for this dam.

There’s another dam in the Kootenays that I particularly want to talk about. Seeing that I don’t have a lot of time, I will briefly go over it. That’s the Duncan dam — as I mentioned, a part of the Columbia River treaty. It was built in 1967 and is currently between Kootenay Lake and Duncan Lake. I have to say, for those who haven’t been up there, you’re really missing out. It’s one of the most beautiful places in the world. I was just there last week.

What it does right now is it manages water flows. But it does not generate power, and we’re losing that opportunity. Recognition of that opportunity became very close to those of us in the Kootenays when B.C. Hydro was stripped of being able to do any new power projects in favour of the private power scheme that the Liberals had put in. This scheme had a negative impact on B.C. Hydro’s ability to generate new power in a more cost-effective and better way and, in fact, increased the cost to ratepayers. We know the story behind all of that.

The point is that we have an opportunity with the Duncan dam to generate not a lot but maybe more, as we seek out this opportunity down the road — 30 megawatts. It would add 30 megawatts to our overall grid at a cost of, maximum, about $175 million.

[1135]

It would create jobs at the north end of Kootenay Lake, and it would create power for British Columbia. I think it’s an infrastructure project that is worth investing in.

D. Ashton: Hon. Speaker, thank you and to all my colleagues here in the House. Nice to see you all again.

I’m honoured to support my colleague’s important motion: “Be it resolved that this House support BC Hydro’s plans to continue to invest in its provincial infrastructure.” B.C. Hydro is investing $2.4 billion per year to maintain current assets and build new infrastructure, such as the Site C clean energy project. Also included in part of that is a new project for Peachland–West Kelowna, which is going to give them the power redundancy which they so desperately need.

The Site C clean energy project is truly a unique project that would create a century of affordable, reliable, clean power and, most importantly for many taxpayers, keep those rates low. It is the right decision for ratepayers and the right decision for B.C.’s economy. Over the first 50 years of Site C’s projected life, ratepayers would save an average of $650 to $900 million per year compared to alternative electrical supplying. This amounts to an average annual saving of between 6 and 8 percent for the typical household, and we all know how challenged households are these days.

Site C will provide a century of affordable, reliable and clean power, supporting our quality of life for decades to come, enabling continued investments and foreseeing a growing economy. Site C will be the third dam and a hydroelectric generating station on the Peace River about seven miles southwest of Fort St. John.

This project was approved by the provincial government in December of 2014. The decision followed a rigorous and independent environmental assessment by federal and provincial governments, which included a joint review panel process. The conclusion of the three-year environmental review was that the effects of the Site C project are justified by the long-term benefits it is going to provide.

A third-party review of B.C. Hydro’s load forecasting methodology was commissioned from an independent energy consultant with more than 30 years of experience in load forecasting. He concluded that B.C. Hydro’s demand was state of the art in their forecasts. After all was said and done, it was clear that the best way to acquire new generation in British Columbia is from Site C.

The Site C project will provide an important benefit for all British Columbians, including a large amount of clean and renewable energy, dependable capacity and flexibility, regional economic development, job creation and increased government revenues, as well as benefits for communities and also, very importantly, benefits for First Nations.

Site C will be capable of producing approximately 5,100 gigawatt hours of electricity annually — enough energy to power the equivalent of about 450,000 homes per year. As my friend from Surrey has said, there are an awful lot of homes being built everywhere in British Columbia these days that are going to need the benefits of additional electricity.
[ Page 8883 ]

It will be a source of clean and renewable energy for over 100 years. Site C will have amongst the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per gigawatt hour compared with other resource opportunities and options.

As the third project on the Peace River, Site C will rely on the existing Williston reservoir for storage. As my friend from Nelson-Creston mentioned…. She articulated how well the Kootenay River is used for multiple generations using the same water. This means that Site C will generate about 35 percent of the energy produced at the W.A.C. dam, with only about 5 percent of the reservoir area.

Site C will create an estimated 10,000 person-years of direct employment during the construction and about 33,000 total person-years of employment through all stages of the development and construction. To everyone in the House: just think of the consumer purchasing capacity that that will generate in the province.

Construction will also provide significant opportunities for businesses of all sizes and will contribute $3.2 billion to the provincial GDP, including $130 million — that’s approximate — to regional GDP. During construction Site C will result in a total of $40 million in tax revenues to local governments, and once in operation, $2 million in revenue for grants-in-lieu and school taxes.

A regional legacy benefits agreement between B.C. Hydro and the Peace River regional district will provide $2.4 million annually to the regional district and its member communities for a period of 70 years, starting when Site C is operational. This annual funding will be indexed for inflation.

[1140]

There are also opportunities for aboriginal groups. B.C. Hydro is committed to the advancement of economic opportunities for aboriginal groups to build capacity and to develop more sustainable long-term relationships. That is why one of Site C’s project objectives is to provide lasting economic and social benefits to those in that area.

R. Austin: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to the motion brought forward by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, which reads as follows. “Be it resolved that this House support BC Hydro’s plans to continue to invest in its provincial infrastructure.”

My initial thought when reading this was to put this down in my book as one of the great examples of irony that I’ve seen in my time here in the Legislature because, of course, there was a long period of time in this current government’s time in office when a motion like this would never have been able to even hit the floor.

Between 2002 and 2010 it was official B.C. Liberal government policy to not allow B.C. Hydro to invest in new capacity to provide electricity. At that time it was deemed that the best policy was that all new generating capacity should come from private sources only and not from our Crown corporation, which of course has now been seen by the current B.C. Liberal government to have been a huge mistake.

I think I have to give credit here. I say that not just as someone in the opposition, whose job it is to critique government policy, but I have to give some credit here to the current Minister of Energy and Mines, who has openly admitted that it was a huge mistake in not allowing B.C. Hydro to do its job.

Of course, the end result of several years of only allowing new generating capacity to come from private sources meant that B.C. Hydro was forced, through government policy, to purchase, on long-term electricity agreements, electricity at prices that are now deemed to be absolutely outrageous. These contracts go for 25, 30 and up to 40 years, thus saddling the ratepayers of this province with electricity not just at exorbitant prices but electricity that we don’t currently need and have to sell at well below market rates.

Yes, I am certainly in support of this motion. I just wish that it had come many years earlier. We spent a long time fighting on this side of the House for exactly this.

The member for Prince George–Mackenzie took a large part of his time speaking about a project that is in my neck of the woods — namely, the northwest transmission line — and what this project did for the local economy in the northwest and what it can do, looking into the future, in terms of any new mines that open, not just Red Chris but other mines.

Again, I think that if this project had been handled better and had the BCUC had its oversight, we would have seen a project that was originally budgeted at $404 million not end up coming in at $714 million, or 77 percent over budget. Now, that was just one example of a chronic overrun that the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro will be paying for, for the next 20 or 30 years.

I think it’s very important, when we debate a motion like this, to understand that there are two issues here. First of all, we want to ensure that B.C. Hydro, as a Crown corporation owned by all the citizens of B.C., is able to do its job. But we also need to recognize that it is a monopoly, and it has to be governed by an outside organization that has the capacity and the expertise to show oversight over that monopoly.

It shouldn’t be done by politicians here. It should be done by people who actually understand the complexities of electricity generation and have the ability to look forward and to be able to monitor B.C. Hydro and to make sure that their projections are correct.

We’ve seen countless instances where this government brings forward projects and then says: “Well, we think they’re very good projects, but we’re not going to allow the BCUC any hand in showing their oversight.” What is the point in having an oversight body like the B.C. Utilities Commission, with expertise, if they’re not allowed to do their job? So I think it’s essential moving forward, not just with the projects that are currently in
[ Page 8884 ]
place but any projects that B.C. Hydro tries to do, that they have BCUC oversight.

[1145]

I just heard the member for Penticton cite a whole bunch of reasons why the Site C project is a good one. You know what? It may be that that’s the case, but I think it would be better and give confidence to all British Columbians — and especially to the ratepayers of this province, who will have to pay for it — to ensure that there’s actually expert advice coming from the B.C. Utilities Commission. We have seen time and time again, where projects are exempted, that things go wrong.

Let me mention again, go back to the northwest transmission line.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Austin: I guess my time is out. Another time, hon. Speaker.

L. Throness: In joining the debate on this motion about B.C. Hydro, I want to focus on the Site C dam and, particularly, to compare it to the W.A.C. Bennett dam, which was completed over a five-year period between 1963 and 1968. I think it will provide some helpful context to this debate.

The total construction cost of the W.A.C. Bennett dam was $750 million, but the provincial budget in 1963 was just $373 million. This means that the cost of the dam was double the size of the provincial budget. Can you imagine that today, Mr. Speaker? Can you imagine the idea of us building anything today, by the government, that would cost $88 billion — double our provincial budget? It would be unimaginable today.

The risk today in Site C is minor by comparison. Today’s estimate for Site C is $8.8 billion to build. It could be less than that if the contingency funds aren’t drawn down, and the total will be spread over eight years rather than five years, as in the W.A.C. Bennett dam. It’s just one-fifth the size of one year’s provincial budget. Our capacity is much greater today, and it means that we will undertake far less financial risk than they did when they built the Bennett dam.

What about debt in 1963? When they built the W.A.C. Bennett dam at that time, our province’s total liabilities — and I mean direct and indirect — were $1.4 billion. That’s four times the size of the provincial budget. Today our entire provincial debt is $66 billion or 50 percent greater than our provincial budget. Although we’re going to go into some debt as we build Site C, it will not put us anywhere near where they were back in 1963. We’ll be much like a person with an income of $100,000 having a debt of $150,000, which would be relatively easy to handle.

I simply use these figures to illustrate that we’re taking on far less risk today with the Site C dam than the Social Credit government did in 1963. Our debt is comparatively lower. Our revenues are relatively higher. We’re in a much better all-round financial position.

Now let’s talk for a moment about environmental footprint. The environmental footprint of Site C will be radically smaller than the W.A.C. Bennett dam. Site C’s reservoir will be 9,300 hectares in size. It’s going to flood quite a bit of farmland; it’s true. But it will also create some habitat and opportunities for recreation and other things. On the other hand, Williston Lake, which is the reservoir for the W.A.C. Bennett dam, is gigantic. It’s 176,000 hectares in size — one of the largest man-made lakes in the world. Site C’s environmental footprint will be 19 times smaller than the Bennett dam footprint.

Of course, both dams are going to generate absolutely clean power. Here I want to quote the joint review panel, the Environmental Assessment Board, which said that Site C “would produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy than any source, save nuclear.” I think British Columbians want clean power.

Finally, when you compare the cost per megawatt hour to other sources of electricity…. I’m thinking here of independent power projects. When you take into account construction and maintenance and the life of buildings and equipment and so on, the amounts are as follows. The comparison is as follows. The cost per megawatt hour of Site C will be $67. That of independent power projects will be up to $130.

What are we paying right now for electricity from the W.A.C. Bennett dam? We are paying $18 per megawatt hour. It’s the cheapest electricity you can imagine. In a similar way, the cost of Site C electricity will also fall, over the next 100 years, as we pay down the debt that we incur to build it.

We’re soon going to have a million more people in this province. We’re soon going to have a thriving LNG industry. We’re going to need this power eight years from now when Site C is finished. And just as we acknowledge the foresight and the vision and the courage of the government that built the Bennett dam 50 years ago, so our children and grandchildren will thank us half a century from now.

[1150]

C. James: It’s interesting to listen to the debate from the other side around this issue. Oh, how times change. I think that is probably the best description for this motion when I think back to 2002, when I think to the debate and this government’s attempt to dismantle B.C. Hydro, an asset that belonged to British Columbians, that had survived successive governments of different political stripes.

In fact, I think it’s extraordinary that you have a public utility that has gone through Social Credit, has gone through NDP and then came to Liberal. It was the Liberals who did everything they could to try and weaken this asset and to try and take it apart.

Oh, how times change. If we take a look at this motion, “Be it resolved that this House support BC Hydro’s plans to continue to invest in its provincial infrastructure,” I’m
[ Page 8885 ]
pleased to stand and support that motion. I’m pleased to support B.C. Hydro as such a critical asset to British Columbia and such a critical asset as an investment tool in British Columbia.

Certainly, we know that if we are going to continue to play a strong role and continue to grow the economy and make sure our growth and development continues in British Columbia, B.C. Hydro is key to that. B.C. Hydro is a critical tool for that. It has always played a key role in investing in provincial infrastructure.

Some of the members speak like this is something brand-new. If you look back in the history of B.C. Hydro with its formation in 1962, when it was transformed from B.C. Electric to B.C. Hydro, some of the most ambitious projects that were taken on by B.C. Hydro were taken on during the ’60s and ’70s — some very large projects. Again, it’s nothing new to who we are as a province. B.C. Hydro is a core to who we are as a province, a public utility that we’re very proud of.

I think it’s interesting to take a look at the support for these projects. In fact, you have seen this side support projects when they come forward and they’re done wisely and they come forward with a strong business plan.

If we take a look at some of the most recent projects, at everything from the Mica dam to the John Hart generating station, projects that were built in the 1990s, I’m sure we won’t hear from the other side that there were actually investments taken in the 1990s in B.C. Hydro. Major investments — everything from the Stave Falls dam to the Arrow Lakes generation station to the purchase of Brilliant dam and the generating station from Teck.

Yes, those actually happened in the 1990s. Those were actually investments that occurred then. We didn’t see that strong legacy continuing under the B.C. Liberals. In fact, what we saw was just the opposite. You’ve heard that from some of my colleagues. We saw major decisions made by the B.C. Liberals to exempt projects from the B.C. Utilities Commission and exempt Hydro from being able to even look at new generation of power.

For a government that claims that they’re so business-focused, it’s always interesting to me that you would see a government pushing ahead with projects without a business plan and without any kind of oversight.

If you look at why BCUC was put in place in the 1980s, it was to act as an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory agency — just as critical today as it was in the 1980s — just as critical to make sure that the rigour that is given by the B.C. Utilities Commission is there today as it was in the 1980s.

Yet, this government seems to think it’s fine to be able to move projects ahead without that business plan, without that rigour and independent look. It has to make you wonder about what they’re afraid of. Why are they afraid of having the numbers scrutinized? Why are they afraid of having that move forward?

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I think it’s also interesting that we have heard nothing from this government around conservation, around looking at, again, one of the prides of B.C. Hydro, which was the Power Smart program, which was the work that they did around conservation. It was being looked at across the globe by other folks who came here to look at how to do it properly. They were so proud of the work that B.C. Hydro was doing.

Again, that’s being ignored by this government. You heard from our colleagues on ignoring other sources of energy, alternate sources of energy, that could support and supplement B.C. Hydro — a critical place for us to go.

Not only has this government decided to ignore the independent opportunity to be able to move to the BCUC; they’ve also decided to refuse to let Hydro compare other alternatives. Again, that’s just a good basic business case to come forward.

Do we support B.C. Hydro? You bet.

C. James moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada