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)

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 28, Number 12

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

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Brenna Czornobaj, who is a recent graduate from the University of Victoria geography department and a volunteer in our office downstairs. This is her first time in question period.

Would the House please make her feel very welcome.

Hon. T. Wat: I’m pleased to introduce two guests from B.C.-based Altentech Power Inc. They are Mr. Larry Taylor, president and CEO, and Mr. Paul Adams, government liaison and technical adviser.

[1335]

I had the pleasure of recently meeting with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Adams to discuss their company’s innovative clean-tech product and Asian business strategy. Altentech develops the advanced proprietary biomass dryers that can virtually dry any type of wood fibre for the production of wood pellets. Their biomass dryers reduce electricity costs by 30 to 50 percent, and they are now looking into exporting to Korea.

Would the House please join me in welcoming this innovative, small, B.C. clean-tech business.

D. Routley: Can the House help me welcome my constituency assistant Patty McNamara — the backbone of the operation, who we employ in our constituency and who does fantastic work representing constituents’ issues to various ministries — and her son Clint Brooks, who is a rising, upcoming representative for the United Steelworkers, and his partner, Cayla Masur.

Can you please help me make them welcome.

Hon. C. Oakes: It is my privilege today to introduce several guests into the House.

Laura Jones is the executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. In this position, Laura’s responsibilities include the federation’s legislative, communication and research functions. Since joining CFIB in 2003, Laura has spearheaded a number of high-profile campaigns on behalf of small businesses, including CFIB’s annual red-tape awareness week.

Also joining Laura today is Samantha Howard, director of the CFIB in British Columbia. In this role, Samantha represents the interests of CFIB’s 10,000 members in British Columbia by leading the legislative, research and communication activities on issues affecting small and medium-sized businesses.

As well today, I’m pleased to have James Chase, chair of the Coalition of B.C. Businesses and CEO of the B.C. Hotel Association. James is responsible for advocating on behalf of small and medium-sized businesses on labour and employment issues in British Columbia.

Would the House please help make our guests welcome.

G. Heyman: It’s a pleasure for me to see in the gallery today and to introduce an old friend, Sarah Cox. Sarah was the communications director and my colleague at Sierra Club B.C. She was also acting executive director when the then executive director took a somewhat lengthy leave in 2013. More recently, she has been the senior conservation program manager for the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. She’s got a long history of working on preservation of important lands in the Flathead River Valley with some success and, more recently, has been working on preserving ecological values and agricultural values in the Peace River Valley.

Will the House please join me in welcoming Sarah.

D. Plecas: Today in the gallery we have three great leaders and champions for St. John Ambulance, and that is Mike Maceras, Stacey MacIntyre and Morrie Morceau.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

C. James: Another reminder today that I need to remember to wear my glasses. As my members on this side of the House reminded me, I have a surprise guest in the Legislature today. I’d like to introduce my best friend, the love of my life, my husband, Albert Gerow.

D. Ashton: My good friend from Nanaimo–North Cowichan mentioned the backbone of our organizations in our constituency assistants. But also, our legislative assistants make a huge difference to each and every one of us in here.

We’ve been very fortunate — the rogues downstairs — to have some wonderful young ladies and gentlemen that have made a difference in our lives. But unfortunately, we keep giving them good performance reviews, and they go up to the ministerial level, and we lose them.

So we have two new young ladies to introduce today: Brianna Green and Rosa Ellithorpe. Thank you very much for coming and just a heads-up, girls. No good performance reviews for two years, sorry.

[1340]

R. Fleming: I just wanted to share some great news with the House today. I have a new constituent in Victoria–Swan Lake. Jack Henry Dean was born on September 25, right on his due date, 7 pounds, 12 ounces. His proud father is none other than Jeff Dean, who works
[ Page 9274 ]
in these very buildings as an opposition research officer.

It’s wonderful news for him and his wife, Oona. May I commend them on choosing the name Jack. My son and I agree that’s a great name.

Please, would the House congratulate both Jeff and his wife Oona on the birth of their first child.

Hon. B. Bennett: I’d like to take the opportunity to welcome Brad Bennett as the new chair of B.C. Hydro. Brad was announced today by the Premier and will take over, effective tomorrow. Brad is the president of McIntosh Properties. He’s served on the B.C. Hydro board since January of 2012. He’s been chair of UBC. He’s been chair of Okanagan University College, chair of the Kelowna General Hospital Foundation.

Although there’s absolutely zero blood relationship between Brad and I — we worked that out years ago — he does have important familial connections. His father served in this place for many years as Premier, and, of course, his grandfather, W.A.C. Bennett, served here longer than any other Premier in the history of the province and actually was responsible for creating B.C. Hydro, which both sides of the House I think are happy about.

Welcome Brad to his new position. It’s not a highly paid position. It’s a volunteer position, and I know he will do a very good job.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, if you’ll join me in welcoming my guests today, Kimberly Sorenson from Richmond and her daughter Gabrielle.

Thank you for joining us.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — RED TAPE REDUCTION DAY ACT

Hon. C. Oakes presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Red Tape Reduction Day Act.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that Bill 34 be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Oakes: I am pleased to introduce Bill 34, the Red Tape Reduction Day Act for 2015. Bill 34 introduces a commitment by our government to host an honorary day devoted to reducing red tape through regulatory reform and the repeal of outdated or unnecessary regulatory requirements on the first Wednesday of March of each year. This legislation institutionalizes accountability and transparency of regulatory reform. It demonstrates our government’s commitment to ongoing…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Oakes: …commitment to reduce the red-tape burden imposed on citizens and small businesses.

Since 2001, we have reduced regulatory requirements by over 43 percent. Bill 34 will impose on government a requirement to reduce red tape and demonstrate its continued commitment to regulatory reform on the first Wednesday in March of each year. Reducing the regulatory burden on citizens and small businesses is critical to ensuring British Columbia’s economic competitiveness and providing all citizens with easy access to government services and programs.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Oakes: Bill 34 will also make positive and effective shifts in the management and continuous improvement of our regulatory environment to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of citizens and businesses while maintaining our cap on the number of regulatory requirements.

The legislation solidifies British Columbia as the Canadian leader in regulatory reform by being the first Canadian jurisdiction to enshrine in law a commitment to reduce red tape and repeal outdated, unnecessary requirements on an annual basis.

Madame Speaker, I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

[1345]

Madame Speaker: Members. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has called division.

[1350]

Bill 34, Red Tape Reduction Day 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 on the following division:

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ST. JOHN AMBULANCE

D. Plecas: It gave me a great deal of pleasure to introduce some leaders from St. John Ambulance this morning and even greater pleasure to talk about that organization.

As you know, it’s a charitable non-profit organization dedicated to helping Canadians improve their health, safety and quality of life. It’s an international humanitarian organization and a foundation of the Order of St. John. As Canada’s standard for excellence in first aid and CPR services, St. John Ambulance offers innovative programs and products, ensuring Canadians receive the best quality training. In fact, as one of Canada’s leading charitable enterprises St. John Ambulance has been providing first aid and CPR since 1883.

Across British Columbia and the Yukon, St. John Ambulance volunteers play a vital role in building healthier, safer and more caring communities. There are over 1,200 volunteers who contribute over 240,000 hours of unpaid community service a year. Volunteers contribute to programs such as emergency and medical first response, youth programs and therapy-dog services. St. John Ambulance also plays a vital role in emergency preparedness and response across Canada. This organization is an integral part of every community.

This Saturday, members of St. John Ambulance will be present at the monthly breakfast event that I hold in my community. It’s an honour to have them present. A number of demonstrations will be held throughout the morning for the public.

Members of this House, please join me in thanking the volunteers of St. John Ambulance for the very, very important work they do.

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS

S. Hammell: Next week, October 4 to 10, is Mental Illness Awareness Week, an opportunity to focus on mental disorders, the signs and symptoms, how to get help, stigma, hope and recovery and the impact of mental illness on lives, families, workplaces and society. This statement is from the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, a national 15-member alliance of organizations representing the entire mental illness continuum.

With that in mind, I’d like to share a reality. Mental health issues will directly or indirectly affect every single person in this House and in your support system, whether it be family members, friends or colleagues. Everyone sitting in this House today will at some point witness a struggle or be diagnosed themselves with some form of mental illness. The reality is that 20 percent of all Canadians of all ages, cultures and economic backgrounds will suffer a form of mental illness at some point in their lives.

Fortunately, the issues surrounding mental illness are emerging from the shadows as our understanding of this illness and treatments improves. We, in this House, must do our part to destigmatize and give voice to those most affected.

[1355]

I ask this House to show support to the alliance efforts to amplify their message through engaging your communities across this province. Early intervention through education can be a powerful tool in combatting the inevitable struggle we will all at some time experience.

SOLID ROCK STEEL FABRICATING

M. Hunt: Starting tomorrow, October is Small Business Month, and there are many successful businesses that are homegrown right here in British Columbia. They deserve recognition for all the high quality and rewarding jobs they provide throughout the province.

Solid Rock Steel Fabricating is one of those companies. Their main forte is to supply and install custom architectural structural steel in the Lower Mainland. In fact, if you’ve ever ridden aboard the SkyTrain, you’ve most likely stood on one of the platforms that this local firm has built. However, Solid Rock Steel also ships fabricated metalwork all over the world, including France, Chile and as far away as Cyprus.

It all began with the dream of Benny Steunenberg. With the encouragement of his friends, in 1965, he decided to strike out on his own. He worked two jobs, the day shift and the night shift, for three months to save up enough money to buy a flat-deck truck, a secondhand welding machine and a torch setup. The equipment enabled Benny to begin fabricating a variety of small jobs in the basement of his home. Yes, he soon discovered that the basement door was not large enough for some of his projects to leave the basement in one piece, and that’s how it all started.
[ Page 9276 ]

Now, 50 years later, Solid Rock Steel is celebrating a special anniversary for a business born and bred right here in British Columbia. The longevity and success of this business is a testimony to the entrepreneurial spirit and the determination of its founder, Benny Steunenberg, and his sons. I’d like all members of the House to join me in celebrating the 50th anniversary of Solid Rock Steel.

WILDLIFE POACHING IN AFRICA

M. Farnworth: The recent shooting of Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe let a light shine on the global scourge of wildlife poaching.

Wildlife poaching is having a devastating impact on the world’s wildlife populations. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Africa, where the population of elephants has been decimated. In 1979, there were 1.3 million elephants. Today there are just 440,000.

The population drop in elephants is a direct result of poaching on an industrialized scale. Poachers are using automatic weapons, poison, drones and are luring animals out of sanctuaries to slaughter an estimated 35,000 elephants a year. These are animals that live in social and complex matriarchal societies and often live to 70 years in the wild.

Rhinos are even more threatened. And they are hunted in just as horrific ways, often using a tranquilizer gun, so that they are still alive when the horn is removed with a chainsaw and then are left to suffer a painful and agonizing death.

The result of this savage industrial slaughter is a world rhino population that numbers now fewer than 25,000. And the reason for this slaughter is greed, corrupt government officials, criminal gangs, under-resourced conservation programs and the misguided belief that rhino horn, for example, will cure diseases such as cancer or even impotence. It doesn’t. It’s made from the same material as your fingernails.

In the case of ivory, it is for vanity items such as jewellery and trinkets, and a misguided belief that elephants just shed their tusks as they age. Fortunately, people around the world and conservation organizations are fighting back.

This October 3 and 4, in 120 cities worldwide, the global march for the protection of elephants and rhinos is being held to raise awareness of this terrible slaughter and for governments to do something. Here in British Columbia, the organization Elephanatics is organizing the march that will take place on Saturday, October 3, at 12 noon at Vancouver Public Library. I encourage this House to give it the support that this cause deserves.

ORANGE SHIRT DAY AND
RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL SYSTEM

D. Barnett: Today is September 30, Orange Shirt Day, which is a legacy of the St. Joseph Mission residential school near Williams Lake. Orange Shirt Day grew out of the story told by Phyllis Webstad, of how her brand-new pretty orange shirt, given to her by her grandmother, was taken away from Phyllis on her first day of school at the mission.

[1400]

Phyllis was only six years old, and it is heartbreaking to know that a little girl had to experience that kind of loss in a place that was new and foreign to her. Ever since that day, Phyllis said, the colour orange always reminded her of how feelings don’t matter.

Orange Shirt Day has been recognized since 2013 to keep alive the discussion on all aspects of residential schools and the harm they caused to children’s health, safety, well-being and self-esteem. Here in British Columbia, our commitment to reconciliation with aboriginal people is unwavering, and we are making significant progress. Most recently we are working to ensure the history and legacy of residential schools is thoroughly covered in B.C.’s K-12 education curriculum.

Orange Shirt Day is an affirmation of a commitment to ensure that every child matters. It is also an opportunity to set the stage for anti-racism and anti-bullying policies for schools, First Nations, governments and communities and to come together in the spirit of reconciliation and hope for generations of children to come. Today on Orange Shirt Day, let us remember that every child matters.

25th ANNIVERSARY OF
LA MAISON DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

G. Heyman: Tomorrow I’ll have the great pleasure of attending the 25th anniversary celebration of La Maison de la Francophonie de Vancouver in Fairview.

In 1990, a non-profit organization established La Maison as a francophone community centre, the first such large, urban centre outside Quebec. Since then, both the structure and operational model have served as inspiration for similar developments across B.C. and Canada.

La Maison has 13 sponsoring non-profit partners, most housed in the building. A sampling includes the French Chamber of Commerce of Vancouver; Francophone Cultural and Artistic Council of British Columbia; Francophone Youth Council of B.C.; L’Express du Pacifique, B.C.’s only French newspaper; Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique; Collège Educacentre, offering job training, literacy and adult education courses; and Réseau-Femmes, a provincewide women’s rights organization.

It is also home to the only Vancouver preschool with a French education curriculum and, of great interest to many who work nearby, to a wonderful French bistro.

La Maison has undertaken a number of projects to provide a supportive environment for francophone asso-
[ Page 9277 ]
ciations and artistic groups. The largest was the complete renovation of Studio la Seizième, a venue for concerts, lectures, movies, plays and other performances. Théâtre la Seizième, B.C.’s only professional francophone theatre company, has a youth program and a training and theatre professional development program in addition to regular productions.

La Maison is a unique gathering place for Vancouver’s 30,000 francophones, a place to meet and nurture the community’s cultural, educational, social and economic needs. I’ve been honoured to be a guest at a number of events held there.

It’s obvious how much it means to francophones to have a place that celebrates their first language and culture. Mais cela signifie aussi beaucoup aux francophiles, comme moi, et à la communauté en général. Tous sont enrichis par La Maison et la clairvoyance de ceux qui ont établi le centre il y a 25 ans. [But this also means a lot to francophiles, like me, and to the community in general. We are all enriched by La Maison and by the foresight of those who established the centre 25 years ago.]

[French text and translation provided by G. Heyman.]

Oral Questions

YOUTH IN CARE DEATH CASE
AND CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM

J. Horgan: As we discussed earlier in the week, last week we learned of the tragic passing of Alex Gervais, who died alone in a hotel room in Abbotsford without the supports he needed and deserved. He died in that hotel room despite assurances by the Minister of Children and Families that he and the 32 other children that were being removed from group homes in Abbotsford would not be housed alone and in hotel rooms. The minister’s response to these issues was to discuss yet another review of her ministry.

[1405]

This failure is not the first in the past 12 months. The death of Isabella Wiens, the story of Paige and the continued tragedy of J.P. and her children seem to me and to many in this country and this province to be enough.

Would the Premier agree with me that in order to get to the bottom of these challenges and to bring new leadership and new solutions to the Ministry of Children and Families, it is high time that there’s a leadership change at the top and it’s her responsibility to do that? And will she do it today?

Hon. C. Clark: This is for all of us and for all British Columbians an incredibly tragic event and a terribly tragic story of a young man in government care who died.

We do need to make sure that we understand exactly what happened, the circumstances surrounding his death, the work that was done between the delegated agency and the ministry. If mistakes were made, then we will make sure that there are consequences for whoever it was that was involved and who may have made mistakes.

But the larger question, I think, that we need to be focused on is the life of that young man. What I’ve observed in this Legislature this week has been that the debate has been focused very much on the minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the critic, myself. I think in that debate, as it has gotten very political, we have forgotten the person at the centre of this tragedy — and that’s that young man Alex.

We have a duty to serve all of the children in government care as well as we possibly can. In Alex’s case specifically, we have a duty to understand, through a review, exactly what happened, make sure we understand it, make sure we address it. And that is, in honouring Alex’s death, what we intend to do.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: It’s interesting, the Premier’s tack on this question. Because last week when she was asked about this, she was very quick to lay blame at the feet of the delegated agency. She had cast judgment instantaneously on this matter, the minister hiding behind the need for yet another review of yet another failure in her ministry to protect the most vulnerable in our community. The Premier’s response was to blame someone else.

At the very least, it seems to me that the Premier would recognize that the leadership issue is not about the minister. It’s not about the individual. It’s about new eyes trying to find new solutions.

To that end, what we tried to do today was start at a reasonable place. We have a standing committee of this Legislature that has worked extremely effectively in a bipartisan way to address the challenges within the ministry, the challenges within the community with respect to children in care. Today we brought forward a motion to that committee and sought to bring the minister to that chamber to have a discussion about the challenges she faces and the challenges children face in British Columbia. And what was the response from the B.C. Liberals on the committee? No.

So if we can’t have a discussion here and we can’t have a discussion in a committee that’s designed and created to protect children, at what point does the Premier have to intervene and say: “My highest responsibility is to the children of British Columbia, and to get to that end, I’m going to put someone else in charge so we can have new eyes looking at these vexing problems and actually ensure that we learn from the loss of Alex’s life”?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I disagree with the member. I do not think that the best interests of children are served by getting into what is really, essentially, a political debate about it.
[ Page 9278 ]

The best interests of children will be served when we understand exactly what happened in this situation. What we do know is that there is a responsibility for the delegated agency to report that a child is in a hotel, and that did not happen in this case. The review will give us more information about what happened and how it unfolded. That is the way we’re going to make sure that children are better protected.

I should say, note for the House, that the Minister of Children and Families has not been shy or reticent about talking to the public and answering questions fully on this issue. She has made herself absolutely available, I think almost every day, since it came to light.

[1410]

We want to make sure that this issue is reviewed, understood and dealt with appropriately. I think we would do better in honouring his death, and any of the issues that young people face when they’re in government care, than making a political issue of it. We have to protect those children. That is our highest duty, and that is what this minister is working incredibly hard every day to do.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Perhaps I’ll just remind the Premier of her comments in a similar situation in a time far, far away — the 1990s. She likes to go there periodically. Perhaps she’ll go back and review her comments in this regard.

She said: “It’s right to lay the blame at the feet of the political decision-makers who did not give the office the resources they required.” There is a long list of quotes from the Premier when she was the critic for Children and Families. It’s not a political exercise to ask tough questions. The people of British Columbia expect that their government will do its level best to protect the most vulnerable in our society. That is the responsibility of the minister sitting across the way.

At some point, continued failure is not political. It requires new vision and a new approach. If you don’t see that….

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, if you don’t see that and others don’t see that, then they’re not paying attention.

Again, through you to the Premier. Will she do the right thing today: ask the minister to step aside and appoint someone else to address these very challenging and difficult issues?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I have no doubt that back in the 1990s, when that member was working for the then government, he had a lot of…. He probably expressed his view that the things that were said by the opposition about children in care were absolutely wrong, when there was a problem. And now, today, he stands up and says he’s changed his mind about that. There is a word for that, but I’m not allowed to use it in the House.

It is also not appropriate, I don’t think, to be speaking about these issues with this young man and his death as a political issue. Someone — a young man — lost his life. A young man in government care that we had a duty to provide, that the delegated agency had a duty to provide.

We’re working hard to make sure that we understand specifically what happened in this case. Before we rush to judgment about what did happen, we need to understand it. Until we understand it, we can’t address it.

This minister has made sure that there are 110 new social workers, most of them on the front lines, out working for the ministry in just the last year. There are 7,200 children in care all across the province. That’s the lowest number, I’m told, since about 1996. There is a lot of good work that is being done in the ministry by delegated agencies and by the individuals who work so hard every day to support those children.

Having said that, though, when the system fails or it doesn’t work, we have an obligation to understand that, and we’re going to do that.

D. Donaldson: What I say to the Premier and to the minister is: let’s honour Alex Gervais’ life by providing some accountability, through the minister and through this government, for his death.

Gwen Point, a First Nations leader well known to this House and chair of the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Children and Family Services Society, has spoken about the Premier’s efforts to shirk responsibility. In a statement released yesterday she said: “Shifting focus solely to the delegated agency appears to be a political move and is not what is needed at this time. What we need now, more than ever, is leadership, not politics. “

When is the Premier going to stop pointing fingers at others and start making the protection of vulnerable children a priority for her government?

Hon. C. Clark: The purpose of the review is to ensure that we understand exactly what happened. I think it’s unfair for the opposition to characterize it as just another review. A review needs to happen.

[1415]

We need to understand the circumstances, and we need to, in understanding them, be able to address them. We can’t do that without thoroughly looking at it and trying to understand it.

The purpose of that review is to also make sure that we can hold appropriate people accountable. If those people, those individuals, are working for the delegated agency or for the Ministry of Children and Families, we will ensure that appropriate accountability is measured, and we are going to make sure that we do that as a result of the review.

As I said, we can’t understand what the problem was
[ Page 9279 ]
and, therefore, who was accountable for it unless we take the time to understand what happened, and we can only do that through a review. I know the minister is working very, very hard to make sure that we do this as quickly as humanly possible.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Well, it isn’t just the Alex Gervais case. It was J.P., a case revealed this July — children abused while in care. It was the Isabella Wiens case in March — revealed that a child died while in care. It was the Paige report in May — a child, a youth, who had just left care, dying on the Downtown Eastside. So it’s not just about this case.

Yesterday, Ms. Point said: “The Ministry of Children and Family Development cannot disengage or distance itself from its role in the systemic issues that create devastating outcomes, such as the death of this young man.”

The Representative for Children and Youth said: “The agency got nothing special to meet the needs of this young person. They had nowhere to put him. If you’re going to point the finger at this agency, then you should be well aware that there are four pointing back at you.”

So why does the Premier continue to say others were to blame for this tragedy? Will the Premier show some leadership and stop trying to shift the blame for her minister’s failure to protect Alex?

Hon. C. Clark: I want to be clear. It’s only the opposition at the moment that is trying to lay blame, definitive blame, in this case. Our purpose and the minister’s work is to go through a review and understand what happened at the delegated agency, understand what happened at the ministry, and then hold appropriate people accountable. But we can’t do that without a review, and we need to make sure that before the members start blaming individuals, as they have been for the last several days, we understand exactly what happened.

It’s impossible to hold people accountable without the facts, and it’s impossible to get the facts without a review. And a review takes a little bit of time. The minister is working as hard as she possibly can to make sure that we get that review done and that we understand its contents as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, she’s going to continue the good work that she does — 7,400 children in care in the province, the lowest number since, we think, 1996. The number of adoptions in the last year under this minister’s work has gone up by 21 percent.

There is still work to be done, but in all of this discussion, I’d like to point out that there is still also very much good work that is happening on the front lines by workers who are giving their hearts and souls to protecting children every day.

C. James: When will this government recognize their responsibility? When will this government recognize their accountability around not providing the resources needed for those front-line workers to do the job of caring for the most vulnerable?

In May, following the tragedy of Paige’s story, I asked the minister to order a full review for all children in care who were aging out, turning 19, to ensure that they had the supports that they needed to prevent another tragedy in this province. That was not done. And now, not six months later, another young person has died.

This minister and this government have received reports and specific recommendations from the independent Representative for Children and Youth to address the challenges and problems in the ministry, recommendations that have been ignored and not acted on. And now we see the Premier not working with delegated agencies to do what’s necessary to protect children but instead using agencies to deflect attention from her government’s responsibility.

[1420]

Will the Premier do the right thing today: make it clear that her minister and her government bear full responsibility for the safety of children in the ministry’s care?

Hon. C. Clark: We do have a duty in government to make sure that the children who are in government care are looked after. All members of this House, I know, agree that we all share that duty.

The Ministry of Children and Families does incredibly hard work every day. They look after 7,400 kids in care, as an example — the lowest number since 1996, we’re told. They’ve put 273 youth into adoptive families this year. That’s up 21 percent. Front-line staff have increased by 21 percent since 2005, and 110 of those workers came in, in just the last year.

It’s not accurate to say that the government has not responded to recommendations from critics and outside agencies. We have. Some of those changes are a response to some of the criticisms and the concerns that have been raised.

I will add, though, that there is still more to do. The death of Alex Gervais points to the fact that there is much more to do. That’s why, before rushing to judgment, as the member is doing today, we are taking the time to do a proper review, understand exactly what happened and make sure that, then, we can address the situation that arose and hold those responsible accountable.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: In 2013, the Representative for Children and Youth released a report calling for better residential services for children and youth with complex needs — children like Alex. The minister ignored that one as well.

Another report and another recommendation that were
[ Page 9280 ]
not acted on. As a result, Alex had nowhere to go when his group home was closed down. Instead of the kind of safe, stable supported housing that Alex deserved, he ended up alone in a hotel. That was after the ministry told the representative that no children would end up in a hotel.

Instead of pointing fingers elsewhere, will the Premier demand that her minister and her government take responsibility for failing to ensure that her ministry was equipped to be able to help children like Alex?

Hon. C. Clark: We are continuing to do the hard work that’s necessary to make sure that we are doing everything we can to make the system as good as it can possibly be. I’ve pointed out a number of times some of the responses that the ministry and the government have had over the last several years to critics and reviews that have happened within and outside the ministry. It’s good work. There is much, much more to do.

I just should finish by saying that the ministry’s policy is that children should not, except in exceptional circumstances and for very short stays, be in hotels. The first response is that children should be with their families wherever possible, recognizing that government does not make a better parent for children than their own parents do. It’s our responsibility to make sure that we are supporting families in trying to stay together and do the best job that they can in raising their children.

In those cases where children need to be removed, we want to make sure that they find themselves in the best possible situation that’s going to give them stability in the long term. That does not include hotels. Having said that, sometimes it is a necessity. We recognize that, but it’s our policy that it’s only in exceptional circumstances and for a short period of time.

When we get through this review, we’ll have a better understanding of what happened in Alex’s case. We’ll get a chance, really, to honour the fact that this young man died a tragic death, and we want to learn everything that we can from it.

HEALTH AUTHORITIES’ HANDLING
OF PERSONAL HEALTH INFORMATION

J. Darcy: This morning B.C.’s Information and Privacy Commissioner released a report on the way our health authorities handle private health records. What did the commission find? Health authorities are losing British Columbians’ personal health information because it’s being stored on laptops and USBs that are not password protected, privacy training is inadequate, and there are no standard reporting protocols. If this sounds awfully familiar, it’s because it is. This government has been warned about this time and time again.

[1425]

My question is to the minister responsible for data and privacy, the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services. When is this government finally going to understand that it is putting British Columbians’ confidential health information at risk?

Hon. A. Virk: I understand and appreciate that British Columbians expect their information and privacy to be effectively managed. I think we all appreciate that in this House. We all appreciate that the protection of government data and networks, indeed, is a top priority for this government, especially when it comes to British Columbians’ privacy information.

I appreciate the report also this morning of the Privacy Commissioner and the work that she’s done in highlighting the positive work that’s been done so far. I also appreciate her making recommendations to make that system even more robust, to identity the gaps in the current process. I’m advised that the health authorities are examining all the recommendations and will be taking action in due course.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Platitudes just don’t cut it anymore from this government on health records. British Columbians deserve better.

We are talking about records that contain highly sensitive details about British Columbians’ health: their medical, their physical, their emotional health; their use of medications; their test results; their medical procedures; and their family history when it comes to health. If this minister doesn’t take this issue seriously, how can he expect other government agencies to do so?

The Privacy Commissioner has told this government, year after year after year, that it has to fix this problem, that it needs robust procedures in place to affect everybody in health care, including health authorities. This government has failed to act.

How many more privacy breaches do we need to have before this minister and this government recognize that they need to act to protect confidential health information of British Columbians?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, what the member for New Westminster fails to say is that in the report the commissioner also says the health authorities are working hard to ensure that when there are breaches, it’s reported appropriately. Those health authorities are working closely with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding any possibility whenever there is a breach.

I think we all recognize that privacy protection is a job for everybody, from every position in the health care system. In fact, all health care staff at every different level are trained.

What the member certainly doesn’t understand also is that there are cases when breaches are analyzed, when they’re reported, and they’re investigated. In fact, this very
[ Page 9281 ]
year Island Health took disciplinary action against employees who were inappropriately accessing information.

It’s the responsibility of everybody in that system to ensure that the responsibilities are fulfilled and that there is accountability.

EDUCATION MINISTRY DATA BREACH

D. Routley: In this House, it’s your responsibility.

As we discussed yesterday, the minister responsible for data security lost 3.4 million students’ personal information, a breach that has become routine with this government.

A couple of highlights from the many breaches and their responses. In 2010, the minister said: “Protection of British Columbians’ private and personal information is a top priority for this government.” Sound familiar? “We committed to improving the system, and we have put the policies and education programs in place to do that.”

[1430]

In 2014, the next minister responsible said: “The provincial government takes the management of personal information and the protection of privacy very seriously.”

Same issues, same excuses. The only thing that changes is the date and the names on the press release.

My question for the Minister of Citizens’ Services: after all these breaches, all these investigations, all these commitments to do better, why are you still failing to safeguard British Columbians’ personal information?

Hon. A. Virk: I understand that the members opposite received a fulsome and robust response to the very same questions that he poses today. What I heard was misinformation, fearmongering and an embellishment of the details from that side of the House.

I’ve been clear — I’ve been very clear — that a mistake was made. The creation of that duplicate hard drive and the manner in which it was stored was not correct. I have also made it clear — and I said it before, as well — that I’ve asked the chief information officer of government to do a complete review of the Ministry of Education and of core government to ensure that the protection of privacy is enhanced.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: Fearmongering? Is that an indication of how seriously this minister takes this issue? British Columbians’ most sensitive information, a bell that can’t be unrung once it’s lost. It’s disgraceful. This government does the same thing again and again, and they expect a different result. They continue to lose British Columbians’ personal information, and we continue to hear the same excuses. “We’re investigating why this happened. We’ll improve the system. We’re sorry.”

To the minister responsible for data security: you weren’t supposed to have an unencrypted hard drive full of personal information in the first place. How many other drives just like this are still sitting unprotected in warehouses?

Hon. A. Virk: Perhaps I’ll repeat some of the facts of this incident. The drive in question should not have been created in 2011. It should have been encrypted. It should not have been stored in the manner it was. To ensure that the protection of data is enhanced, I have asked the chief information officer not only to investigate the initial incident but to do a fulsome review across core government to ensure that the data protection policies of this government that were in place at that time, and now, are fully followed.

J. Rice: Information about the province’s most vulnerable children is missing because this minister failed to keep it safe. Highly personal information about 9,273 people was collected by the Ministry of Children and Family Development and stored on this missing hard drive — highly sensitive information on children in the system who moved schools and lived in difficult circumstances, entrusted to this government. But this government broke this trust.

To the minister responsible for data security, when is he going to contact these 9,200 people and warn them about the risks to their personal information?

Hon. A. Virk: What the member certainly knows is that at present, I have no evidence to suggest any of that information on that drive has been accessed or used for any other purpose. The member clearly knows that.

[1435]

The member also knows that the Information and Privacy Commissioner will be working alongside the chief information officer of government to analyze the data that was on that duplicate hard drive and to come up with a plan by which they can assess which individuals need to be notified.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, third reading on Bill 29.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 29 — PROPERTY TAXATION
(EXEMPTIONS) STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 29, Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, read a third time and passed.
[ Page 9282 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Motion 19, standing in the name of the Minister of Energy.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 19 — SITE C POWER PROJECT

Hon. B. Bennett: Let me read the motion into the record:

[Be it resolved that this House supports the construction of the Site C Clean Energy Project; because the Site C Clean Energy Project represents the most affordable way to generate 1,100 megawatts of clean and reliable power; and the Site C Clean Energy Project will create jobs for thousands of British Columbians; and the Site C Clean Energy Project has been the subject of a thorough environmental review process.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

That is the motion, and I’m the designated speaker on the motion. I understand I have up to two hours to talk about this. I can see excitement and enthusiasm just bubbling up from the other side of the House. That will give them a chance to applaud early in my remarks. I’m only going to speak for probably around 30 minutes. I think 30 minutes should be enough time for me to get the point across.

Let me start by saying that we all get elected for the right reasons. I’ve always believed that. Even though we have these sometimes severe differences of opinion and world view, I think we all come here to do the right thing and certainly to represent the people that send us here, the people that we’re accountable to.

Sometimes there are big decisions that happen, and this particular project is a big decision. It’s a big issue. Lots of people, as it turns out, support the Site C project in this province. There are some folks that do not support the Site C project.

What I would propose here today is that…. I intend to make some remarks as minister responsible for B.C. Hydro on the project itself in terms of the need for the project, the cost of the project, whether alternatives were examined before making the final decision — what are the environmental impacts, what are the impacts on agriculture, and what about First Nations? — all of the issues that I think all members would canvass if they were going to canvass this decision to build Site C.

What I’m hoping for with this motion is that all members of the House, on both sides of the House, will have an opportunity to express whether they support building the Site C project or whether they oppose building the Site C project. It is our obligation as elected MLAs — whether we’re ministers, whether we’re not ministers, whether we’re in opposition, no matter what political party we’re with — to let the people know, who we are accountable to, where we stand on the big issues.

I’m hopeful — I really am — that members of the opposition will let us know how they stand. I notice that the Leader of the Official Opposition has taken positions on Site C, so I thought that might be a good place to start. In November of 2006, the Leader of the Opposition said: “I get excited about the prospect of a large project like Site C.” It sounds like he’s in favour of Site C. But then about a year later, in February of 2007, he said: “The current policy of my political party is to oppose Site C.”

[1440]

Then a few years later, in 2013, he said: “On paper, it’s certainly the next best project.” Then a bit later, he said: “I’ve taken many positions on Site C.” That’s right.

I understand, or at least there is a rumour, that NDP MLAs are not allowed to take a position on Site C. I hope that’s not true. We’re going to find out today. I hope that’s not true. They’re going to get the opportunity. I understand that there were some NDP MLAs out on the lawn today, participating in the protest.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: Clearly, those folks would be opposed to the project. This is their opportunity to stand up and say that they are opposed. Or perhaps there are some folks over there…. I suspect this is the case. I suspect that there are members of the opposition over there who support the Site C project. I’ll tell you why.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, it may be a secret, or they may be whipped into a certain position where they’re just not allowed to stand up and say that they either oppose the project on principle or they support the project on principle.

Anyways, we’re going to find out. My prediction is that they will do their usual bobbing and weaving, and they’ll probably attack some of us personally — probably not me. I’m sure that they won’t attack me personally. They’ll probably do some of that, you know. They’ll talk all the way around the issue of Site C, all the way, a full 360, but they’re not likely to tell us whether they’re in support or opposition.

As Minister of Energy and Mines, again responsible for B.C. Hydro, let me just walk members through some of the important issues that led to the government’s decision to build this project. Let me start with the need for this project.

There shouldn’t be any lack of clarity, by the way, about where government members stand on this project. We have a very democratic process on this side of the House, where all members have an opportunity. In fact, I’ve seen members on this side of the House vote against government legislation. I’ve seen them do that. I have never in
[ Page 9283 ]
my 14½ years as an MLA seen an opposition member stand up and be counted all by himself or all by herself and vote with government. It doesn’t happen. We have a nice democratic process on this side of the House. We’ve been through a full internal discussion and even debate at times on the Site C project.

Let me say first of all — and I know that all members know this to be true — we will need the electricity. We’re going to need the electricity by the time this large project is built. And another large hydroelectric facility will generate clean, green power for over 100 years, long after the investment is repaid. That proves that Site C is the best way to acquire the electricity, in my view.

I’ve heard that the Leader of the Opposition, and I’ve heard my critic as well, say that we don’t need it right now. In fact, that’s language that they’ve used: “We don’t need it right now.” If W.A.C. Bennett had waited for the day that B.C. might need the electricity…. “Let’s just wait until we need it.”

It’s going to take nine years to build Site C. I’ve heard several of them on that side of the House say: “Well, let’s just wait. We don’t need it right now.” Right? “We don’t need it right now. Let’s wait.” Imagine if W.A.C. Bennett had waited until they needed the electricity. B.C. would have lost the opportunity for decades and decades of economic growth. Imagine all of the opportunities we would have lost in this province if W.A.C. Bennett had not make those decisions.

It’s the job of leaders, I would submit, to determine not only what is needed today but also to determine what’s going to be needed for tomorrow. That’s our job as leaders. We’ve been criticized for building the northwest transmission line. The Leader of the Opposition has called it the power line to nowhere. There are members over there who know darn well…. They know how valuable that power line is going to be to their northwest region in this province. It’s true that we took a chance by building that power line, but it’s already proven that it was the best thing to do for the future of that part of the province. That’s leadership.

[1445]

How does a forecast get done? How do we actually know that we’re going to need that electricity? That’s another place that opponents of the project have challenged, so one of the things that we did was we asked the BCUC to take a look at B.C. Hydro forecasting methodology and just tell us what they think.

The opposition is always saying, “Refer things to the BCUC,” so at some point in time, it was referred to the BCUC. This is what they said. They said that B.C. Hydro’s forecasting methodology is as good as anywhere in the world. That’s pretty good. Their forecasting methodology is pretty good.

We weren’t satisfied with that, and B.C. Hydro wasn’t satisfied with that, so they brought in a third party, whose name was Mark Gilbert. In September 2014, this gentleman with over 30 years’ experience in load forecasting, known around the world for his expertise, said: “B.C. Hydro is using state-of-the-art methodologies for forecasting sales. The company utilizes several methodologies to produce peak forecast methods, all of which are among state-of-the-art methods.”

That’s pretty clear. I don’t think there can be any doubt, certainly from this side of the House, that we need that electricity. Let’s have a show of hands if the opposition agrees with the fact that we need the electricity.

Let’s talk about the cost. What about the cost? Is the estimated cost accurate? Is it reasonable? The Site C capital cost estimate of $7.9 billion was developed in 2010. It included all construction, development, inflation and interest costs, as well as contingencies. The bottom-up estimate was completed by a team of internal and external engineering and construction experts and underwent an external peer review by KPMG.

I hear from the opposition, all the time, and from opponents to Site C: “Well, it wasn’t reviewed.” Well, that was in 2010. It was reviewed by an external group from KPMG to validate the methodologies and the assumptions.

In 2014, we did a cost refresh: “We’d better have a second look at this.” The refresh showed that while some costs had increased due to factors such as a longer environmental assessment process, enhancements to worker accommodation, and larger diversion tunnels, the original cost estimate remained appropriate as these increases were largely offset by savings from lower-than-anticipated interest rates, efficiencies in project design and reduced excavation requirements.

KPMG — once again, brought in to review the cost refresh in 2014 — said the level of care and diligence was consistent with an infrastructure project about to enter the construction phase, that reasonable and appropriate processes were followed for developing the assumptions used in the financial model, and that the methodology behind the cost estimate was appropriate. That’s what KPMG said. KPMG wasn’t working for government. KPMG was an independent contractor hired by B.C. Hydro to give their professional opinion as an international audit firm on the work done.

The direct construction cost estimate was also reviewed by a group of independent panel of contractors. I’m going to get to a point where I’m going to respond to the criticism about the BCUC not being involved in assessing the cost of Site C. But here’s a group of individuals who had between 35 and 50 years of experience in construction. These people build things all over the world. Hydro hired these people to sit on a committee and come in and take a look at all of the work that Hydro was doing on costs.

This is what that grey-haired construction group had to say: that the capital cost estimate was sufficient for the proposed scope and schedule of the project, that B.C.
[ Page 9284 ]
Hydro estimate contained an appropriate level of accuracy for making a final investment decision and a level of detail comparable to a private sector contractor estimate, and that the contingency was sufficient to cover any reasonable cost increases.

That’s what we had to work with on this side of the House. We had two KPMG audits that had been done, and we had this group of experienced construction professionals who had looked at the project and at the cost estimates and said: “It’s good to go. Government, you are good to go to on making a final investment decision.”

[1450]

You know what? As we got closer to that final investment decision, we wanted to get even a little more certainty around the cost. We wanted to make sure that we knew what the cost of this project was actually going to be. So we took the project, and we said: “Ministry of Finance, take a look at this. Take your time, whatever time you need. Have a look at this.” Finance pointed out a couple of things. They didn’t quibble, actually, with the 2010 budget, but they pointed out a couple of things. They said: “There are a couple of items in the contingency fund that we think you should add to the capital costs.” That took the project from $7.9 billion to $8.335 billion.

Cabinet then decided that while B.C. Hydro’s existing capital cost estimate already included a healthy contingency, we should establish a project reserve of an additional $440 million for a total up to $8.775 billion. So that’s how you get to the $8.775 billion. That reserve will account for events outside of B.C. Hydro’s control, such as higher-than-forecast inflation or higher-than-forecast interest rates. It will be managed by the provincial Treasury Board. As with all large capital projects, B.C. Hydro will be required to provide regular reports to the B.C. Utilities Commission and government during construction.

Let me just end my remarks on cost for the Site C project by quoting from the federal-provincial panel. That’s the panel that the province and the federal government put together to study this project. This is what they said: “The panel concludes that the risk of Site C to the province’s debt management plan is entirely manageable by a prudent B.C. government.” They also said: “There is little doubt about the competence of B.C. Hydro to build and operate the project efficiently.”

Alternatives. I’ve heard many people in the province and, particularly, on the opposition benches say that we didn’t examine alternatives to Site C, that there are better ways to acquire the new generation that the province will need. There was actually a member of the opposition who said that within the last ten minutes. I heard him. Well, I want to assure that member, and I want to assure members of the public that we did very extensive consultation with the independent power industry before we made a final investment decision. Clean Energy B.C. had unprecedented access to B.C. Hydro’s information — more access than they ever had at any time in the past. Ask them. They’ll tell you that.

As part of our due diligence process, we considered a number of options. This is important for the province to know. We didn’t land on Site C just in the blink of an eye without considering all of the alternatives that are available to us. Site C obviously is one of those alternatives. IPPs are alternatives. Natural gas — we’ve got lots of it, relatively cheap right now. Geothermal — I mention geothermal because the independent panel mentioned it, and I’ve read that people have an interest in it. Market purchases — another way to acquire electricity if you’re not generating enough.

Natural gas is actually quite tempting. I said that it’s cheap, so the cost makes it tempting. It’s also very reliable in terms of firm power, but we’d need to abandon our commitment in the Clean Energy Act to 93 percent of our energy generated in the province being clean and renewable. It would also produce significantly higher GHG emissions, and it would expose ratepayers to gas and carbon price volatility. So we ruled that out after considerable consideration.

Market purchases. Again, this is something I’ve heard, certainly, the Leader of the Opposition say and, no doubt, other members of the opposition caucus: “Why doesn’t the government just tell B.C. Hydro to go buy the electricity on the spot market in western North America? It’s pretty cheap right now. Just go out and buy it. If you need electricity, just go buy it on the spot market. Why don’t you do that?” That would put us in a position where we are completely reliant, first of all, on the source. Can we get enough electricity when we actually need it? Is it going to be available? How do we know how much it’s going to cost? Prices do change, as we all know. They go up, and they go down. How do we know what it’s going to cost?

The third point — and I was advised of this by people who know more than I do — we don’t actually have transmission that would be reliable enough to bring that level of electricity from the U.S. or from Alberta to fill the gap that we’re going to have here in the next ten, 15 years.

[1455]

Geothermal. I hope that some day somebody will be standing in this House as an Energy minister or an MLA talking about how geothermal is this wonderful resource that is being used in the province to generate electricity. I truly do. It has the potential to be firm electricity, because once you can locate the hot air — I know there are going to be jokes that’ll come from that — and create steam, you can generate electricity 24 hours a day. It’s firm electricity; it’s great stuff. They do a good job of good job of it in Iceland.

The problem here in B.C. is that, despite the fact that we have issued over a dozen permits for geothermal exploration in this province, and despite the fact that a lot of money has actually been spent trying to identify these resources, we have not had one geothermal project bid
[ Page 9285 ]
into any of the procurement processes that we’ve had. Geothermal — it’s a great idea, and I hope it’s a great resource someday. It is nowhere close to being able to provide electricity to our economy here in the province.

That left us with two options: Site C or a suite of independent power projects. Had we chosen the suite of independent power projects, because they’re intermittent power, we would have to have had some natural gas generation to back up that intermittent power. That’s the way it works. My critic knows all this stuff, because I think he used to work for B.C. Hydro. The Leader of the Opposition used to advise the Minister of Energy back in the 1990s. They know this is true.

That left us with the two options. We went through comparing the energy sources like wind and run of the river. They’re great resources, but they’re intermittent. They’re not always able to generate the electricity that we need. The wind doesn’t always blow. The sun doesn’t always shine. The rivers that we get so much energy from run heavy in the spring, not so heavy in the summer. It’s called spring freshet. It’s intermittent electricity.

The irony in the decision to build Site C as it relates to these other renewable technologies is that with Site C and with the 1,100 megawatts of capacity that will be available from Site C, B.C. will actually be in a stronger position to acquire more intermittent electricity — an important point, I think.

The joint panel, again, said…. I want quote from them again, because they have a lot of credibility on these issues. “Electrical systems are limited in their capability to manage resources such as wind while maintaining system reliability due to the intermittent nature of the resource. The project would increase the amount of wind the system can reliably integrate.”

They also went on to say that they agreed with B.C. Hydro “on the importance of predictable delivery and hence storage over periods from hourly to annual. Weather-dependent renewables alone are not the answer. The sun does not always shine or the wind blow.” That’s their language. For anyone who actually believes that the province or B.C. Hydro did not examine alternatives, that is not borne out by the facts, and it certainly isn’t shared by experts in the field.

Let me touch, just briefly, on environmental impact. It’s an issue that’s important in terms of the motion. In October 2014, the federal and provincial governments announced that the Site C clean energy project had received environmental approval. Environmental approval of Site C came with numerous conditions from the federal and provincial governments that B.C. Hydro must meet to build and operate the facility.

If the opposition would take the time to actually look at how this project is being built and the care and attention that B.C. Hydro was putting into doing things right, they would probably feel a whole lot better about the project — or maybe not. It’s our idea to build the project, and perhaps there’s no way for them to come around to supporting it.

The environmental assessment process started in August of 2011. It took three years to complete. The environmental assessment process was thorough. It was independent. It included multiple opportunities for timely and meaningful participation. There were two months of public hearings in several of the northeast regional and aboriginal communities.

Again, I’ve heard members of the opposition try to claim that there was no consultation around the decision to build Site C. There were years and years of consideration on this project. The public did have plentiful opportunities to say what they thought, as did First Nations.

In May of 2014, in the report, the joint review panel concluded that the benefits of the project were clear. “Site C would be the least expensive of the alternatives, and its cost advantages would increase with the passing decades as inflation makes alternatives more costly.”

[1500]

They also concluded — the panel, that is — that after the initial burst of expenditure — in other words, after building it — paying the capital costs “would lock in low rates for many decades and would produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy than any source save nuclear.” That’s what the panel said. Apparently the opposition is opposed to that.

Site C will be the third hydroelectric dam on the Peace River, following the W.A.C. Bennett dam that was completed in 1968 and the Peace Canyon dam, completed in 1980. That’s important because, as the third project on the Peace River, Site C can take advantage of water that’s already stored in both of these reservoirs, particularly behind the existing W.A.C. Bennett dam in the Williston reservoir.

What this means is that because you’re building a third dam on the same river downstream of the first two, Site C will actually generate 35 percent of the energy produced at the W.A.C. Bennett dam with only five percent of the reservoir footprint.

When you’re talking about environmental impact, you have to compare projects to all the other alternatives out there in the province. You’ve got an opportunity to generate 35 percent of the electricity out of the W.A.C. Bennett project, with 5 percent of the environmental footprint — another reason why this was the right decision.

I want to speak a little bit to agricultural impact, or impact on agriculture, because I know there are members on both sides of the House who come from farming areas. I’m one of them. I come from a ranching area, although our soils are not as good as they are, certainly, in a place like Saanich South.

Last spring I heard a lot about the impact on agriculture from Site C. People felt obviously…. Well, certainly the member for Saanich South felt very, very strongly about it. That was clear. But what are the facts? Well, the
[ Page 9286 ]
facts are that more than 99 percent of class 1 to 5 agricultural land — that’s the land that you can grow stuff on — in the Peace will not be affected by Site C. Over 99 percent will not be affected.

While there will be a permanent loss of 3,800 hectares of class 1 to 5 land, about 2.7 million hectares of class 1 to 5 land will remain available in the Peace agricultural region. The environmental assessment process considered agricultural impacts and had two dedicated hearings on topic — thus, no reason for it to go to the commission.

Here’s what the independent joint review panel concluded. “The permanent loss of the agricultural production on the Peace River Valley bottomlands…is not, by itself and in the context of B.C. or western Canadian agricultural production, significant.” That’s what the panel said.

Overall, agricultural production in the region is expected to benefit from proposed mitigation measures, including a $20 million agricultural compensation fund that will support agricultural programs in the Peace and projects such as irrigation and draining improvements.

The panel was so impressed by this offer of the $20 million fund by B.C. Hydro that they said: “The current annual value of the crops from the portion of the valley that would be inundated is but $220,000. The proposed 20 million agricultural investment fund to be spent on improvements outside the inundation zone is generous by comparison.” I’m just quoting what the panel said — the Canada-B.C. panel.

What about benefits? What benefits will come to the province from the Site C clean energy project?

Well, B.C. Hydro is spending $2.4 billion a year right now on infrastructure to try to catch up from ten years in the 1990s, when very little was spent on infrastructure, in order for us to have the reliable, safe, clean, green electricity system that we all, I think, probably take for granted. It is necessary to reinvest in some of the assets that are over 50 years old, and it’s also necessary to build new transmission and, in some cases, new generation.

This Site C project is going to add $13 billion to B.C.’s GDP over ten years — that’s not bad, $13 billion — 123,000 person-years of employment over ten years. I think we should be celebrating the benefits of this project.

I know that some of my colleagues are going to get up, and they’re going to talk a little bit about Site C. I think there will be lots of evidence in those remarks from those government MLAs about how the people in this province are going to benefit.

[1505]

I wonder. I mean, even the most cynical, partisan opposition member surely can share in the joy, surely can help celebrate the good things that are going to come from the project. Or maybe not. I guess we’ll find out when they get up and they speak. We’ll see whether they want to join the 80 percent of British Columbians who seem to like this project and who are prepared to celebrate the very real benefits.

Just some more benefits from the project: $3.2 billion added to the provincial economy from the purchase of goods and services during construction; $130 million of that will go into the regional economy, and the two members from the Peace, I’m sure, are happy about that. And $40 million in tax revenues during construction to local governments — not to the province or the federal government; to local governments. And then after the project is built, during operations, there will be about $2 million per year in taxes.

Then $179 million in provincial revenues, $270 million in federal revenues from activities during construction. And here’s the good one. This is the one that my colleague who is responsible for the Jobs Ministry is so pleased about. Site C is going to create 10,000 construction jobs. We’re pretty happy about that. We are pretty happy about that. [Applause.]

I didn’t notice anyone on the other side clapping when they heard that there would be 10,000 jobs created during construction of Site C. But I’m sure that when they have their opportunity to get up and speak to the motion, they will, at the very least…. Even if they’re opposed to everything else, they’re going to say: “We sure are happy that people in B.C. and other Canadians are going to get this opportunity to have these highly paid positions on this Site C project.”

The project has only just started. It’s about five weeks in to an eight-year project. There are going to be lots of job and contract opportunities. It really is an opportunity to be part of a legacy project that’s going to provide the province with clean, reliable, cost-effective electricity for 100 years.

One of the members on the other side mumbled something about workers coming from outside, I think. B.C. Hydro is promoting local hiring by working with regional economic development agencies. They’re funding skills-training programs in the region, planning and participating in local and regional job fairs.

There are many local companies who are already seeing opportunities from Site C. I’m not going to name them all — there are too many, actually — but I’ll name a couple of them. Paul Paquette and Sons. The member for Peace River South will know that firm. Paul Paquette and Sons Contracting from Chetwynd have been awarded a contract for south-bank clearing. A.L. Sims and Son Ltd. from Prince George won a contract to improve public roads.

Other local companies working on the site already, 60 days in: Petrowest Construction from Charlie Lake. Charlie Lake is just on the other side of Fort St. John, if you don’t know where Charlie Lake is. The Fort St. John office of WSP Canada will be doing the surveying work, and there’s a company called Helical Pier Systems out of Fort St. John that’s been engaged to conduct the pile work for the camp.

These companies are all out recruiting local workers, and B.C. Hydro is planning on holding all of these job
[ Page 9287 ]
fairs. This is an opportunity for anybody in the province who is either out of work or wants a job that pays more to get hired on with this project, to get some training, to maybe work through an apprenticeship and improve their situation in life, make them happy. A job is what most people need to be the foundation for their lives and help them support their families.

B.C. Hydro is going to be hosting business-to-business networking sessions. They’re going to be introducing contractors in all of these communities. They’ll be in Tumbler Ridge. They’ll be in Chetwynd. They’re going to be in Fort St. John. They’re going to be in Dawson, obviously. They’re also going to be in Quesnel. These sessions will build on sessions that have already been held in 2014.

Labour stability. I do want to say a few things about labour stability, because I’ve heard from the opposition we’re not doing it the right way, that we should go back to the way it used to be done in the good old days and do it differently.

To ensure labour stability, the B.C. Building Trades and B.C. Hydro entered into an agreement.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: I don’t know whether the members heard me say that, because they were talking.

[1510]

To ensure labour stability, the B.C. Building Trades and B.C. Hydro entered into an agreement on the Site C clean energy project, recognizing that stability is best achieved with a mix of labour representation that includes the building trades unions.

The framework allows the project to operate as a managed open site that includes participation from union and non-union workers, as well as independent and First Nations contractors.

B.C. Hydro has agreed to place greater weight on bids with a mix of labour representation that includes the building trades unions. The B.C. building trades unions have agreed to no strike, no lockout, no raiding provisions and no organizing on the main civil works component of the project.

I can tell from all the mumbling on the other side that the NDP are very uncomfortable with the fact that B.C. Hydro and this government have been able to make peace, have been able to start a huge megaproject and have it built with a managed open site where everyone — non-union First Nations contractors; non-union, non–First Nations contractors; union contractors; union employees — gets a chance to work at Site C.

I came across an interesting quote just today. It was in the Vancouver Sun, written by Mr. Palmer. It said: “Well, the Leader of the Opposition came out last week and said he wants to see a project labour agreement on this. I’m tempted to tease the leader of the Opposition a little bit since the NDP doesn’t even want this project to go ahead.” Is that true? I wonder if that’s true. “They want a project labour agreement on a project that they don’t think should go ahead at this time because they think the entire mess should be sent to the Utilities Commission for another review.”

That pretty much sums up the position of the NDP on the Site C project.

We’ve all heard that the NDP think that we should have sent this Site C project to the BCUC. I read it on a regular basis in the newspapers, and I’ve heard it here in the House. I think we’ve all heard it — despite what I think can fairly be characterized as an extraordinary effort to do the due diligence that’s necessary, both by B.C. Hydro and their independent assessors and also by our Ministry of Finance. We have examined the need. We have examined the cost. We have examined the alternatives. We’ve examined the impacts. We’ve worked with First Nations as best we can. We’ve examined the environmental impact. We’ve examined the impact on agriculture. Yet the NDP claims to have a position that that’s not good enough. No, you should have sent it to the BCUC.

Just the other day I was leafing through some old Hansard records from the 1990s. Lo and behold, what did I find? I found that there was an NDP minister who actually agrees with our government that this kind of decision is best made by government. The current member for Port Coquitlam, who was then Minister of Energy — and a man I have the greatest respect for, and I’m sincere about that; I do — was a staunch advocate of it being within the purview of government, not the BCUC, to make public policy decisions on building capital projects.

I’m going to quote that member when he was Minister of Energy, sitting probably over here somewhere when he said it in July of 1998. “In terms of a public policy issue, the decision on whether or not to go through and approve power plants, for example, is the purview of the province.” Wow. He also said: “The question is: do you go through this one big environmental assessment process, come out of that and suddenly go through another process, when the issue of the Utilities Commission should really be the rates and the rate structure? It’s a question of eliminating red tape.” That’s what the member for Port Coquitlam said when he was Minister of Energy.

The Vancouver Province at the time characterized those statements and the position that the then government made. They said the following: “The government has made it official. New B.C. Hydro power projects will be exempt from examination by the B.C. Utilities Commission.”

So all of this hot air over the past three years from the opposition — “Oh, you should send it to the BCUC” — has just been that, just hot air.

[1515]

When they were in government, they actually took a position. Their Energy Minister stood in the House and
[ Page 9288 ]
said those kinds of projects actually don’t need to go to the BCUC. Government should make those kinds of big energy policy decisions. We certainly agree with that member when he was minister.

In concluding…. I’ve probably been up longer than my 30 minutes. I said right from the beginning that our primary consideration when considering Site C is how to meet the growing energy needs of the province but meet those growing needs in the best way possible for ratepayers. How can we generate that electricity in the most inexpensive way possible?

We have the third-lowest residential electricity rates in North America today. We need to keep them there. We have a ten-year plan. We’re going to stick to that plan. It’s good for ten years. Rates are not going to change. In addition to keeping our rates low, we also have an obligation to make sure that the system remains reliable and that it remains clean. That goes to the $2.4 billion that we’re spending right now on capital.

Just to remind members, 93 percent of the electricity we produce in this province is clean. I think we should be proud of that. I think we should be proud of the fact that our system is so reliable and is so clean.

I think we should also be proud of the fact that when there was an historic outage a few weeks ago from the windstorm, 710,000 users disconnected…. Within five days, the utility had them all reconnected. I don’t know if there is another place in North America that actually could pull that off. Within 72 hours, 99 percent of the ratepayers that had been disconnected — so 99 percent of those 710,000 ratepayers — were reconnected by B.C. Hydro.

We have a good system, I believe. Time will tell, but I believe that this project will be built on time and on budget.

It’s now time for me to turn it over to someone from the opposition. I know that there are members who have spoken out publicly against Site C. There is the member for North Island, the member for Saanich South, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads, the member for Surrey-Whalley. All have spoken out against Site C. I’m sure they’re all going to jump to their feet today and speak against the Site C project. The member for Vancouver-Hastings has done that; the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

This one really surprises me and, actually, astonishes me: the member for Kootenay West. She said Site C doesn’t need to be built. The member for Kootenay West, another person I have a lot of personal respect for, lives in the heart of the Columbia River hydroelectric system. She knows what benefits come from large hydroelectric projects. She knows where all these jobs come from. She knows about the tax revenues that communities like Trail and Castlegar derive from that system, yet she’s opposed to the Site C project.

On that note, I’m going to turn it over to the opposition. They’re going to tell us very clearly — and I’m going to keep track — who opposes the Site C project and who supports it.

A. Dix: Just as a sort of homage to the minister, I will start my speech the same way he did — by saying that I am, indeed, the designated speaker for the official opposition on this motion.

The Liberal government announced this project last December — final phase. We had a session in the spring. February — didn’t raise it. March — didn’t raise it. In April, we raised it. I asked the minister about it in estimates. He’ll recall the debate. He was there. Didn’t do it in May.

The last day of the session they had an emergency ministerial statement, where they announced that in October they were going to bring it forward to the House for debate. So we know…. Well, a ministerial statement, by definition, is…. Actually, the minister might want to review the basic rules of his job.

[1520]

In any event, the minister did all that. We know what today is. It’s the government being the government. I mean, this is the day where they added to red tape and laws by introducing a law saying they were proud of eliminating red tape. This is the government we’re talking about.

Yesterday we heard government members celebrating the Auditor General for Local Government and saying: “Absolutely, there should be regulatory processes and oversight.” Today they have a motion that says: “We don’t care about regulatory authority and oversight.” They will say anything. They will do anything. But everybody in British Columbia now knows that we can do better than the minister just did in this House.

On B.C. Hydro, which is what we’re talking about today, the minister will recall the conclusions of our estimates. B.C. Hydro, over the last number of years under Liberal administration, is in chaos. It was their reviews, their urgent reports, their hiring of Mr. Dyble and others to go in and try and save the situation.

They have spent the last good part of a decade avoiding the law with respect to the BCUC. Burrard thermal — they didn’t listen to the BCUC. The minister didn’t refer to Burrard thermal. That’s 900 megawatts of capacity down the drain, contrary to the opinion of the BCUC. Of course, he didn’t discuss that as an option because it wasn’t yellowed out in the report.

Smart meters — they made all kinds of commitments on smart meters that have disappeared. A billion-dollar investment taken away from the BCUC. The green energy plan, otherwise known as “no Liberal lobbyist left behind,” exempted from the BCUC. The northwest transmission line, exempted from BCUC review. The IT plan? They didn’t exempt that; they simply didn’t tell the BCUC the truth about it. That’s what we discovered over the last number of months. Those were the conclusions of estimates.
[ Page 9289 ]

Generally, the minister’s response when I put these things to him was: “Gosh, I agree, but we’ll do better in the future.” What’s the consequence of that, though? We have to understand what the consequence are of the decisions that the government has made.

Their decisions on the Interior–Lower Mainland line — yet another over budget. Their decisions on northwest transmission, their decisions on DCAT — also over budget. Their decisions on all these questions that they have exempted are being felt today by every ratepayer, every renter, every homeowner, every small business, every medium-sized business and every industrial user.

In fact, their 28 percent rate increases were caused by Liberal policies, caused by policies where they said: “We know better. We don’t have to prove our case. We don’t have to show the facts to the people of B.C. We don’t have to follow the law and go to the BCUC.” It’s the taxpayer, the ratepayer who has paid the price for this incompetence at B.C. Hydro.

Now, people say: how could this possibly happen? On all of this list of projects, how could the Minister of Energy, who seems like — some of the time, at least — an affable fellow — maybe all of the time an affable fellow…? How could he be so wrong all the time? How could he be wrong on billions and billions of dollars’ worth of projects?

Well, I think the only answer to that question…. I know it’s unfair, and as soon as I do it, I’m going to regret having done it. As soon as I say it, I’m going to regret having done it, but I think the only thing we can do at this point is to quote the minister himself.

[1525]

What did the minister say about Site C and the BCUC? It wasn’t what he said in the House today. It was a version of it, I suppose. He said: “I wouldn’t characterize” — we’re talking about a $9 billion project that they exempted from regulatory review — “my view of the Site C project as one of confidence.” Well, that makes me feel better. “I’m not confident. I’m just the guy.”

When asked if putting Site C to a regulatory review would get in the way of the provincial government’s energy plans, he said: “That would have exposed these projects to the intervener process that we have at the BCUC.”

People would have actually been able to ask questions and to challenge the government’s assumptions, under oath, according to the law. When the minister says that, that is what he’s saying. He says: “It doesn’t matter what the facts are, it doesn’t matter what the proposal is, I decide, and I’m not going to follow the law. It doesn’t matter what it said in the Liberal platform again and again and again. It didn’t matter what the former leader and the current leader of the Liberal Party said about the BCUC. That’s all in the past. We’ve made all of these mistakes, and I’m the minister, and I’m planning to repeat them.”

How does he do it? Well, what’s his decision-making process? I think people, when they again see the political debate, probably think the minister talked about the rigorous debate in caucus that his members had and the rigorous debate in cabinet. Fortunately, the minister, in a rare moment of clarity, a rare moment of insight, let us in on how they make these sorts of decisions when he talked about the northwest transmission line.

Here’s what he said…. I’m quoting the minister again. Again, it seems unfair, and yet I’m doing it.

“I will share with you what I think happened with the northwest transmission line. Back, many years ago, when then Premier Campbell decided we were going to build that line — and it was a courageous decision on his part — he needed a number to use when he was announcing this. I think Hydro came out with a very preliminary number. Typically, what they do is they’ll come out with a number, and they’ll say it could be 50 percent higher or 30 percent lower. That’s the kind of number that came out.”

As the minister knows, that is the number that they put in their budget, that is the number they put in B.C. Hydro’s public information, and that is the number that, clearly, this minister and the government didn’t believe in at the time. When you want an insight into their processes — and I cut short his tribute to Premier Campbell there just for the sake of the minister — that’s the insight you need: that they needed a number and they came up with a number.

You can do that if you don’t follow the law and go to the BCUC. You can’t do that if you have to go to the BCUC and answer questions under oath. That’s why they decided, and that’s why they’re down this road one more time. Even after a BCUC review, they’re going down that road one more time.

It was this government that committed to using the BCUC on these very projects, and they broke their word to the voters of B.C. again and again and again, and the voters of B.C. have paid the price again and again and again.

Now, the minister talked about Hydro’s estimate of costs in that context. To use what we’ll call the Minister of Energy doctrine of plus 50 to minus 30, he sort of narrowed the cost of the project to between $6 billion and $14 billion, through that ministerial formula. In any event, he has, in fact, over time…. We’ve seen the increase of the project, since the previous Premier, his friend Mr. Campbell, announced it, increase by approximately 33 percent. That means $2.3 billion, if you’re keeping track at home.

Who believes, after this litany of overruns on the northwest transmission line, on ILM, on all the major projects combined and cumulatively, if you add that and DCAT….? We’re talking about overruns of close to $1 billion. Who believes them anymore? I mean we could have believed them if they’d gone to the BCUC on northwest transmission. They chose not to do that. They’ve exempted themselves, as they have in this case.

[1530]

We know, from the minister’s own analysis of Liberal policies and Liberal strategies here, that they picked a number, they found a number, and now they’re trying to sell a number, a new number in terms of costs.
[ Page 9290 ]

It’s not just this project; other projects go over budget. We know, for example, that back east, the Muskrat project…. That project, of course, went through financial reviews, as they do with these sizes of projects in most jurisdictions — and this is with a contractor currently on the short list for B.C. Hydro — and is going massively over budget. But in that case, at least they had a project that went through a financial review and had an oversight committee — something they don’t have in this case — to deal with it.

Compare that and this. A 1,100 megawatt Site C project at an estimated cost of $8.9 billion has undergone no public financial reviews. I repeat: no public financial reviews. It’s not subject to any oversight committee, and the province of B.C. is guaranteeing the debt for 70 years. That’s what they’re doing — 70 years — this government of contractual obligations of tens of billions of dollars of B.C. Hydro, and they’re doing it one more time.

The only transmission — and this is different than Muskrat — included in the Site C budget is the link to B.C. Hydro’s Peace Canyon project, which is about 90 kilometres away. How you get it from there to market is anyone’s guess and not included, in any event, in the cost.

B.C. taxpayers, because of this minister and this process, won’t know of cost overruns until the project is completed. The responsible individuals will be long gone, maybe back in Ontario telling stories of the good old days in the Kootenays.

In any event, all we can say about this situation is that the government has proven itself at B.C. Hydro again and again not to be credible on the issue of costs. Yet here we are, a motion saying: “Trust us. We failed you every time before, but trust us now.”

The second question, I guess, is: do we need the power? Do we need this amount of power in this way now? Again, what we have is a government that has failed and continues to fail to be straightforward with British Columbians.

The last public forecast, the one referred to in the minister’s speech, was from 2012. It was the basis of the 2013 IRP. That is the last forecast. It used to be the case that they would come out with such forecasts every year, but in the lead-up to the Site C decision, suddenly that disappeared — even though people at B.C. Hydro tell me, and surely they tell the minister, that in fact those forecasts are in serious jeopardy.

This year — I’m just, again, unfairly reading from government materials and B.C. Hydro’s materials — there is an actual reduction of 1,320 gwh in the domestic tariff sales. That’s about a quarter of Site C. That’s how much it was reduced this year under this government. Over the last ten years, industrial demand has actually dropped significantly in British Columbia. Heavens, if we hadn’t had such a pro-business government….

In fact, they have been consistently wrong, consistently overestimating demand. Now they overestimate demand and are trying to put forward this project. So the question is, I guess: do we need the power?

The answer is: B.C. Hydro won’t give us the information, but just about everybody from consumer groups to seniors groups to the business community says that they don’t. They are afraid that what will happen here is exactly what happened the last time they exempted themselves from the BCUC — that they’ll be caught holding the bill for a huge mistake by the B.C. Liberal government. Again, if the government has confidence in its numbers, which they’re currently hiding from the public, why don’t they take them to the BCUC and show them? They don’t.

[1535]

It’s an interesting question, and even in B.C. Hydro’s own model — imagine, its own model — they couldn’t, I guess, wash through the document dramatically enough. What it shows is….

It’s in the integrated resource plan. It may or not have been yellowed out. Since it’s bad news, it probably wasn’t yellowed in the briefing note, but it showed — that note, chapter 6, bills with Site C — that B.C. Hydro would save about $250 million if the service date for Site C was deferred from 2024 to 2026. That’s not me saying it; that’s B.C. Hydro saying it.

That’s $250 million. Imagine what the people of B.C. could do with $250 million. And this is after the model was cooked to favour Site C. The question, I guess…. I will happily share that information with the minister — who, I know, will be listening carefully in any event — in Hansard.

We go on to this question of needing the power and what’s the best option. I asked the minister when he was speaking about Burrard Thermal. The government rejected the BCUC’s advice. It rejected common sense that this is a backup for our system.

What we need is capacity. That’s what B.C. Hydro says: we will need capacity by 2020. What they did was got rid of that capacity. Also, the minister shelved the Revelstoke 6 project at the same time.

Interjection.

A. Dix: The minister says it’s not true. I guess the minister thinks that deferring a project till 2033 isn’t shelving it. In any event, he shelved Revelstoke 6. What does Revelstoke 6 bring? It brings about half the capacity, which is what B.C. Hydro says it needs, as the Site C project.

According to B.C. Hydro…. You know, I got this off their website again today. Indeed, it’s unfair to read their website. I’m glad I can at this point. The minister will recall, having discussed his IT plan with us in the House, that the minister and the government went 900 percent over budget on a website upgrade, and I don’t think that worked very well. I was able to access the website today. Only 900 percent. I think if we were to apply a Liberal bell curve to that, that might not be bad.
[ Page 9291 ]

In any event, off their website today, what does it say? So 500 megawatts of capacity — about 45 percent of what Site C can bring — for $420 million. We need capacity. Just remember that Revelstoke 6 adds to an existing footprint at Revelstoke.

It would create jobs. It would save ratepayers money. It would be done under the Allied Hydro Council agreement, according to the B.C. Hydro website. It wouldn’t put at risk any agricultural land or raise any issues with First Nations. The minister shelved it, and the only reason that he shelved it was because if you did this, you couldn’t do Site C. If you spent the $420 million, you couldn’t spend the $8.775 billion. I guess that looks like a bigger number — and it is — in a press release. But it doesn’t feel so good when you’re a ratepayer having to pay the price.

Is there a business case? When the minister and the Premier shelved Revelstoke 6 in favour of Site C — shelved the less expensive project, the more efficient project, for the more expensive project that will cost ratepayers and cost jobs — was there a business case for this? Did they produce a business case for this? Is there one they could show the BCUC or this House or the opposition? Surely, the Liberal MLAs will raise that in the debate and show us the model they used. These numbers are big numbers.

[1540]

I mean, imagine you’re involved in organizing socials at a church, as I happen to do from time to time, and you had the choice between buying the 20 loaves of bread you needed for, say…. I don’t know. Theirs is more expensive, and we get a nice bulk rate. Let’s say $30. Or you could do what the….

Interjection.

A. Dix: Oh, Revelstoke 6 isn’t green electricity? Of course it is. The minister is saying it’s not green electricity. B.C. Hydro says it is right here on its website that’s working today. It’s working today, so I was able to access that today. It’s green electricity.

If the minister was at your church and he was organizing a luncheon and he was making sandwiches and he wanted to order and we needed 20 loaves of bread — because, you know, it’s a United Church and we’re a smaller church — what he would propose is if you need 20 loaves of bread, which you could buy for $30, he’d say: “Well, let’s buy 55 loaves of bread and let’s pay $700.” That’s what he is talking about here.

If he wants to test that analysis before the B.C. Utilities Commission, I invite him to do so. But the fact of the matter is that Burrard and Revelstoke 6 have more capacity in Site C, and capacity is what B.C. Hydro needs. We’re talking about, according to the minister, $9 billion — according to the minister’s formula, up to $14 billion — for this project. That’s what we’re talking about.

You know what would happen if the minister proposed to spend $600 instead of $30 at the church and someone complained? You know what he’d say? “Oh, it’s about leadership.” That’s what he’d say. “I don’t want my views questioned. I don’t want to follow the rules and have my views questioned. We’re buying the gold-plated bread.” That’s what he would say. “We are not going to go to the BCUC, as we repeatedly promised to do.” That is the gist of the minister’s position on that question.

Then there are other options, of course. Revelstoke 6 is simply one of the options that’s available to the government. The minister talked about having reviewed all the options. Essentially, that meant he reviewed one option that he wanted to proceed with and option B, which was really lousy. What he discovered was option A was better. He created this false debate. He didn’t talk about Burrard. He didn’t talk about Revelstoke 6. He didn’t look at what’s happening in the energy industry.

He would be the kind of guy who would say, “You know, I’m going to buy a cell phone for the next ten years,” ignoring the circumstances in the market. Again, he can test that out. If he disagrees with my view of things, he can test that out by referring this $9 billion to $14 billion budget…. According to the Minister of Energy’s doctrine, it could be that high — 50 percent more, 30 percent less.

He could test that out by going to the BCUC and answering the questions of B.C. business and answering the questions of B.C. small business and seniors groups and consumers, groups that he describes in here as not worthy of having their voice heard about the future of energy policy in B.C. and which, regardless of that, is in fact the law in British Columbia. He could do that, and he has chosen not to do that.

I think that’s why we’re here today — because this is the way that the government does business. They want to do something, and it doesn’t matter what the rules are. They’re going to do it because, as the minister says and as the government says, you know, we won’t be paying the bills, there won’t be an impact on energy rates, until 2024 or ’25 or ’26, when it’s finished.

They put forward numbers that are not credible. They’re before the courts right now on Site C, on this very day we’re debating it. Here’s what they say before the courts. They say that a year’s delay has a total cost impact at Site C of $335 million.

[1545]

Now, that’s very interesting — a year’s delay — because Site C in the original plan, the Campbell Minister of Energy plan, was supposed to be completed by 2020, and it was supposed to cost $7.9 billion. Here’s the latest — $335 million. And yet, as of last year, the cost, when it’s 2024 — this is what they’re telling the courts — was still $7.9 billion. They have shown none of this as a basis for changing their assessment of the project.

They found a number that they like, and they’re going to stick to it until the bills come in and ratepayers have to pay. And they have done this, as we say, again and again and again — avoiding, disinterested in other options, dis-
[ Page 9292 ]
interested in considering seriously other proposals and other options that would create more jobs.

So yes, jobs too. Because it costs jobs when you have a 28 percent rate increase, as we have now. It costs families, because they can’t afford to do the things they need to do. It costs small businesses, because they can’t afford to bring on new workers. It costs our major industrial businesses when they try and compete internationally.

The cost of similar Liberal decisions in the past that they failed to take to the B.C. Utilities Commission — those cost jobs too. When you decide on the $9 billion option instead of the $450 million option, that costs jobs too. When you have a project that’s amortized over 70 years and you’re arguing for a flat “no improvement in technology” over that time, that costs jobs too.

When you turn down projects like Revelstoke 6…. I know it’s unfair. And the member for Surrey-Whalley is very unhappy that I am quoting from the minister’s documents again. But I have to do it. Here’s what their document says today, and my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings will be speaking to this.

“Construction work for the Revelstoke unit 6 project would be completed by independent contractors through several large contracts that would be awarded according to B.C. Hydro’s procurement policies. Under an agreement with the Allied Hydro Council, workers for the projects would be hired through the Columbia Hydro Constructors agreement that includes provisions to support local and equity hire.”

It’s right on their website. They’ve rejected this notion. It’s right on their website, as if something to celebrate.

The Revelstoke unit 5 project hired over 380 person-years of trades work under the CHC agreement. Of these, 33 percent were local hires, and 6 percent were First Nation hires. The Revelstoke 6 project would be expected to similarly create 390 person-years of direct employment.

This is what we have. We need capacity, according to B.C. Hydro, and they’re delaying capacity. We need capacity by 2020. That’s what your report says. So they have decided, because they could get Revelstoke done and in place for that time, to delay it. They created the need for that capacity by shutting down Burrard, and now they want to spend, without any review. Nonsense. It has no impact on B.C. Hydro’s system? I mean, no one takes the minister’s comments seriously in this regard. No one takes them seriously.

I would say — and my colleagues who will take part in this debate — as we vote against a motion that’s misinformed, vote against a motion that’s incorrect, vote against a motion that takes us down the same path that the Liberal government took us in all these projects that, after the election, they told us were going to cost us so much on our hydro bills and hurt the competitiveness of British Columbia…. That is the reality of what has happened here.

But in addition to all of that, there are other issues. I mean, if you could, hon. Speaker, create more jobs, would you do it? I think most people would say the answer is yes. The Liberal government doesn’t care to find out.

Can you get the same amount of capacity significantly cheaper? We know you can, because B.C. Hydro says you can. We should try and find out. But the Liberal government doesn’t want to know.

Ignorance is not a defence of public policy. Deliberately avoiding the facts is not a defence of public policy.

[1550]

I remind people, the members opposite, that the consequences for people in the region, the consequences for the environment, the consequences for First Nations, the consequences for agriculture are serious, and my colleagues in this House are going to speak in detail to those questions in the course of this debate.

There is an option to avoid those consequences or, at least, to put those issues to the B.C. Utilities Commission. That’s what we would do. That’s what we believe in. We think B.C. Hydro and the government should, after failure after failure, after overrun after overrun, do what’s right. If they have the courage of their convictions, they should take their case to the BCUC and see what that kind of review would show. They should not do five-page reports on the economic value of a $9 billion project and say: “We’ve consulted.”

Instead, they should show the business case that says this makes more sense than Revelstoke 6. They should show the business case that says it makes more sense than Burrard. They should show the business case that says it makes more sense than other clean energy projects around B.C. They should show that business case, but they don’t want to because they already know the answer. All they want are political stunts like this. They know they’re not going to be around when we have to pay the price for these mistakes, and they don’t want to make the case now.

As an opposition, we will be voting clearly and unequivocally against the motion, against this political stunt by the government. And we will again implore the government, for the future of B.C. — for our children, for the region, for First Nations, for agriculture, for our business community and for our jobs — to come to their senses and refer this project to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Hon. M. Bernier: First of all, I want to thank my colleague the Minister of Energy and Mines for bringing this forward today. Looking at the motion, there are a couple of ones that pop up right in time for me to really look at this.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ll get to you in a moment, thank you.

One of the things out of this motion that really comes to mind for me is why we need to do this — because the Site C clean energy project represents the most affordable way to generate 1,100 megawatts of clean and reli-
[ Page 9293 ]
able power. And then the other portions of this…. The Site C clean energy project will create jobs for thousands of British Columbians. In the motion, that, I think, sums it up why this is an important project. These are important decisions to make for government.

As mentioned earlier, too, 80 percent of British Columbians, in the polls, are in favour of this project. I’m not going to make my decisions completely on polls. I know that the members opposite sometimes like to rely on polls. We saw how that worked in 2013 for them. But for myself, I’m making this decision based on the facts.

I want to stand up right away and say I’m in favour of this project, and I’ll tell you why I’m in favour of this project. What I’m hoping is that members opposite, when they stand up, before they get into a half an hour of talking about Burrard Thermal and talking about Revelstoke and talking about everything except the motion that’s on the floor…. What I’m hoping you’ll do is actually stand up and say yes or no — “Am I in favour, or am I not?” — and then say why.

I’m not hoping that you’ll all stand up and say you’re in favour. I know you won’t. But I do know there are a lot of members opposite that are in favour of this. They understand that there are jobs at play. It’s going to be interesting to see how today works out. This is important for the people here in British Columbia.

I’ll tell you why I’m in favour — because it is affordable. It’s reliable, clean electricity, and this is the backbone. Our hydroelectricity is the backbone of British Columbia. B.C. Hydro has done an amazing job, and it’s a legacy that we should be proud of here in British Columbia.

I can tell you that in my former role, when I was the Parliamentary Secretary for Energy Literacy, I had the privilege of travelling around in the United States and parts of Canada in that role. One thing that I heard over and over again is how lucky we are here in British Columbia.

[1555]

When I was travelling around the United States, when I was in Dakota and Idaho and Montana and I was talking with governors and with elected officials down there about being from British Columbia, every single one of them said how lucky we are in British Columbia to have clean power, to have hydro power. They’re in a position right now — and other parts of Canada and the United States — of trying to make tough decisions. How do they get off of coal? Do they refire up their nuclear plants?

Here we are in British Columbia, with the decision in front of us for the future of British Columbia, for my children. Do we make the decisions now, as great leaders before us made, to make sure we have clean, reliable power; that we have cheap, affordable power; that we can grow the province; that we can grow industry; that we can have jobs? Can we do all that in the province of British Columbia?

Well, I want to bring this a little bit closer to home for myself. I look at this as the jobs. This project is in my backyard, so I see the impacts. I’ve heard from people in my area what they support and the concerns they have.

The minister before me, when he spoke, talked about the $20 million agriculture fund. I want to thank my colleague from Peace River North, who was very vocal about the fact that we needed to ensure that when B.C. Hydro made the decision that we wanted to have a $20 million agriculture fund, that money was spent in the Peace region. He stood up for constituents in the area, and I was proud to stand next to him, to make sure that that $20 million is going to be spent in our riding.

You know, today is all about…. Really, I guess it’s the line in the sand. Today is where we actually stand up, and we’re accountable to our constituents. This is where we get to actually decide what we are for, what we’re against, and to be able to be accountable for that.

In that, I actually want to acknowledge my good friend, I’ll say, from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who’s the leader of the Green Party. One thing I can say about that member…. I don’t always agree with everything that that member says or what he comes forward with, but one thing I will say is that when he stands up, he stands up with conviction. He makes a decision. He stands up. He tells the room here what he thinks, how he’s going to vote. I expect everybody in this House to do exactly that.

On this side of the House today, you’re going to hear from each of us that stand up why we’re in favour of this. We’re not shying away from the fact that we’re in favour. We’re going to all collectively say that we’re in favour of this. I’m hoping the members opposite, when they stand up, will stand up with the same conviction, for or against. Tell us where you stand. Tell your constituents where you stand, be accountable for the decisions that you’re going to make today in the House.

I can understand, though, why it might be a little bit confusing for some of the members opposite. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway, painstakingly, through most of his comments today, without actually saying whether he’s for or against…. I assume that he’s against, towards the end of it, the way he was talking.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Bernier: My apologies. He is in the unknown category right now, but we think he’s against. I’ll stand up and say that.

I can understand why it might be confusing for a lot of the members opposite, when most of the conversation was around “this needs to go for another review; this needs to go back to the BCUC.” I’m not sure. Most of the time….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Bernier: I know. It is interesting, because through question period, everything I hear is: “We don’t need more reviews.” The opposition keeps saying: “Stop
[ Page 9294 ]
doing reviews. Make a decision. This should be easy.” Now, they’re saying: “Do a review.” I can understand why it’s confusing for the members opposite when it comes to the discussion today.

It’s also really understandable why it might be hard for some members opposite today to stand up. I mentioned the member for Vancouver-Kingsway talking about the BCUC. This project has gone under more scrutiny than any other project, I would say, in B.C.’s history. But what’s interesting about that is that even though he’s saying it should be going for more scrutiny back to the BCUC, when the NDP were in government, the Minister of Energy and Mines at the time actually said: “Our government has made it official. All new B.C. Hydro power projects will be exempt from the B.C. Utilities Commission.”

I can understand why it might be a little confusing, because that member is actually still here serving. I can understand that the discussions behind the scenes might be a little bit tough to have.

On this side of the House, we’ve made it really clear. We’ve looked at the information. We’ve discussed the challenges. We’ve discussed the opportunities.

[1600]

Back to the opportunities, for a moment. One of the things I want to do is thank B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro has made a commitment to, wherever possible, hire local in my region. There are going to be a lot of opportunities, and I want to say not just in northeastern British Columbia.

As the Minister of Energy and Mines said, 10,000 jobs are coming out of this project — that we’re expecting. I actually am happy to say I don’t think we have 10,000 people up in northeast B.C. that are unemployed and looking for work. So we know — because of everything else that’s going on in my area, how active my part of the province is — that this is going to be all of British Columbia. There are going to be opportunities for everybody. This isn’t just about my beautiful corner of the province.

When I look right across the north, when I look right across into Vancouver…. I know there are environmental companies that are already working on projects, as well, up in my area. So this is something that is near and dear to my heart because of what it’s going to bring to my area.

The minister, earlier, mentioned the benefits to my area. I just want to reiterate a few of those. To me, it’s really important to highlight the fact that this project is really important not only for jobs but for the economy within the province of British Columbia, specifically in my area. I would say that throughout this entire process….

I know for some reason Site C sounds like a shock to some people, even though discussions have been going on since, I believe, the late 1960s. I will say that that’s actually when I was born. So that kind of gives you an idea of how long we were talking about Site C or a third dam on the Peace River. Through all of that time….

I really want to commend B.C. Hydro and everybody for this as well. Specifically, in the last five or six years, the amount of work on the ground that has taken place in discussions, communications with First Nations, communications with the regional district, communications with the municipalities…. I was part of some of those discussions. Some of them were tough discussions and heated discussions, but B.C. Hydro and communities all came to an understanding of what was important for the region and what was important for the province of British Columbia.

When I look at the regional legacy benefits coming to the regional district, specifically…. It’s going to provide $2.4 million annually to the regional district. That’s for 70 years. For the next 70 years we have that as a legacy coming into my region.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I look at some of the relationships and the negotiations that have taken place and the MOUs with First Nations and with municipalities. This is something in my area…. Again, it’s near and dear to a lot of people’s hearts.

Now, I don’t want to leave the impression that 100 percent of the people in my area support this. There are going to be people affected. We’ve talked about that. We have not shied away from discussing that. There are people that are going to be affected. We understand that. What’s really important is how those discussions take place, what kind of compensation, what kinds of opportunities we’re going to have.

When we talk about part of the valley, where we’re going to lose some agricultural opportunities…. That $20 million fund is being worked on. We’re going to have a group in place, where we’re going to actually look at: how can we work in the area, how can we have more opportunities, and how can we make things better?

I think the main part here is: what message are we trying to send? What are we trying to tell the people of British Columbia here? What legacy do we want to leave? I know for myself what’s really important is that we know that there are tough decisions to make now for the benefits of the future. Today might be one of those days.

It’s making sure we have the right information in front of us, which we have. It’s making sure we understand how we want to see British Columbia change and grow, which we know. We want to ensure that people have jobs. We want to ensure that the children today, as they’re going through school, when they graduate, have opportunities. We want to make sure that there are opportunities for First Nations in the province. We want to make sure, as a government, that we’re investing in the future.

I’m looking forward to hearing the members opposite stand up, challenge those questions and say: “We’re against all that.” Because if they’re against this motion, they’re saying no to jobs, they’re saying no to growth, and they’re saying no to the future of British Columbia.

[1605]

For myself, what’s really important is that I’m saying yes to the future of British Columbia. I’m saying yes to building a strong economy, and I’m saying yes to making sure that we have a thriving province here, the envy of Canada. It’s because of decisions like this — bold decisions, I will say — that are going to put British Columbia, and continue to have British Columbia, on the map as the best place to live in the world.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim.

S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and welcome to the chair. It’s the first time that I’ve been in the House where you’ve been in the seat. Again, congratulations on the position.

I rise today to speak to a dubious motion — I was surprised by it — and I do so reluctantly. The motion reads: “Be it resolved that this House supports the construction of the Site C Clean Energy Project; because the Site C Clean Energy Project represents the most affordable way to generate 1,100 megawatts of clean and reliable power; and the Site C Clean Energy Project will create jobs for thousands of British Columbians; and the Site C Clean Energy Project has been the subject of a thorough environmental review process.”

Well, this is a motion that is a political stunt. We should be spending…. This project is underway. The B.C. Liberals forced through the approval of this project already. They started construction five weeks ago. The fact is that we’re in this place when we should be debating critical issues around children and families, or loss of privacy, or just a complete failure on the LNG front and all the promises made to win the last election. We could be talking about that, if we’re looking for maybe some cheap political thrills here. That would be more reality than what this motion is.

This motion is just a political game. It has no bearing one way or another on the outcome. I’ll tell the member across, because he was soliciting this, that I am voting against the motion, if he had not noticed. If there was ever an explanation of why the Premier didn’t cancel another fall session, I guess she saw an opportunity maybe for some cheap political points on this, instead of governance, which is sorely lacking from this Premier and this minister.

Now we already know in the motion…. Certainly our critic, in his very eloquent response to the minister, already showed there were numerous alternatives to Site C that could indeed be construed as more affordable as a way of generating 1,100 megawatts of power, and they were dismissed by this minister and by this government and by this Premier.

But they were dismissed summarily, in a way that the truth would have come out on, if indeed the minister and this government had used the regulator to review options. That’s the job of the B.C. Utilities Commission. Taking that job away from the regulator raises every alarm flag for me and for British Columbians on this project.

Now, I’m the critic — and I’m proud and honoured to be the critic for the opposition — the spokesperson for aboriginal relations. I’m going to focus on that in my limited time here in this debate.

I’ll go back to a quote from the minister from 2013. It was in an article by Justine Hunter. When he was asked about the regulatory review, which I was just suggesting, the minister said: “That would have exposed those projects to the intervener process that we have with the BCUC.” Well, exactly — the intervener process. First Nations, Treaty 8 Nations, First Nations of the north would have a real opportunity to be part of that process. That was denied to them. So now we’re seeing endless litigation on this. Back to the courts. It’s the same old no respect for First Nations in the region.

[1610]

You’ve got to know that there’s one point that all parties agree to. If this valley is flooded, the cultural and historical loss will be unavoidable and significant. All parties agree to that. Despite promises from B.C. Hydro to try to mitigate that, in many cases it’s simply impossible to mitigate that.

We’re talking about 12,000 years that people have roamed the Peace River Valley. Prior to contact, for aboriginal groups, it often was their way to place their dead in trees, on platforms. Even after that, those buried in historic times were not interred in churchyards, in graveyards, but on the land in special places that were considered sacred and kept secret by those families.

Indeed, Treaty 8 nations in B.C. are opposed to this project. They’ve been in court on this project. There are court cases underway right now. But the plans are to build this dam without any oversight of the regulator, flooding 5,000 hectares of land in the valley. Also, the collateral damage is…. There are 300, 400 — that I’ve read about — documented, recorded, significant archaeological sites, burial sites — and, as I pointed out, many we don’t even know about because it’s a sacred issue for First Nations.

I am not going to speak for First Nations on this. Representatives like Chief Roland Willson from the West Moberly First Nations are doing a more than adequate job here. But there is a treaty. They don’t call it treaty 8 for nothing. You could argue that destroying the land now used for hunting and fishing and collecting medicinal plants is an abrogation of the treaty.

Treaty 8 nations have the right to continue with their way of life. That’s not just a treaty issue. That was established through the courts — landmark decision, the Tsilhqot’in, for those that recall. The government doesn’t seem to quite be following that landmark court case with any real significant changes.

One of the key pieces of that court case…. The court case spoke about the importance of the next generation,
[ Page 9296 ]
that we have to be able to ensure that next generations have the same opportunities on the land, on the territories, that their forefathers and previous generations had. Flooding that land again…. This has happened before. I’ve heard the tragic stories where even coffins of ancestors were floated to the surface when areas were flooded. We should have learned from that.

These are human rights issues, and bringing forward a bogus motion that we’re discussing after the fact for cheap political points is the height of disrespect to the First Nations that are still fighting for their human rights — their legal rights, yes, their treaty rights, yes, but their human rights.

This government took away one of the main mechanisms for First Nations to have a real and meaningful role in consultation on Site C. They refused to do what governments are supposed to do and bring this forward to the B.C. Utilities Commission. The minister stated that the reason for that was to avoid the BCUC’s pesky intervener process. Well, it’s not a pesky intervener process. It’s due process, and it was denied to Treaty 8 First Nations. It was denied to Chief Roland Willson, to Chief Liz Logan and their communities and their nations, and that is simply wrong.

[1615]

I’ll quote from Chief Roland Willson in a statement he made in Alaska Highway News.

“It is hard to believe that it is legal for a government to decide to destroy a major river valley that is central to the exercise of our treaty rights without first making sure that its decision does not infringe on those rights.

“Apparently, all the government needs to do is make sure we have been consulted before making decisions that may actually be a violation of our treaty. This couldn’t have been what our ancestors intended when they entered into the treaty based on this government’s promise that there would be no forced intervention with our way of life.”

Those are words from Chief Willson and also words from the treaty, which was signed by the Crown.

This process, in denying First Nations that process — the due process through an intervener status, for instance, with the B.C. Utilities Commission — is simply wrong.

With that in mind, I will be taking my seat, and I again confirm that I will be voting against this motion.

M. Morris: You know, it’s been interesting this last couple of years, in the political life that I have assumed and some other folks have assumed for the first time, listening to the banter back and forth across this House and watching and observing some of the things that are taking place. But in particular, to this project and this motion, which I fully support….

I respect my fellow colleague the minister for bringing this forward. This is something that needs to be discussed, and the people of British Columbia need to hear the position of the opposition in this as well as some reinforcement from our side that this is good for British Columbia.

When my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway, my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim and members opposite from the various municipalities that we have in British Columbia here get up in the morning, pad across the floor and turn the light switch on in their respective homes, apartments, wherever they might live…. I do know that there’s power across to the Island here because I fly over those cables all the time.

They turn that power on, and they take that power for granted. It’s just something that’s always there and always will be there. It’s there as our population expands and the Surreys of the world…. Across the Lower Mainland, throughout the urbanized area of British Columbia, it’s going to be growing and growing and growing. We’re going to have another million people here in the next decade or so.

Where is that power coming from? That power comes from the Columbia River, power from the W.A.C. Bennett dam in my neck of the woods, in northeast B.C. That power is there. It has been providing a great lifestyle for British Columbians since 1968 with respect to the W.A.C. Bennett dam. It provides the lifestyle that people have become accustomed to down in urban British Columbia here, where 85 percent of our population lives.

The superstructure that carries that power right across the province here comes from our mining industry in British Columbia, which runs on the power that’s generated from W.A.C. Bennett dam, from the Peace Canyon dam, from the Columbia River power systems and the Revelstoke system. All the other systems that we have here have provided British Columbians with a lifestyle that is envied by many across the world here.

That level of power is not going to provide the needs of British Columbia in the foreseeable future. We need to up the ante a little bit. We need to increase the amount of power generation that we have in the province here — of clean power generation.

[1620]

We have the option in B.C. to do something that most jurisdictions in North America and most jurisdictions around the world probably don’t have. It’s the option that we have in looking at clean hydro power to generate — what are we? — 98 percent of our power in British Columbia, generated by hydroelectricity. That’s a phenomenal figure, and it’s something that Alberta, Saskatchewan, many other jurisdictions across North America are very envious about.

We also have the third-lowest rates in North America. I was just listening — I think it was this morning — on CBC News to some advocacy group wanting government to ensure that we provide low power for the low-income folks in the Lower Mainland here, and I’m saying we are doing that. We have the third-lowest rates in North America.

We’re going to continue to have low rates in British Columbia for probably the next century because of the investment that we’re putting into hydro today with Site C and upgrading, spending the billions of dollars every
[ Page 9297 ]
year in ensuring that the current structure that B.C. Hydro has is maintained so that it’s providing the most efficient and the maximum power that we can.

If we had adopted the methods that the members opposite are talking about way back in the 1950s and ’60s, when they were talking about the W.A.C. Bennett dam, we probably wouldn’t have a W.A.C. Bennett dam today. As a result of that W.A.C. Bennett dam, British Columbia became a leader in the pulp industry. Our forest industry increased significantly right across the province here, where we’ve become…. Now we are the leaders in the softwood industry in Canada because of W.A.C. Bennett dam.

The population of Prince George benefited from three pulp mills that have been running continually over the years since that period of time. Mackenzie has a couple of pulp mills in it as a result of the W.A.C. Bennett dam and the legacy that that dam has created right across the province here for British Columbia and for Canada.

One of the things I’ve noticed about the opposition, the members opposite…. I’ve looked at and listened to and studied strategic planning and strategic thought for many years now, and I’ve been looking for an element of strategic thinking from the members opposite. I haven’t seen that.

One of the quotes that kind of confirmed to me today that the members opposite live for today and have no strategic vision for British Columbia was when the member for Vancouver-Kingsway stated: “Do we need this amount of power in this way now?” Of course we don’t. Right now, today, we’ve got adequate power within the system that we have in British Columbia.

You need to have a strategic vision of where you want to take the province of British Columbia, where you want to take the economy in British Columbia. You’ve got to have that strategic vision well into the future. We’re looking at ten, 20, 100 years into the future for British Columbia with the benefits that Site C is going to provide us. That takes strong determination.

As our Premier has shown and this side of the House has shown over the last couple of years now, we’re determined to bring LNG on board. That’s a strategic vision that we have. We need power to help us with that particular project, but it doesn’t happen tomorrow. It takes a long time and very definite strategies in order to make that vision come about.

The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim was talking about First Nations opportunities. I live in an area…. I have lived around First Nations communities most of my life. I look at the change that the W.A.C. Bennett dam provided for the northern half of the province particularly. The entire province…. But First Nations communities, small communities that we’ve had scattered throughout British Columbia had not had the benefit of hydro power until that dam was built.

We were able to extend those transmission lines to northeast B.C. down, providing the wonderful power and the opportunities that urban B.C. has down here now as a result of that. But it’s also provided — and Site C is a shining example of that — First Nations in northeast B.C., in central B.C. around the Prince George area, opportunities for employment that they’ve never seen before.

[1625]

It’s going to continually provide economic opportunities as some of the bands embrace the entrepreneurial spirit that we’ve seen. The McLeod Lake Indian Band, with some of the companies that they have, and some of the First Nations bands that we have in the Moberly area that have embraced this, have formed companies. They’re now working and have employment contracts with B.C. Hydro. They’ve got benefit-sharing agreements with B.C. Hydro.

That’s just going to expand across the province here as we move forward on this. This is a nine-year project. It’s going to provide a tremendous number of jobs for British Columbians, for First Nations in British Columbia, and the benefits are going to increase exponentially as we move forward with this particular project here.

This is something that we can’t turn down. It’s been reviewed. I hear lots of discussion about the B.C. Utilities Commission reviewing this. They don’t have the resources to review this. This kind of a review…. It’s been looked at a couple of times by KPMG. It’s been looked at by experts that have looked at this project inside out and have fully supported it. We are moving ahead with great confidence on this side of the House that this is one of the most beneficial things that this province has seen in a long time.

It’s going to provide economic benefits and social benefits for British Columbia for decades and, like I said, for a century or more down the road here. This is a great vision that we’re going to bring to fruition that is going to change the complexion of British Columbia.

It’s putting British Columbia on the map right across Canada as an economic driver. It’s going to help us with our LNG strategy. It’s going to help us with our mining strategy. We see the northwest transmission line. We see some of the mining opportunities that we have in northwest B.C. We’ve got one of the largest gold deposits in the world sitting in northwest B.C. that’s just waiting for opportunities to come, through Hydro and through some of the other infrastructure that this is going to help us build.

This is something that we can’t turn our backs on. This is something that we need to embrace. Eighty percent or more of British Columbians have embraced it, just like this side of the House. We fully embrace it. It would be interesting to see why the other side of the House doesn’t embrace the jobs, the economic development and the decades of benefits that this project is going to provide to British Columbia.

G. Heyman: I’ve listened to members on the other side of the House talk about why they’re bringing a motion to support a project that, frankly, they made a decision to proceed on almost a year ago. The issue here is
[ Page 9298 ]
not whether it’s proceeding. They’ve bowled ahead with their position despite warnings, despite cautions and with a steadfast refusal to allow independent review by people who have the expertise to conduct such a review.

They’re doing so with a project that escalated by almost $1 billion in the course of a year leading up to last fall. They’re doing so despite the fact that since they took power, hydro rates increased by about 50 percent, and over the next five years they’re going to go up by another 28 percent.

We have British Columbians in every corner of this province who, every time they look at their hydro bill and see the rates going up, understand deeply and clearly that this government simply is not there for them. Rates are going up. Hydro is expensive. This government is addicted to expensive megaprojects that spiral out of control. British Columbians deserve better.

British Columbians deserve the least expensive power possible, and yet all they get from this government, the only thing they get from this government that’s cheap, is the cheap political posturing that’s contained within this motion that’s meant to drive wedges.

[1630]

The Minister of Energy has spoken at length about any number of studies, any number of people that he believes have supported his view, and he wants to know where we stand. We will vote no to this motion. But more than that, I am going to address several points that were raised by the Minister of Energy. The Minister of Energy says that the joint review panel supports the project, but he did so with very selective quotes. I will address that issue with some quotes both from the joint review panel and from the chair of the joint review panel, Mr. Harry Swain, whom the minister claims to have deep respect for.

The minister and others opposite have said that this project has undergone years and years of study and consultation. Again, I will demonstrate that the most important consultation they could have undertaken, an independent review, was not undertaken.

The minister has said we’re going to need the power by the time it will be completed. Yet there is no evidence for that. In fact, the joint review panel explicitly stated that B.C. Hydro had failed to demonstrate that the power would be needed by the time this project will be completed.

Not only that, there were other options. There are other options. They are options that could have been considered, should have been considered and, under an NDP government, would be considered by the B.C. Utilities Commission so that British Columbians could rest assured that a decision that was going to be made on how to supply the energy needs of British Columbia would be made by experts, not by politicians not heeding the advice of experts, not by interested parties.

We are not afraid of science on this side of the House. We are not afraid of independent review on this side of the House. Apparently, the government is and likes to pretty it up by statements that I’m going to read in a moment. But the fact remains that British Columbians believe in science. British Columbians believe in good costing. British Columbians believe in independent review.

We believe that there is a range of other options that were available that are not controversial, that don’t have the implicit downsides that were clearly pointed out by the joint review panel. We are not afraid to put those to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

I’ve heard the Minister of Education, and I’ve heard the Minister of Energy say: “There are 10,000 jobs in this project. Why would the New Democrats oppose 10,000 jobs?” To them, I would say: “Why would you settle for so few jobs when other alternatives that I will outline shortly have the potential for many more jobs?” They’re not camp jobs. They’re ongoing jobs in every community and every region around this province. They’re jobs that communities around this province are hungry for and asking for and that they are not getting from this government.

When the member for Prince George–Mackenzie says it’s important to do this because this government has a strategic vision, my answer to that is: “Not strategic enough. Not strategic at all. And you will never know, because the people who could provide an independent assessment of that have been cut out of the process.” They’ve been cut out of the process. They’re there to represent the best interests of British Columbians and ratepayers, and they have been cut out of the process. We would not do that. We will stand up for British Columbians.

With respect to who should make decisions, let me simply reiterate the quote that was read by the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim from the Minister of Energy. “I wouldn’t characterize my view of the Site C project as one of confidence,” he said in an interview. “I’m not confident. I’m just the guy who is going to try to make sure that if the project gets approved and built, it gets built for what they tell me it is going to get built for.”

He then went on to say: “Putting Site C to a regulatory review would get in the way of the provincial government’s energy plans. That would have exposed those projects to the intervener process that we have at the B.C. Utilities Commission.”

[1635]

That’s the whole point of public processes and public review — that there will be interveners, that their views will be held and that the panel will take into account the expert advice of interveners and others and report to the people of British Columbia with a comparison of different options in which they can have confidence.

Let me go on to talk a little bit about the joint review panel. First of all, let me say that when the chair of the joint review panel spoke out in an interview a few months ago about the problems with the decision of this government and their misinterpretation of the report of the joint review panel, it was called unprecedented for a chair of such a panel to speak, and it in fact was.
[ Page 9299 ]

The panel recommended…. Even though they were explicitly told not to and that this would not happen, they still felt a commitment to recommend that the project go before the B.C. Utilities Commission because the Utilities Commission’s mission is to ensure that ratepayers receive safe, reliable and non-discriminatory energy services at fair rates from the utilities it regulates.

We’ll not know, because this project has not gone to the B.C. Utilities Commission, because this government doesn’t care what’s in the best interests of British Columbians. It’s more interested in megaprojects and political posturing.

Mr. Swain went on to say: “I think projects of that nature, where the public purse — and the public interest much more broadly — is involved deserve a greater degree of scrutiny.”

Apparently, members opposite don’t believe that projects of this scope deserve that degree of scrutiny. They believe they know better. On this side of the House, we have opinions, we have ideas, and we’re not afraid to put them to independent review. And that’s exactly what we will do.

The panel’s report stated that in the first four years of production, the dam would lose at least $800 million because B.C. Hydro would generate more power than the province needs at a significant cost. The report states: “Justification must rest on an unambiguous need for the power and analyses showing its financial costs being sufficiently attractive as to make tolerable the bearing of substantial environmental, social and other costs.”

Some of the questions that still need to be answered — according to Harry Swain, the chair of the panel — include the real cost and the availability of alternatives, because he said that that information was not available and that information should be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Speaking specifically with respect to geothermal — but by extension speaking about the failure to review all alternatives to Site C before proceeding, in light of the fact that there were significant concerns raised about the project and considered and identified by the joint review panel — he said it was a dereliction of duty. He said with respect to B.C. Hydro: “Frankly, I think their low demand figure was probably overstated. So far, there is no evidence that even their low usage scenario is likely to take place.”

He said that British Columbians should consider the dam in light of the alternatives. That is the role of the B.C. Utilities Commission. One project here. A suite of alternatives here. What are the impacts? Who will be impacted? What will provide the energy that British Columbians need in the most cost-effective manner, that will provide economic benefit to the province, that will not have irremediable negative environmental impacts unless that is the only choice available?

He said: “Have we really pushed conservation and efficiency as far as they can go? And the answer is no.” Harry Swain said no. He said that the government and the Utilities Commission should consider what other kinds of generation or energy production are available and what their costs and benefits are.

It’s not just the chair of the joint review panel who believes this. Many people believe this. Many people are concerned. Many businesses that this government claims to be looking out for believe the same thing.

[1640]

What did the magazine Business in Vancouver say on August 25? They said: “Site C continues to roll toward reality, but B.C. Hydro’s business numbers” — the numbers that this government relies upon and which Harry Swain, the chair of the joint review panel, questioned — “continue to support what opponents of a third dam on the Peace River want: a delay or outright cancellation of the $9 billion project. Hydro’s predicted 40 percent increase in electricity demand in the province over the next 20 years, a key justification for Site C, needs recalculating.”

That’s not simply my view. That’s not simply Harry Swain’s view. That is the view of Business in Vancouver. Those are the kinds of views that should be heard by the independent B.C. Utilities Commission.

I’ve said every time British Columbians look at their hydro bills, they know as they dig deeper and deeper into their pockets that this government simply is not there for them.

Interjection.

G. Heyman: I’ve told the Minister of Energy how I am voting on this motion, and I’m about to tell him why I think there are better options, more price-effective options, more job-intensive options, options that are better for British Columbia. But I am not asking anyone to take my word for it. I am asking this government to put all options to the B.C. Utilities Commission. That’s what the people of British Columbia want. That’s what a responsible government would do. That’s what an NDP government would do, and that’s what should happen.

The joint review panel said: “The panel concludes that the demand-size management yield ought to at least keep up with the growth in gross demand, and therefore, the potential savings from 2026 to 2033 may be understated.” The panel was referring to B.C. Hydro’s demand-side management or conservation projections. “The panel concludes that demand management does not appear to command the same degree of analytic effort as does new supply.”

Or as panel chair Harry Swain also said: “Have we really pushed conservation and efficiency as far as they can go? The answer is no. What other kinds of generation or energy production are available, and what are their costs and benefits?”

Conservation has a number of benefits. I know B.C. Hydro recognizes this. I know the minister recognizes
[ Page 9300 ]
this. So does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They identified building energy efficiency as the most cost-effective way of reducing emissions, and conservation is the lead strategy. This isn’t some sort of boutique thing. This is an intensely job-creating effort that has a number of ancillary benefits.

You don’t need to do intensive capital investment that must be paid off by the taxpayers on their hydro bills. What you do is you make capital investment that over a short period of time pays for itself and then continues to benefit ratepayers every year going forward without the necessity to build massive infrastructure. B.C. Hydro says that that is their lead strategy. But under the direction of this government, they simply downscaled to the second-least ambitious of five demand-side management options — option 2.

The Pembina Institute suggests that basic upgrades on 100,000 homes would result in 8,200 to 13,200 person-years of employment, that intensive upgrades of 100,000 homes would see 14,000 to 30,000 person-years of employment.

That’s a lot of jobs. Those are jobs in every corner of British Columbia. Those are jobs that will reduce the amount of energy and power that B.C. Hydro needs to create, both in the short term and the long term. And they are good jobs. They aren’t boom-and-bust jobs. They’re not located in one corner of the province. They’re located near to people’s homes and in communities that can benefit from local economic development.

[1645]

But don’t take Pembina’s words for it. Take the words of B.C. Stats, whose economic multiplier models say that for every $1 million invested in retrofits, the generation of up to 18 direct and indirect local jobs will take place.

Just today, in the Vancouver Sun and the Times Colonist, there are articles referring to a report just released from the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions that says the average 20-year-old house in B.C. leaks as much air as a 40-centimetre hole in the wall open to the outdoors year-round. The researchers believe that…. This is a very interesting term that they’ve used. This is a term that I would think the Liberals would embrace wholeheartedly. The researchers believe that a quick win is within their grasp. More than 800,000 of B.C.’s 1.88 million homes were built before 1985 and could benefit from an energy retrofit. That’s very close to 50 percent.

The report urges B.C. Hydro and Fortis to take a serious new look at on-bill financing for energy-saving renovations. They say it costs the public purse essentially nothing, yet it saves B.C. a significant amount of electricity while helping to reduce GHG emissions. They go on to point out that Manitoba Hydro has such a program, and that program upgrades 5,000 homes a year with such efforts as insulation, solar hot water, heat pumps and draft proofing.

They identify why this program, when tested in a very minor pilot project by B.C. Hydro, didn’t work. They said that of the ten features that are common to successful programs, five were absent from B.C.’s last attempt. They go on to say that if the B.C. program attracted 12,000 participants each year, a three-million tonne GHG reduction would be achieved over 20 years, $60 million in economic activity, and 1,800 direct and indirect jobs would be created.

Let’s also take B.C. Hydro’s word for it. From their 2013 Resource Options Report Update, B.C. Hydro estimated that the total resource cost of demand-side management option 3, the middle option of the five options, was $35 per megawatt hour compared to a significantly higher cost for Site C.

I’m not going to give a number. The minister will dispute my number, because they’ve fiddled with how they create the number. Let’s just say that by his calculation or mine, it is very significantly less.

The B.C. Sustainable Energy Association and Sierra Club B.C. provided evidence to the BCUC that B.C. Hydro could cost-effectively double its planned demand-side management savings and that B.C. Hydro could achieve 9,000 gigawatt hours per year of additional load reductions.

Let me also use B.C. Hydro’s numbers comparing Site C to demand-side management. Going from demand-side management model 2 to model 3 creates 30 jobs per megawatt. Sorry. Site C creates 30 jobs per megawatt. The difference between demand-side management 2 and 3 is 94 jobs per megawatt. That’s why I say that if this government really wants a vision for the future, they will have a much more ambitious jobs vision than they’ve demonstrated to date.

I know there are other people who want to speak. I will simply take a couple of minutes to wrap up on some of the other alternatives that should have been looked at by the B.C. Utilities Commission and that the joint review panel urged be considered. Those include wind and solar.

Let’s just look at what’s happening to wind and solar. First of all, these kinds of alternate energy projects…. There are many in British Columbia already. There are many more listed in the major projects inventory that would go, if there was a call for power.

[1650]

The key point here is that if, as my colleague has suggested, we did Revelstoke 6, which would provide 45 percent of the power of Site C at 1/18, or 5 percent, of the cost of Site C, we would not have to worry about peak energy demand in the near medium term or probably the long term — that combined with energy conservation.

That gives us time to benefit from what’s happening all over the world, and that’s the rapid development and the rapidly declining costs of new energy technologies and wind and solar. Let me simply say…. Figures say that in the case of wind, for an amount of energy equivalent, you have to take into account the capacity factor for intermittent power versus firm power of Revelstoke 6 or Site C.
[ Page 9301 ]
There are about 21,000 jobs for the equivalent amount in wind, 57,000 in solar.

Solar power in the U.K. is set to provide 15 percent of the U.K.’s power. There are now around 700,000 small-scale installations on the U.K. grid, enough to power 655,000 households. The average solar panel now costs 75 percent less than it did just five years ago. The costs keep dropping. The same is true of wind. The costs of turbines keep dropping. The turbine technology is getting more efficient. Solar voltaic cells are becoming cheaper and more efficient.

We should be putting ourselves in the position to benefit from this technological change by taking advantage of demand-side management as well as the advantages of Revelstoke 6. It is time to have a real vision for British Columbia, a real vision for our energy future.

But don’t take my word for it. Don’t take their word for it. All of these options should properly be reviewed in the interests of the people of British Columbia by the B.C. Utilities Commission. That is exactly why I am opposing this motion.

I don’t believe that I know better than experts. I have ideas. I’ve spent a lot of time reading. I and others on this side of the House are prepared to have those ideas tested, versus the government’s ideas about what British Columbia needs, by an independent body looking out for the best interests of the people of British Columbia, the environment of British Columbia, the First Nations of British Columbia, the need for agricultural land and the needs of ratepayers in British Columbia as well as our energy needs in the future.

That’s why I’m voting no. With that, I’ll take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Chilliwack.

J. Martin: Thank you so much, hon. Speaker. It’s good to see you up there.

This is, indeed, a very warm pleasure for me to be able to add my voice of support to the motion for the construction of the Site C clean energy project. This is an outstanding opportunity we all have right now to provide British Columbians with the most affordable, reliable, clean power for over 100 years.

A lot can happen in 100 years. One of the things I suspect is going to happen over the next 100 years is we’ll have another couple of dozen free enterprise governments. Yeah, I may be getting a little ahead of myself.

We’re basically making sure that future generations have a safe, reliable and affordable source of electricity. And leaving our beautiful province better off for our children, grandchildren and their children is something that is of the utmost importance to all of us. As our economy and population continue to grow, we have to meet the future needs, and to keep our rates low, we must build Site C.

You know, maybe during this debate, it would be nice if we can see exactly where the opposition stands on hydroelectric power. We’ve had a couple of members say they intend to vote against this particular motion. But we’ve still got a lot of members to go. We know that there’s a very disturbing lack of clarity over there. Perhaps we’ll continue to get the same mixed messages.

Who knows? Maybe the opposition will support the construction of Site C. I don’t really think so, if past history is any indication.

[1655]

They didn’t support the Coquihalla Highway. They didn’t support the Alex Fraser Bridge, didn’t support Expo 86, didn’t support the trade and convention centre, didn’t support B.C. Place, the 2010 Winter Games, didn’t support the new Sea to Sky Highway, didn’t support the new Port Mann Bridge, the South Fraser Perimeter Road. On and on and on.

Now, you know me. I’m an optimist, so maybe they will support Site C. I’m not going to jump to conclusions here, but I’m certainly not going to wager anything on it.

The leader has admitted himself that he’s flip-flopped many, many times. He said that much himself. Here’s what the leader said: “Well, I have taken many positions on Site C. That’s right.” Well, he’s stating the obvious. I mean, what position are we going to take here? Why can’t we simply have the Leader of the Opposition commit to a stance on this project?

We know for a fact that members of the opposition have both adamantly opposed the Site C project and there are others who support it. There’s no doubt why the leader refuses to be clear and open about this position on Site C. That would be very divisive to his caucus.

At least on this side of the House, we are in clear support of Site C and will continue to be. We stay committed to that position.

Now, we all know B.C’s population and economy are growing. The demand for power is expected to increase by 40 percent over the next 20 years. We all have an obligation to meet those future power needs. They’re not going to be taken care of by themselves.

Currently B.C. has the third-lowest residential rates. B.C. has the fourth-lowest industrial rates in North America. We are determined to keep it that way. We need to maintain this advantage for British Columbians — not just this generation but the next generation as well. Site C is the most affordable project to do that.

I’m proud to say Site C will create 10,000 construction jobs over the life of this project. Why would the NDP not support 10,000 jobs in British Columbia? Why would they not support all the tradespeople who will benefit from those jobs? This beckons back to an incident about 2½ years ago, where the NDP clearly came out against jobs and against people in the trades and construction industry.

Now, I haven’t heard them declare support for Site C, so I can only assume that they don’t support those jobs.
[ Page 9302 ]

Construction of this project will add $3.2 billion to the provincial economy from the purchase of goods and services. This includes $130 million to the regional economy. The economic benefits to the Peace region include job creation, business opportunities, benefit agreements, increased revenues, improved infrastructure and greater access to skills training.

I don’t need to really go on any further, but I will. The local communities will benefit from regional legacy benefits agreements, infrastructure improvements, recreation and tourism opportunities, and affordable housing. Is the NDP in support of any of those things? We certainly haven’t heard so yet.

Additionally, one of B.C. Hydro’s project objectives for Site C is to provide lasting economic and social benefits for northern communities and aboriginal groups. Why won’t the NDP come out in support of lasting economic and social benefits for northern communities and aboriginal groups? It is absolutely tragic that we have not heard some support for those interests.

As well, there is a variety of work packages that will provide opportunities to small, medium and large-sized businesses, benefiting all British Columbians.

Since 2007, B.C. Hydro has used dozens of local contractors and vendors throughout the Peace region. Over the construction period, there will be significant employment, contracting and subcontracting opportunities for local, regional and aboriginal workers and businesses. Why won’t the NDP support those opportunities for British Columbians?

Those are just the economic benefits to the local communities. It goes far beyond the economics. The power at Site C will generate significant benefit for British Columbians in a number of other capacities. Keeping rates low is good for all families in B.C. Meeting future power needs will enable continued investment and a growing economy.

Speaking of helping families, I’m reminded of something else the NDP has flip-flopped on recently. After calling the $1,200 B.C. training and education savings grant an insult and ill-conceived, it appears now they have converted and suddenly support the grant.

[1700]

May I remind this House what some members of the opposition have said. From the member for Skeena: “It’s really useless and a bit of an insult.” From the member for North Island: “Well, I’ve got to say it’s quite right that it has been derided as a gimmick.” From the member for Vancouver Kingsway: “Well, first of all, as the government shows, their plan is ill-conceived.”

As I said earlier, I’m an optimist, and I’m glad to see that the NDP has finally come to their senses to realize how beneficial this grant is for B.C. families and now support it.

Well, construction of the Site C clean energy project has been underway for 60 days. Already there are more than 160 workers on the site. This number will continue to increase as the months go by. Can anyone tell me why the NDP doesn’t support those 160 workers already on the site? This is an eight-year project. There will be many job and contract opportunities over the life of the project.

The government of British Columbia is making sure that residents of B.C. are first in line to work on the Site C project. B.C. Hydro is promoting local hiring. They’re working with regional economic development agencies, funding skills-training programs in the region and planning on participating in local and regional job fairs. Companies are actively recruiting workers in the region right now.

B.C. Hydro has invested in a number of skills- and trades-training programs in the region, for local and aboriginal students. Why won’t the NDP come out in support of those local and aboriginal students who are now training in the skills and trades programs?

Then there are all the investments in skills training that have been made in the rest of the province as well. In fact, B.C. Hydro has invested approximately $1½ million in a number of skills- and trades-training programs. For instance, at Northern Lights College, $1 million has been invested to support trades and skills, and 50 percent of that is dedicated to aboriginal students. Why is the NDP not coming out in support of that investment in the future and education for aboriginal students?

It’s important to recognize that all new electricity projects have environmental impacts. We get that. Site C will be able to use the existing Williston reservoir. This means — this is critical — that Site C can generate 35 percent of the energy produced at the W.A.C. Bennett dam with a reservoir 5 percent of the size. We are balancing economic growth with responsibility to the environment. This is in the interests of all British Columbians, something that even the NDP should be supporting.

This is why we have had such an extensive three-year environmental assessment process, including two months of hearings. I guess we could have more hearings, more assessment, more study, and likewise, the project would never come to fruition. I don’t know that that is in the interests of future generations. I don’t know that that is in the interests of the power needs of British Columbians down the road.

We’ve consulted with the public for seven years about Site C. How many more — 17, 27, 37? The environmental assessment process was thorough, and the environmental process was independent. It included multiple opportunities for timely and meaningful participation by the public, by aboriginal groups, all levels of government and a number of other interested stakeholders. In fact, Site C is the most reviewed and studied project in B.C. Hydro’s history, and apparently that’s still not good enough for the NDP.

Well, the joint review panel concluded the benefits of the project. They said:”Site C would be the least expensive of the alternatives, and its cost advantages would
[ Page 9303 ]
increase with the passing decades as inflation makes alternatives more costly.” This is the right choice for British Columbia today, tomorrow and into the future. How much clearer can it be regarding how important and how beneficial it is to British Columbians to build this project and build it now?

Speaking beyond the economic benefits, Site C will provide to the Peace region new recreation and tourism opportunities — something else, I guess, the NDP doesn’t support. There will be three permanent Site C reservoir boat launches. These will include docks and day-use areas. A new shoreline walking trail will be built along the Hudson’s Hope berm. There will be public viewpoints of the dam on both the north and the south bank. These are just a handful of the local recreation and tourism opportunities residents and visitors will benefit from.

[1705]

We are committed to meeting the future power needs of our province, so to keep rates low, we must build Site C. It is unfortunate that the opposition does not understand that. We need these facilities to take the pressure off older facilities that are in need of upgrade or eventual replacement.

Let me also remind opposition members in this House what their colleague from Vancouver-Fairview had to say on the issue of Site C. “I would like to see the critics make a clear statement along with the leader.” Well, we’d all like to see that type of clarity. Even members of the NDP are desperately waiting for a clear position from their leader on Site C.

I, for one, am proud to stand with my colleagues in support of the construction of Site C. Affordable, reliable, clean electricity is the backbone of British Columbia’s economy.

We could put this off. We could study it more. We could delay it. We could wait for the Toronto Maple Leafs to have their Stanley Cup parade down Yonge Street, too, but sooner or later, we’ve got to get something done. That’s why I’m voicing my support on behalf of the constituents of Chilliwack to support our quality of life for decades to come and build Site C.

A. Weaver: On April 19, 2010, I, along with numerous others, travelled to Hudson’s Hope to hear then Premier Gordon Campbell announce that the Site C project was moving to the environmental assessment stage. A lot has changed since 2010, and the environmental assessment has now been completed.

The joint review panel’s report published on May 8, 2014, identified major obstacles in the path for approval. While the report did not emphatically say yes or no to the project, certain sections highlighted the permanent damage to the environment, farmland and wildlife the project would have. These included effects on First Nation rights and lack of exploration of similar cost renewable energy alternatives.

I’ve been pointing out for several years now that Site C is the wrong project at the wrong time when alternative energy — including geothermal, wind, tidal and small-scale hydro sources — coupled with existing dams would provide substantially improved firm energy and capacity.

This approach would be less damaging to the environment and distributed around British Columbia. It would provide future power requirements with better cost and employment opportunities. Geothermal, wind, tidal and smaller hydro projects would be of substantial economic benefit to communities, especially First Nations.

The joint review panel specifically concluded the following. On the environment and wildlife: (1) the project would cause significant adverse effects on fish and fish habitat; (2) significant adverse effects on wetlands, in particular valley bottom wetlands; (3) the project would likely cause significant adverse effects to migratory birds relying on valley bottom habitat during their life cycle, and these losses would be permanent and cannot be mitigated.

On the topic of renewables, they said this.

“The scale of the project means that, if built on B.C. Hydro’s timetable, substantial financial losses would accrue for several years, accentuating the intergenerational pay-now, benefit-later effect. Energy conservation and end-user efficiencies have not been pressed as hard as possible in B.C. Hydro’s analyses. There are alternative sources of power available at similar or somewhat higher costs, notably geothermal power. These sources, being individually smaller than Site C, would allow supply to better follow demand, obviating most of the early-year losses of Site C.”

Beyond that, the policy constraints that the B.C. government has imposed on B.C. Hydro have made some other alternatives unavailable.

Regarding First Nations, the panel said this:

"The panel concludes that:

“(1) The project would likely cause a significant adverse effect on fishing opportunities and practices for the First Nations represented by Treaty 8 Tribal Association, Saulteau First Nations and Blueberry River First Nations and that these effects cannot be mitigated.

“(2) The panel concludes that the project would likely cause a significant adverse effect on hunting and non-tenured trapping for the First Nations represented by Treaty 8 Tribal Association and Saulteau First Nations and that these effects cannot be mitigated.

“(3) The project would likely cause a significant adverse effect on other traditional uses of the land for the First Nations represented by Treaty 8 Tribal Association and that some of these effects cannot be mitigated.

“(4) The panel concludes that the project would likely cause significant adverse cumulative effects on current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes.”

[1710]

In 2010, the projected construction cost for the dam was $6.6 billion. But by May of 2011, that cost had increased to $7.9 billion, a 20 percent increase, and by 2014, it rose a further 11 percent to $8.8 billion.

Now, there’s considerable upside on certainty regarding these costs that could easily reach $10 billion, $12 billion, $15 billion or even more, frankly. Just yesterday, we found out that more delays and cost overruns
[ Page 9304 ]
are occurring in Nalcor Energy’s Muskrat Falls hydro project in Labrador.

Nalcor Energy’s CEO, Ed Martin, cited three reasons for the cost overruns. One, he said: “It’s a tough, tight marketplace right now.” Two, he said: “What we’re seeing in these bids when they come in is they’re higher, much higher than we have budgeted for.” Three, he said: “What we’re doing is experiencing cost increases we really can’t control in that area.”

Now, I have little confidence in the cost forecasts for the construction of Site C, as it won’t be completed for many, many years. I share the desire of the government to see British Columbia’s economy managed in a way that ensures a sustainable approach that is not burdening future generations with the cost of decisions we make today.

In the past, our government has, appropriately, celebrated the fact that British Columbia has maintained a triple-A credit rating. Having the taxpayer take on an almost $9 billion, and growing, debt to subsidize this government’s efforts to chase the pot of gold at the end of the LNG rainbow strikes me as profoundly irresponsible for the supposedly fiscally conservative B.C. Liberals. Risking a potential downgrade of our triple-A credit rating would risk raising the costs of servicing all of our provincial debt.

Now, I recognize that as the population grows and the economy in British Columbia also grows, so too does our need for energy. But the Site C project has grown increasingly indefensible from a social, environmental and economic standpoint. This proves especially true when weighed against more practical alternatives.

The impacts of the project are widespread. Thousands of acres of farmland and wilderness will be flooded, doing irreparable damage to ecosystems. The hunting and fishing and traditions of First Nations who live in and around these lands will be threatened. Billions of dollars will be spent on the project, raising concerns over British Columbia’s economic viability and triple-A credit rating. All of these staggering realities might be forgiven if Site C was the only realistic solution. It’s not, and I’m not the only one who realizes this.

There are many alternatives that are cheaper to build and maintain, have minimal environmental footprints and generate more permanent jobs that are spread throughout the province. Chief among these options are wind and geothermal power.

The claim that Site C dam is the most affordable way to generate power is absolutely untrue. Recently, for example, the Peace Valley Landowner Association commissioned an independent report from the U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough to look at the business case for what could become the province’s most expensive public infrastructure project ever.

According to Mr. McCullough: “Using industry standard assumptions, Site C is more than three times as costly as the least expensive option. Thus, while the cost and choice of options deserve further analysis, the simple conclusion is that Site C is more expensive…than the renewable and natural gas portfolios elsewhere in the U.S. and Canada.”

Mr. McCullough’s assertion that B.C. Hydro had its thumbs on the scale, so to speak, in an effort to make the Site C project look better than private sector alternatives appears, frankly, correct. In his report, he notes the following. “The provincial accounting changes adopted in 2014 ‘to reduce the cost of power generated’ are illusory. The costs will, like all costs, have to be paid, whether by hydro ratepayers or provincial taxpayers.”

Mr. McCullough also disputes the rate that B.C. Hydro used to compare the long-term borrowing costs of capital for Site C against other projects. “The so-called discount rate being proposed by B.C. Hydro is critical to overall cost projections, yet despite this, the paper trail on the discount figure can only be described as sketchy and inadequate, especially when other major utilities in North America use higher rates for such projects because they are considered risky investments.”

[1715]

Mr. McCullough outlines major economic risks for the province in his report, assertions that are further solidified by Harry Swain, the chair of the joint federal-provincial panel that reviewed the Site C dam.

In recent years, as part of the Columbia River treaty, B.C. has been selling off the Canadian entitlement of our electricity to the tune of $100 million to $300 million annually. From 2010 to 2012, that translated to $30 per megawatt hour. But in the meantime, the cost of power from the Site C dam is estimated at $83 per megawatt hour.

How does it make sense to be building new sources of power at $83 per megawatt hour while continuing to export power for $25 to $40 per megawatt hour? Swain’s report predicts that as a result of B.C. Hydro generating more power than the province actually needs, the Site C dam would lose at least $800 million in the first four years of production.

The Site C dam is not a small project. Construction will require the province to borrow nearly $9 billion, and growing, and yet the project has been exempted from an independent regulatory review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

What kind of message does this send to the citizens of this province about the government’s commitment to accountability and transparency? Why, when two independent reviews of the project have dismantled the claim that the site project is the most affordable way to generate power, do B.C. Hydro estimates claim otherwise? Why does the province refuse to sponsor its own independent regulator’s review of the project? The only possible answer is that B.C. Hydro figures are totally illusory, manipulated to fit the government’s political guarantee of “endless investment” in the province.
[ Page 9305 ]

Associated with the announcement on December 16 of last year that the B.C. government was going to proceed with the construction of Site C was some very creative accounting, designed to make Site C look more competitive than it really was. The government claimed that they found savings, while the overall project costs actually rose. I’m not making this stuff up. All the government had actually done was move the financial costs of this megaproject into a different category. The fact is that the costs had gone up and so had the burden on taxpayers.

The updated cost of Site C on ratepayers was reduced from $83 per megawatt hour to $58 to $61 per megawatt hour, with the majority of the change coming from a commitment from government to take fewer dividends from B.C. Hydro. However, this merely shifted the capital cost of building the dam from B.C. Hydro ratepayers to British Columbia taxpayers.

Just three weeks earlier, on November 25, I attended a Canadian Geothermal Energy Association — known as CanGEA — press conference, where they released a report entitled the following: Geothermal Energy: The Renewable and Cost-Effective Alternative to Site C.

Some of the key findings in that report included the following:

(1) Geothermal energy unit cost, conservatively, was estimated at $73 per megawatt hour, compared to B.C. Hydro’s $83 per megawatt hour for Site C, a number that was, as I pointed out, creatively reduced to $58 to $61 per megawatt hour shortly after this press conference.

(2) Geothermal plant construction equalling the energy output of the proposed Peace River dam is estimated at $3.3 billion compared to at least $7.9 billion for Site C, raising to $8.8 billion just three weeks later.

(3) Geothermal plants provide more permanent jobs that are distributed across British Columbia — another key finding in the report.

(4) For the same power production, the total physical and environmental footprint of geothermal projects would be substantially smaller than Site C.

We are the only jurisdiction in the Pacific Rim that does not have any geothermal capacity in our province, state or territory. British Columbia has a significant potential to develop geothermal and other renewable energy projects throughout the province. Such projects would distribute energy production where it’s required and allow power to be brought on line as demand increases.

The available evidence at that time made it clear that the government should not proceed with the Site C project. There were simply too many cheaper alternatives available to protect the ratepayer or the taxpayer. The clean energy sector was eagerly awaiting a more fiscally responsible investment decision that would provide employment and development opportunities across the province.

Site C was then, and still remains, the wrong project at the wrong time. Alternative energy, including geothermal, wind, solar, small-scale hydro sources and biomass, coupled with existing dams, would provide firm energy and capacity at a better cost to British Columbians. They would also provide better economic opportunities to local communities and First Nations, with lower impacts on traditional territory.

[1720]

In March of this year, Harry Swain, co-chair of the joint review panel appointed for the Site C dam and former deputy minister of Industry Canada and of Indian and Northern Affairs, raised some very serious concerns about the government’s approach to approving Site C. Mr. Swain was very clear that the government was rushed in approving Site C and that British Columbians will pay for their haste.

As Mr. Swain said: “Wisdom would have been waiting for two, three, four years to see whether the projections they” — that’s B.C. Hydro — “were making had any basis in fact.” That’s not exactly a glowing endorsement for the fiscal underpinning of Site C. The review panel predicted that by building it now, Site C will actually produce more electricity than we’ll need for the first four years, costing taxpayers $800 million.

Mr. Swain isn’t the only person to suggest waiting a few years to see if electricity demand for the project materializes. We could still build Site C down the road if necessary, but we could use the additional time to properly explore cheaper alternatives, like our vast geothermal potential in B.C. We have the time, and as I mentioned earlier, that pot of gold at the end of the LNG rainbow won’t be found any time soon, if ever at all.

Mr. Swain went even further. He argued that pushing Site C through without adequate consideration of cost-effective alternatives was a “dereliction of duty.” Those are strong words — dereliction of duty — from a very highly regarded senior official from the Canadian government, a very distinguished scholar, a very distinguished senior official and the chair of the joint review panel. I repeat: dereliction of duty.

To be even more blunt, it’s recklessness on the part of the government. We have a sense of the cost — an $800 million loss in the first four years of operation because of the construction timing — and we know there are affordable alternatives to Site C. These alternatives would allow us to meet present and future energy needs without running the risk of incurring increased public debt and potentially damaging our triple-A credit rating.

The fact is that circumstances have changed since 2010. That’s why I no longer believe it’s fiscally prudent to move forward with this project. In the last few years, the costs of wind energy and solar PV have dropped dramatically. China, for example, is building a new windmill every hour, and China’s investment in photovoltaics has led to an 80 percent drop in price in just five years.

Over the next 20 years, B.C. Hydro has forecasted that our energy needs will increase by about 40 percent as a consequence of population and economic growth. Upon
[ Page 9306 ]
completion, this dam would produce 1,100 megawatts of power capacity and up to 5,100 gigawatt hours of electricity each year. According to B.C. Hydro, this is enough electricity to power about 450,000 homes.

Let’s look at wind power. Recently, a study was produced by the investment banking firm Lazard that suggested the cost of unsubsidized utility-scale wind could be as low as $19 per megawatt hour — I repeat, unsubsidized utility-scale wind could be produced as low as $19 per megawatt hour — about a quarter of the proposed costs of the Site C dam initially and still substantially less than the revised proposed costs.

Currently in B.C., only 1.5 percent of electricity production is supplied by wind energy — incredibly low when compared with other jurisdictions internationally. But with British Columbia’s mountainous terrain and coastal boundary, the potential for onshore and offshore wind power production is enormous, almost unparalleled internationally.

The Canadian Wind Energy Association and the B.C. Hydro integrated resource plan of 2013 indicate that 5,100 gigawatt hours of wind-generated electricity could be produced in British Columbia for about the same price as the electricity to be produced by the Site C dam.

That is before the price of wind dropped substantially further since 2013 and despite the fact that all costs, including land acquisition costs incurred to date by B.C. Hydro with respect to the Site C project, have never been counted in their estimate for future construction costs. The potential scalability of Site C is minimal to nonexistent. The potential scalability of wind energy is boundless.

[1725]

The minimal production of wind power in British Columbia compared to other jurisdictions around the world is particularly surprising in light of the fact that B.C. is the home of a number of existing large-scale hydro projects. What do I mean by that? These projects include but are not limited to the W.A.C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams already on the Peace River and the Mica, Duncan, Keenleyside, Revelstoke and Seven Mile dams on the Columbia River system.

Hydro reservoirs are ideally suited for coupling with wind power generation to stabilize baseload supply. It’s really quite simple. When the wind is blowing, use the wind energy. When the wind is not blowing, use the hydro power. That is, hydro power coupled with wind acts like a rechargeable battery, with wind being the recharger and the dam being the battery.

British Columbia is one of the few jurisdictions in the world, if not the only, that has the potential to take advantage of such reservoirs as wind power, if wind power were to be introduced to the grid.

Denmark, the world’s largest producer, does not have that power. Britain — a jurisdiction where, just recently, renewable energy producers started to produce more than half of its power — does not have that reservoir capacity. But British Columbia has it all, and we’re wasting an opportunity.

Given that wind power can so easily be introduced into B.C. at an even lower price than equivalent power from Site C dam, we should ask if there are any other reasons that would favour Site C over wind for the production of power to meet B.C.’s present and future energy needs.

Frankly, I can think of none. In fact, I can think of a number of reasons why wind power should be considered over Site C to produce the equivalent of 5,100 gigawatt hours per year of electrical power. Let me summarize these.

One, the construction of Site C dam will flood 6,427 acres of class 1 and class 2 agricultural land and a total of 15,985 acres of classes 1 to 7 agriculture land. Wind power sites would not affect agricultural land. In fact, the Peace River Valley contains the only class 1 agricultural land north of Quesnel.

Key regions in the archive of British Columbia’s history will be flooded. It’s unknown how many unmarked First Nation graves lie in the flood zone, but the Globe and Mail recently reported it could be in the thousands.

B.C. Hydro’s own archaeological research in the valley turned up everything from dinosaur teeth to ancient stone tools and old fur-trading posts. In all, it identified 173 paleontological sites, 251 archaeological sites and 42 historic sites.

The Peace River has been designated as a B.C. heritage river. It was, in fact, traversed by the explorers Alexander Mackenzie, John Finlay, Simon Fraser, John Stuart, A.R. McLeod and David Thompson, among others, in their early ventures during the 17th and 18th century.

Rocky Mountain Fort, thought to be the first trading post established in British Columbia, by John Finlay in 1794, as well as Rocky Mountain Portage House, across the river from Hudson’s Hope and established by John Finlay and Simon Fraser in 1805, are both located in the valley that will be flooded.

The joint review panel determined that the loss of the cultural places, as a result of inundation, for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people to be of a high magnitude and permanent duration and to be, frankly, irreversible. The existing historically valuable cultural sites would be permanently lost.

Three, job creation associated with wind, solar and geothermal power, for example, is provincewide, not in one region. Job creation associated with the Site C dam is only in and around the Peace River Valley. Wind, geothermal, etc. provide distributed jobs, stable jobs across our province.

Four, the risk of cost overruns associated with the construction of the Site C dam is borne by the taxpayer. The risk of any cost overruns associated with the construction of wind, solar and geothermal facilities is borne by industry. This is important, as it limits any risk to the taxpayer.

Five, the installation of wind and other renewable energy projects can be done in partnership with First Nations,
[ Page 9307 ]
who would benefit from both local jobs as well as revenue from the installed facilities. In contrast, the affected Treaty 8 Tribal Association has already expressed a number of serious concerns regarding the Site C dam proposal.

Six, it would take much longer to complete the Site C dam project than it would to install wind farms, for example. In addition, wind power is scalable, whereas Site C dam is not.

[1730]

Seven, wind farms and other sources of renewable energy are distributed and so can be located close to where the energy is actually needed, thereby reducing transmission loss, energy loss, as electricity is transported long distances through power lines.

I recognize that B.C. Hydro, operating under the Clean Energy Act, has no other option in their mandate to build anything other than dams. In my view, the government has one of two choices to protect the rate and taxpayers from the unnecessary costs of the Site C construction.

First, they could either change the mandate of B.C. Hydro to allow it to invest in alternate energy technologies. Or, the second, they could require B.C. Hydro to issue calls for power to see how the market will respond. Either of these choices are acceptable and would allow the generation of other sources of power in British Columbia.

I also realize that the only reason why the Site C is going ahead now is because of the fact that on November 4, 2014, B.C. Hydro signed an agreement with LNG Canada to provide long-term power that we don’t actually have at $83.02 per megawatt hour. But at what cost? We’ve already embodied a generational sellout in the amended LNG Income Tax Act. And that was taken to an even more egregious level in this past July’s Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act.

Now, again — and just a side bar, based on the evidence today of Bill 34 being brought forward to discuss — it is precisely clear to me that there was no need at all for a summer session, as this government is so void of new ideas that we’re having to name a date in March as a day to celebrate red-tape reduction.

Now, yet again, the taxpayer will step up to subsidize the government’s irresponsible quest for the mythical pot of gold somewhere at the end of the LNG rainbow. But at what cost? The building of Site C will decimate the clean tech sector that is at a critical phase in its development in B.C. and at a phase that actually employs more British Columbians today than does the oil and gas sector.

But at what cost? EDP Renewables, an internationally-acclaimed clean energy company, First Nations and TimberWest have walked away from a $1 billion wind energy investment on Vancouver Island. That’s not hypothetical. That’s here today. That’s gone today because of the irresponsible decisions being made in this government with respect to Site C and its LNG pipedream.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

For what? A desperate attempt to fulfil a suite of irresponsible election promises made in the run-up to the 2013 election: 100,000 jobs; $100 billion prosperity fund; $1 trillion increase to our debt; debt-free B.C.; elimination of PST; thriving schools and hospitals; and everything else in the nirvana that is to be B.C.

As I’ve been pointing out for three years now, these promises were never grounded in an economic reality three years ago. They are not grounded in economic reality today. Nor will they be grounded in any economic reality in the foreseeable future.

Frankly, the incompetence of our government’s bumbling attempts to land LNG final investment decisions has made the British Columbia government a laughing stock on the international energy scene. The lack of a fiscally conservative approach to energy policy in this province makes me wonder just what this government is thinking. They are chasing a falling stock and doubling down in the process.

Sadly, the province will have to wait until 2016 or early 2017 before the B.C. Green Party brings forth our integrated platform. We will offer British Columbians an innovative vision for an integrated energy policy. We’ll offer British Columbians a plan to grow our resource-based economy and communities, and we’ll always put the interest of British Columbians first, not vested interest or political ambitions. They will be first and foremost in our policy formulation.

Site C is fiscally foolish, socially irresponsible and environmentally unsound. It no longer represents a wise economic social environmental option for providing British Columbians with the power they need. There are other alternatives available at cheaper costs with lower environmental and social impacts.

This motion must fail.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I rise on behalf of my constituents in Surrey-Fleetwood to support the motion that is before the House right now. There are a couple of reasons I’m going to do that.

Like the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I hate to quote the members opposite, but I can’t resist the opportunity. The first thing is that yesterday, in another debate, the member for Port Coquitlam said that one day he had a dream that he would be sitting on this side of the House in 2017.

[1735]

My response to that, in light of some of the debate I’ve heard, is that would be an economic nightmare for the people of British Columbia. The reason it is an economic nightmare is that clearly this government has a plan for the economic future of this province. We’ve shown it time and time again.

Site C is a generational opportunity to move this province ahead, to provide jobs, to provide opportunities, to provide economic growth that will build new schools,
[ Page 9308 ]
new infrastructure and that will assure the future of future generations in this province.

I know that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, when he was referring to the Ministry of Energy and Mines, talked about an analogy of being in a church and that he would buy the most expensive bread. Well, I’m sure that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, as he did in the House, would bring the bologna that comes along for those sandwiches. I know that the facts that he brought forward and the issues he was using clearly spoke to the lack of respect for the people of British Columbia.

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway talked about: “What about Burrard? What about that great facility in Vancouver that isn’t being used?” Well, the facts speak against that. Exactly. What I’m talking about is the facts of that particular project, that in order to…. The way it’s being used, it takes pressure off rates, but since 2010, it has generated less than 100 gigawatt hours a year. That’s less than 0.2 percent.

To upgrade the Burrard facility to increase the capacity, it would cost $400 million, and the experts tell us that it would still be inefficient and not used very often for that reason. It also is a dirty facility — the greenhouse gas emissions that come off of that facility, the nitrogen oxide emissions that come off that facility.

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway was using figures. I know the minister will speak to some of the other inconsistencies in the messaging that we were hearing, but let me say this.

I had the opportunity recently to go to the region. I had the opportunity to see the Site C facility that is being constructed, the hundreds of jobs right now that are there, the facility that’s being built to house the 10,000 workers that are going to be used in that community. I talked to businesses in that community who welcome Site C as an economic opportunity for them, for their children and for their grandchildren.

You know, the member for Surrey-Newton said to me one day: “What has your government done for Surrey?” Well, because of our economic policies, we’ve been able to build infrastructure, to build a hospital, to build schools in that community that are serving the residents in that growing community.

I also know that the Surrey Board of Trade has clearly said that Site C is an economic opportunity for businesses in the city of Surrey to help them to continue to grow and to provide jobs.

This particular project has tremendous impact in communities throughout the province, not just in the region. It’s going to create the economic growth that is going to see this province move ahead for generations to come.

[1740]

This government has the foresight to make the decision — after many years of consultation with First Nations communities, economic agreements, a policy by B.C. Hydro to inject opportunities into the communities in the region. That is what it’s all about. That is what this project is all about. I clearly see that the members opposite are torn. They don’t know whether to vote for it or against it. They’re divided.

I know that some members have clearly stated…. And I’ve made a note of the members that are going to vote against it. They will be standing up and saying to the people in their communities, to the businesses in their communities…. Whether they are in the region or whether they are in other communities, they will be saying: “We do not support jobs. We do not support economic growth. We do not support a positive future for the province of British Columbia.”

That is the message that will be coming from the members opposite.

Interjections.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know they’re getting energized, Mr. Speaker.

I’m passionate about the future of this province. That’s why I’m on this side of the House and part of a government that has a clear vision that is going to deliver for the people of British Columbia, not say no, time and time again, to the future for each and every one of our citizens now and in future generations.

I know, clearly…. There have been lots of facts, but the one fact is this: the government supports economic growth. It supports the future of the province of British Columbia, and it is willing to make the decisions that will ensure that.

C. James: There was one word that the minister said that I agreed with, and I’d have to echo it: baloney. Absolute baloney.

I’m pleased to take my place to speak to this motion, and I want to touch on three particular areas during my time. I want to talk about the lack of accountability, the lack of independent examination of this project. I want to speak to this government’s track record on most recent hydro projects, and I want to speak to the impact of Site C on families and our province.

But I want to start off, first, by just talking about this exercise that we’re engaged in right now. I think the minister, again, said it when he talked about a lack of respect. Well, I can tell you what a lack of respect is. A lack of respect is bringing a motion forward like this when, in fact, the government, the B.C. Liberals, have already made the decision around Site C and have already forced it through.

For the public who believes that this is a genuine debate about whether the project has merit…. When the public takes a look at this and wonders whether we’re having an actual discussion here about whether the project has merit or not…. In fact, the government has already pushed this project through. The minister said it in his opening remarks as well. He said: “I’m going to speak to why we’ve approved this project.”
[ Page 9309 ]

Again another example of the direction of this Premier, who is always looking for an opportunity to try and gain political points, instead of actually meeting the needs and talking about the issues that matter to British Columbians.

You know, we could be standing in this House right now talking about how we improve the state of children in care in this province. That’s a conversation we could be having. We could be talking about energy alternatives. We could be talking about improvements to education. We could be talking about post-secondary. We could be talking about affordability for families. We could be talking about real solutions to address climate change. There’s a long list of issues that we could be talking about instead of the political game that this government is playing with this motion.

Let’s take a look at the actual motion and at the project. You know, for a government that claims to be so good at fiscal management, it actually completely defies anyone’s description of fiscal responsibility for this government to move ahead on a project that is almost $9 billion without any independent examination, without any independent review and without any independent scrutiny. It’s $8.8 billion — and that’s if it’s on budget, and I’ll get to that on a minute — of taxpayer dollars without any independent examination of the cost or the need. Some fiscal management. Some fiscal responsibility.

[1745]

What’s even more extraordinary with this particular project is that in Hydro’s case and in the case of Site C, there’s actually an independent body already set up — already set up to do exactly this. Its own purpose is to look and to make an independent review on projects that are coming forward. The B.C. Utilities Commission is already there to examine major projects and see if they’re economically justified — to look at the business case, to look at the need, to look at the costs.

The public has to ask themselves. We certainly have asked ourselves. Why, if the government believes so strongly in this project, are they so afraid to send it off to the B.C. Utilities Commission? Why are they so afraid to have independent scrutiny? It certainly leaves a huge suspicion about the government’s motives, and it really makes you question what their numbers and everything else are based upon.

We’ve already seen this project balloon in costs, and that’s even before it gets started. The estimated project cost has already climbed by nearly a billion dollars. We’re now at almost $9 billion. If you take a look at the comments that have been made by the chair of the federal-provincial panel…. This was a panel appointed to review the Site C project. Harry Swain, the chair of that panel, said that government was unwise to green-light the project without a review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Now, in the panel’s report to government, the panel said it didn’t have the information or the time or the resources to look at the accuracy of cost estimates — $9 billion of taxpayer dollars and there wasn’t the opportunity to examine the cost estimates? — and said that the costs should be examined in detail by what? By the province’s independent regulator. By the B.C. Utilities Commission.

I’ll read a quote from the chair of that panel. “Knowing the province had decided to exempt the project from the scrutiny of the Utilities Commission, we nonetheless felt that that was not good public policy, and we recommended otherwise.” Recommended otherwise. This is the provincial and federal panel reviewing this project. Even though the government said that it wasn’t going to the B.C. Utilities Commission, the panel felt so strongly that they actually made a recommendation that, despite what the government said, it should go to the independent B.C. Utilities Commission.

Continuing on with the quote. “There are big financial questions related to the borrowing of nearly $9 billion and the effect of rates on consumer demand that the panel could not examine. That requires much more time and expertise. Moreover, it’s a job that the Utilities Commission is specifically set up to do.” Again, this is not asking for something unique to be set up. This is not asking for resources to be put in place to create an independent body to do this. There’s an independent body there already, which is there to examine exactly this kind of project.

When you take a look at the government’s arguments…. What is their argument around why they won’t refer this project to the B.C. Utilities Commission? From what I’ve been able to see, it all boils down to: “Just trust us. It’ll be fine. Just trust us. We can review our own projects. They’re just fine.”

Well, how has that worked out so far? If we just take a look at the last four transmission lines that were built, between those four lines, the cost overruns were $522 million. Northwest Transmission Line, 81 percent over budget. Dawson Creek–Chetwynd, 18 percent over budget. Interior to Lower Mainland, 21 percent over budget. Iskut extension, 16 percent over budget.

And what’s the minister’s response to those cost overruns? Well, when he talks about cost overruns and budget numbers, the minister said that the budget was just a preliminary number. And I know we’ve heard this quote before. These are the minister’s words: “Typically, what they do is they’ll come out with a number, and then they’ll say it could be 50 percent higher. It could be 30 percent lower.” Well, with that kind of attitude, Site C could cost as much as $13.2 billion. With that kind of oversight…. They just pick numbers. It might be 50 percent above. It might be below. That’s the kind of response that the minister is saying?

[1750]

Again, if you look at this project…. A project spending $9 billion will have no oversight and no independent examination. Just given that, given the lack of account-
[ Page 9310 ]
ability and given the lack of independent examination and given this government’s track record on large projects, those are reasons alone to ask very serious questions about this project and certainly a clear reason to send this off to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

There are other questions that remain as well. A question, again, that I would expect that most of the public would believe had already been asked and answered, was: is the power from Site C needed? If you take a look at spending this much money of taxpayer dollars — not the B.C. Liberals’ dollars; these are taxpayer dollars that belong to all of British Columbia — you would think and most people would think that that’s a pretty basic question that had been asked and answered clearly before a government moves ahead on a project like this.

In fact, it hasn’t been. In fact, the joint review panel found that the power still won’t be needed at least until 2028, and some people are saying 2033. Yet the government is moving ahead on a project like this without even answering that basic question.

Here we have a project with no oversight, no independent review of the business plan or the budget, questions on the timeline around the need for this power, and the government’s still pushing ahead. That’s just a shortlist of the kinds of things and the kinds of questions that need to be asked and haven’t been answered yet. I know that others have spoken on some of those critical issues, and I just want to touch on a couple of them. I know my time’s short, and I know that others have spoken on them.

The issue of the lack of First Nations support. You know, I heard the minister say that we’re doing things right. That was his quote. “We’re doing things right.” Well, how is moving ahead after the Tsilhqot’in decision and showing a lack of respect and an insult to First Nations and spending money on legal fights…? How is that doing things right? It doesn’t seem like right to me.

Then if you take a look at the agricultural land issue. I know my colleague will speak on that, so I won’t take time now to do that. But the issue of climate change, of food security, the issue of the challenges that we’re facing there — again, questions that we have a right and that the public wants to know are answered and haven’t been by this government.

What about the examination of alternatives? Again, let’s remember that B.C. Hydro was told: “No, no, no, don’t look at alternatives. No, no, no. We have one project over here. We have this project over here. Don’t take a look at comparisons and alternatives.” Well, it is good government to take a look at the spending of those dollars and compare it to what other options might be there to create power, what other options might be there that could be cost-effective for taxpayers.

My colleague the critic has spoken already about Revelstoke 6 and the option that’s there. There are many others — wind, solar, tidal. The minister brushes aside geothermal, but there are all kinds of opportunities in this province that have not been examined, that have not been compared, that have not been looked at when it comes to Site C.

The final area I just want to touch on is the impact on British Columbians and the impact on families. You know, I’ve heard a few members stand up and talk about hydro rates. It is because of this government’s mismanagement of B.C. Hydro that British Columbians are facing unprecedented rate hikes for the next five years. This is before the impact of Site C. This is even before we get there. Imagine what it would be like after the kinds of borrowing costs we’re talking about.

If we look at the facts…. I heard one of the members just say that we need to build Site C to keep the rates low. Well, you know, B.C. Hydro has announced a 28 percent rate hike to take place over the next five years. That started in 2014 — 28 percent. That’s huge hardship for families. The rates have increased 74 percent since 2001.

Hydro has always been an economic tool and an economic opportunity for British Columbia. Affordable rates, access to power — that was a competitive advantage for us. It attracted industry to British Columbia. It was our opportunity to bring industry and to keep the economy going. But if you look at these kinds of rising rates….

We’ve heard businesses come forward who have expressed concerns about these kinds of rising rates. It’s going to have a huge impact on industry. It’s going to have a huge impact on small businesses. It’s certainly having a huge impact on families.

[1755]

Seniors are making difficult choices, and we haven’t even hit winter yet. It’s going to be tough for people with those kinds of increases.

Families have few options. There are homeowners who’ve reached out to me who actually converted to hydro because they thought that it was going to be cost-effective. They thought those competitive rates were going to continue. They were worried about what it might look like otherwise. Now they’re seeing huge heating costs that they’re having to face.

That’s not simply the first cost or the only cost that this government has layered onto families. You’re seeing that on top of medical services premium increases, on top of ferry fares, on top of tuition. A 28 percent increase — imagine what that does to a family budget.

So if we take a look at the challenges with this motion coming forward — if we take a look at rising rates, the huge cost to families and to businesses, the fact that there’s been no independent review or examination of the need for power or the timeline that this government says, challenges with First Nations and legal costs that are being racked up by this government, the negative impact on scarce agricultural land — it’s a long list. Yet what we see from this government is to decide to insult the public by bringing forward a motion to talk about something
[ Page 9311 ]
that they’ve already decided to push through regardless of how the public feels.

I think that says everything. That says everything about this government. “Let’s see if we can gain a few political points. Let’s see if we can manage that, never mind all the huge, important, critical questions on this project and real issues that we should be debating in this House.”

I will be saying no to this political game. I will be saying no to this political stunt when we could be spending our time and energy talking about so many things in this House that really matter.

D. McRae: Today we stand in this House to debate the merits of Site C. I believe that governments, be they municipal, provincial or federal, have in their power the ability to make policy, create organizations and, yes, build infrastructure that will strengthen their jurisdiction.

As a nation, where would Canada be without the leadership that built the CPR or perhaps the St. Lawrence Seaway? As a province, where would we be without infrastructure like transportation, the Alex Fraser Bridge or perhaps the creation of B.C. Ferries? That was done before my time. Locally, if you’re in local government, you know the impact of having, say, a sports facility or a theatre complex being built in your community, perhaps the construction of a hospital.

But one they all say for certain: there are three absolutes. That’s three things, I suppose. One, the right project will be an asset for that jurisdiction for generations to come. The second absolute: in British Columbia, no matter how great the project is, getting unanimous approval is probably unlikely unless it involves less than one 2-by-4 and half a hammer. But thirdly, strong leadership is essential.

Now, I believe, as a student of history, that the construction of Site C will be applauded by future generations of B.C. residents. It will also be applauded by businesses. It will ensure that B.C. residents will maintain their power self-sufficiency and cost advantage. And while $8 billion — and I will admit it is a substantial sum — it will pay dividends not for decades but for a century.

Yesterday I sat in this chamber and I heard the member for Nanaimo urge the members on this side of the House to vote against a government bill. He used various guilt complexes like we might not get into cabinet or we might get out of cabinet or such. So if he was allowed to use that, and he has been in this chamber longer than I have, I will use the same logic to his colleagues across the aisle.

Now, I look across. I see 33 members on the opposite side. I see members from northern B.C., from Vancouver Island, and I find it shocking. I don’t think, unabashedly, there’s a chance that all 33 members are against Site C. So using the member for Nanaimo’s logic, are the members opposite afraid of losing, perhaps, their coveted seat position on the opposite side by supporting Site C? Are they perhaps fearful of losing their critic role or risk going down the path of defeated MLA Bob Simpson and be forced to sit as an independent? Well, don’t be afraid of leaving a positive asset for your children, your grandchildren and, in this particular case, your great-grandchildren.

[1800]

I know that oftentimes we beat up the opposition, and we accuse them of just being completely absent, when they were in government, for capital projects. We won’t all talk about the eight or so deficit budgets they brought in. We often use health care as an example of what they didn’t build, but I’m going to give some credit. I will credit where credit is due. I get to give that credit because I get to use it on a regular basis, and in fact, I used it today. They did build the inland Island highway. Sure, some will accuse that it was over budget. Perhaps it was suffering from design flaws, with the 23 or 33 lights between Cowichan Valley and Campbell River.

Sure, some people will say the opposition tried to downscale the project midway through it, and they tried to two-lane it north of Courtenay to Campbell River. And yes, there were some residents who had their property who were affected, and they were angry about it. But what did the government of the day do? They took leadership.

They built a much-needed highway, and B.C. residents have enjoyed the benefits and the safety aspects to this day. So I will give credit where credit is due. You got it right when you built the inland highway, in terms of the actual construction of the project. Let’s not worry about the small stuff. Let’s employ the same logic and support Site C.

Now, we had the opportunity to hear from the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim. He did speak against it, and I applaud him. I look forward to hearing my colleague to the north, from North Island, and having her thoughts being expressed. I haven’t had a chance to hear — but I’m sure I will — the member for Nanaimo, who definitely knows the challenges of showing leadership. He was in the NDP cabinet, as a matter of fact, I believe, when the inland highway was being built.

Now, members opposite, I know it is challenging, it is tough to be a leader in this province when you haven’t actually been in leadership roles for a long time, but we in this chamber have an opportunity to leave a great legacy to our children. I urge the members to not fall back — what’s the line you often use? — on the comm shop speak, speaking points, but speak for yourselves. Let’s speak to your constituents. Stand up and support Site C. The future in British Columbia is incredibly bright. Don’t be afraid, members opposite, to be part of it.

I support this project because it will be a legacy for our children and it will be a legacy for our grandchildren. We are the party that does yes. We build this province. We have built this province. We will continue to build this province. I support Site C, and I look forward to hearing the members opposite stand up and talk about why they will now support this project in the future years.
[ Page 9312 ]

L. Popham: It’s a pleasure to rise. I know that the Energy Minister is keeping track on who supports this motion and who doesn’t, so I’m just going to give him an FYI that I will be voting against it.

There are a few things that we know right now — that the work on the Site C dam has begun. I’ve been receiving photos from areas within the valley that have been clearcut, of islands in the middle of the river that have been clearcut over the last week. The reports from the residents in that area are that the logging is happening through the night. That’s one thing that we know.

The next thing that we know is that this is a political stunt by the B.C. Liberals. That’s why we’re debating this all afternoon. The work has begun, the work on the dam has started, but it’s a political stunt. What happens in this chamber is generally very disrespected by this government.

Now, the other thing that we know…. The Minister of Energy took great pleasure in pointing out some agricultural benefits that are going to come with Site C, and he mentioned the support that I might be happy with, as somebody who supports agriculture.

I think there’s something that we can be very clear on: the Energy Minister has absolutely no credibility on the agriculture file in this province — absolutely none. He’s proven this over and over again, especially over the last year and a half. He is in the business of destroying agricultural land, and this goes along with his theme. The Peace River Valley boasts the only class 1 climate north of Prince George. It’s a unique microclimate, allowing for large crop range and productivity levels.

Interjection.

L. Popham: The Minister of Energy says no, but what does that mean?

[1805]

In fact, the northern valley…. I hope the minister is listening. This is an educational talk for the Minister of Energy. This northern valley can produce similar crops to the Fraser Valley. Now, imagine if we were to flood the Fraser Valley.

The value of these food-growing soils and climate was recognized over 40 years ago by the NDP when we put in the agricultural land reserve. We made a commitment at that time that we would make a commitment to the people who come after us to protect our productive lands and to encourage food production.

Now, the minister used some convoluted numbers when he was talking about how much agricultural land would be lost. I think he came down to 1,600 hectares, when, really, if you know anything about agriculture, you will know that Site C will impact 12,759 hectares.

I’m going to break it down for the minister so he understands how agriculture works. So 6,290 hectares lie within the projected floodline and will be permanently lost as the result of construction. Does the Energy Minister agree with that or not? And 4,523 hectares will be flooded from the reservoir, 330 hectares from the roads, 243 hectares from access ways, and 1,373 hectares from erosion over the next 100 years, because that’s what happens when you flood a valley. There’s the issue of erosion.

The analysis that the Energy Minister gave us…. He fiddled the numbers. He used an uneducated evaluation and then concluded that we wouldn’t have very much agricultural land lost. He completed his befuddled agrological assessment that it’s actually better for agriculture to flood this valley. I have no idea how he came to that conclusion, but “befuddled” is the only word I can think of.

The UN has recognized that food security and climate change are a huge issue for us. The only people that don’t acknowledge that are the B.C. Liberals. I think we should have a motion to see who believes in climate change or not tomorrow. We might as well while we’re at it. The UN 2014 report done by more than 300 scientists said that climate change had already cut into the global food supply.

The minister is not listening, but this is really important.

The global crop yields are beginning to decline, Minister, especially for wheat, raising doubts as to whether production can keep up with the world’s population growth. Climate change is acting as a brake on agriculture. We need yields to grow to meet growing demand, but climate change is already slowing those yields.

The study that came from the UN says the impacts are already evident in many places in the world. It’s not something that’s going to only happen in the future, it says. A professor at Stanford University says, “Almost everywhere you see the warming effects have negative effects on agricultural crops. These are not yet enormous effects, but they show clearly that the trends are big enough to be important,” and they’re big enough for us to be worried.

Failure to produce the food production potential of the Peace River Valley is only one of the reasons why this motion can’t be supported. Failure to recognize or discuss it doesn’t surprise me, though. More and more, we have to fight to farm in British Columbia.

The Site C plan includes flooding over 4,000 hectares of ALR land — or should I say, what was ALR land. Just until a few months ago, this land had been protected under the Agricultural Land Reserve Act. On a gloomy day, when distraction ran high, the B.C. Liberal cabinet quietly signed an order-in-council which effectively ripped this land out of the agricultural land reserve.

It is my view that this is inconsistent with section 16 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The act clearly states: “Land included in an agricultural land reserve remains agricultural land in the agricultural land reserve unless excluded under this Act.” This land was not excluded under that act. Instead, it was grabbed out of the ALR by the B.C. Liberal cabinet in a fashion that appears to be working against their own statute.

The ALC, the Agricultural Land Commission, an independent commission, was set up by governments past
[ Page 9313 ]
to ensure that such decisions are made fairly, but it was run over by the Premier and her cabinet. If the land had been excluded consistent with the law, there would have first been hearings by the commission.

[1810]

There would have been opportunities for expert and public opinion. We would have heard from agrologists, agronomists, ranchers, farmers, food processors and other food security and food sovereignty experts. There would have been a debate on the value of farmland to British Columbia.

The disrespect to British Columbians over process is a theme with this government. Before approving a plan like Site C, there should have been a review from an independent, expert commission. The B.C. Liberals deliberately and explicitly stopped the B.C. Utilities Commission from doing exactly that, and that’s the pattern of this government.

Make no mistake, hydroelectricity is extremely important to our province. It has been an economic engine and a source of clean and renewable energy. But Site C…. The plan is outdated, and it will be a further hazard to our hydro bills. The Site C power is not needed right now, and B.C. already has enough energy to last until 2028 without doing Site C.

We’re starting to understand that smaller projects are better. Building multiple small-scale projects is a better way to meet our future demands as they become necessary. It’s the responsible way to move forward.

Interjection.

L. Popham: Are you listening to me? I’m voting against the motion. I said that at the beginning. Start listening.

Part of the process that would investigate costs and benefits of Site C in an independent way would be the B.C. Utilities Commission, and the minister knows this. The minister knows exactly that. It’s a step that a responsible government would take in a project this size — 8 billion to 10 billion or more taxpayer dollars.

The commission would review the project, its costs and impacts on ratepayers. In fact, sending it to the BCUC is the law, unless the government exempts itself from what’s required by the law, and that’s, in fact, what the B.C. Liberals have done. If the B.C. Liberals don’t like the way the law affects the way they do business, they exempt themselves from it.

There are a lot of questions to be answered about Site C that won’t be answered because there’s no choice. The project is moving forward. Instead, we have to listen to some convoluted business plan from the Energy Minister. If this project is going ahead, it’s going to come with huge sacrifices. There would be a profound impact on First Nations, natural habitats that would be changed forever, without actually knowing if we need Site C or not. If it’s a sound investment, how can we accept the changes that will affect our province forever?

As a spokesperson for agriculture, I know that by sidestepping the BCUC, we won’t have the chance to make the economic argument for our food-growing lands either. I would hope that protecting and increasing B.C.’s food self-sufficiency would be a top priority for this government, but the Liberals have skipped past the BCUC and considered the economic case for Site C behind closed doors, at the cabinet table, leaving the people out of the conversation yet again.

It’s hard to find better land for farming in B.C. than the Peace River Valley. This huge, open expanse of land has extraordinary, fertile soils, full sun exposure and an abundant water supply. It’s a rare and fragile piece of land, just a fraction of 1 percent of B.C.’s land base, yet it could grow enough food to feed a million people. Given its high capability and suitability, it would be the equivalent to flooding all of the farmland, cropland, in Delta.

It must be acknowledged that removal of this land will affect our self-reliance and our ability to be resilient in the face of climate change. It is known that even just to maintain our low 48 percent of production, happening on 2.6 million hectares of this province, and to feed an increasing population until 2025, B.C. will need 2.8 million hectares of food-producing lands. Only a government with no long-term plan would flood the lands we need to feed ourselves and take away the opportunities we will have to feed other regions.

Now, to know about the food capability, the agricultural capacity of the Peace River Valley, the best thing to do is to go up and walk the lands and get to know the farmers in the valley. I’ve done just that.

Today I got this note from farmers whose farm will be flooded by the dam, and they reference other farmers, as well, whose farms will be underwater once this dam is complete. You’d think that they would have lost their fight by now. They can see the construction starting, yet they sent me this letter today.

“Despite the challenges of a fairly hot and dry summer, agriculture production was good in the valley this summer.

[1815]

“The market garden production was great. With the irrigation from the shallow aquifer in the river-bottom fields along the Peace River that they sit on, Charles and Esther were selling two varieties of cantaloupes, one variety weighing up to 11 pounds each. They also had two varieties of watermelon, and these were in high demand with the hot, dry weather.

“Corn is always another hot commodity, and it was ready the first week of August this year. The roadside stand at the field would sometimes be full of customers, who either stop on their travels or make trips especially to buy their produce. Our barley and oat crops did better than anticipated this year, yielding about 75 bushels an acre.

“Neighbours with canola and wheat report average yields and are just wrapping up the harvest now. Hay crops also did surprisingly well and were in high demand with the shortage of feed both in B.C. and Alberta. A local beekeeper moved some hives onto our river bottom flats to take advantage of the incredible second flowering of the alfalfa this summer.

“Finally, the home garden did great, and the four separate families from Fort St. John who also plant their gardens in our
[ Page 9314 ]
space all harvested lots of produce, with mainly just potatoes, carrots and beets to harvest for now. However, our ever-bearing strawberries are still producing. So another productive year of agriculture is winding down in the Peace River Valley.

“Cheers, Ken and Arlene”

On behalf of Ken and Arlene and on behalf of the farmers and ranchers that I’ve met at the Peace River Valley, and on behalf of everyone in our province who knows how critical our food security is, I vote against this motion.

D. Barnett: I’m pleased to add my voice in support of this motion on the Site C clean energy project on behalf of my constituents in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

I represent an area of the province that is very much aware of many benefits of Site C. Our resource-based industries are the engine that drives B.C.’s economy. Those industries in rural B.C. are a large part of the reason our province and its citizens enjoy one of the highest standards of living anywhere.

Much of the credit for our prosperity over the past half-century and more goes to our former Premier W.A.C. Bennett who set our province up for greatness by opening up B.C. and turning our vast natural resources into wealth while still protecting our pristine natural beauty. My political mentor and friend, the late Alex Fraser, served as MLA for the Cariboo under Premier Bennett and understood, as Premier Bennett did, the importance of using B.C.’s natural resources for the good of all residents.

So it goes with the Site C project. Site C will support British Columbians’ quality of life for decades to come and will enable continued investment in a growing economy. The benefits of Site C are too numerous to mention here, but we can start with the 10,000 construction jobs that will be created over the life of the project.

About $3.2 billion will be added to the provincial economy from the purchase of goods and services during construction, including $130 million to the regional economy in and around the Peace. There will be $40 million in tax revenues during construction going to local governments, and about $2 million per year to those local governments, once Site C is operational, from grants-in-lieu and school taxes. In addition, count on another $179 million in provincial revenues and $270 million in federal revenues from activities during construction.

The benefits are already accumulating, and many companies in the region have been awarded contracts. Companies are recruiting workers in the region as we speak. This recruitment is being supported by B.C. Hydro, which is posting contact information for all contractors on the Site C website. B.C. Hydro is also working with partners in the region, including chambers of commerce and employment agencies, to plan a series of job fairs, with dates for the job fairs expected to be announced shortly.

[1820]

Among the benefits to local communities from the Site C project are a regional legacy benefits agreement, infrastructure improvements, recreation and tourism opportunities and affordable housing. It will contribute $130 million to the regional economy from the purchase of goods and services during construction. Site C will provide economic benefits to the north through job creation, business opportunities, benefits agreements, increased revenues, improved infrastructure and greater access to skills training.

B.C. Hydro is working with communities to reach agreements that will provide lasting benefits for residents of the north. Since 2007, B.C. Hydro has used dozens of local contractors and vendors from the north. This includes consulting engineers; general contractors; consulting firms specializing in wildlife, fish and heritage; hotels; rental cars; caterers; riverboat transportation; helicopters; aerial surveys; land surveyors; janitorial service; and photography. These contractors are from Fort St. John, Prince George and Moberly Lake.

It is important to recognize that all new electricity projects have impacts. The Site C clean energy project will be the third dam on Peace River and will utilize the existing Williston reservoir. This means that Site C can generate 35 percent of the energy produced at the W.A.C. Bennett dam with a reservoir 5 percent of the size. The energy it provides will support the development of more independent power projects by backing up intermittent resources such as wind. Independent power projects currently provide 25 percent of B.C.’s electricity and will continue to play a vital role in meeting the province’s energy needs.

We must balance economic growth with responsibility to the environment, just as my mentor Alex Fraser believed. That is why we have had an extensive three-year environmental assessment process, including two months of public hearings. We consulted with the public for seven years about Site C, and it is the most reviewed project in our province’s history.

Site C will provide British Columbians with the most affordable, reliable, clean power for more than a century. Our electricity is very affordable. We have the third-lowest residential rates and fourth-lowest industrial rates in North America.

Our population and economy are growing, and the demand for power is expected to increase by 40 percent over the next 20 years. We have to meet future needs while maintaining our advantage in affordable power, and to keep rates low, we must build Site C.

The project will build on the success of our existing hydroelectric system and benefit British Columbians for generations to come. That is why I support Site C — not like my opposition across the way, who say no to every resource development in the province of British Columbia, who say no to mines, who say no to this, who say: “Take it to the BCUC, and then after you take it to the BCUC, we’ll get you to take it to someone else.”

Our province is moving forward with a government that can make good, strong decisions, both for the econ-
[ Page 9315 ]
omy and for the environment.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to spend a little time, after we’ve wasted the better part of 4½ hours on a political stunt here, this particular resolution. And it is simply that.

We know the decision has been made. The decision is made. The first major contract has been let. Morgan Environmental from Alberta has the contract, and we know that’s going ahead because you can talk to the people in Fort St. John who are looking at all of those Alberta licence plates for all those jobs that British Columbians don’t have.

For all of the phony arguments of this minister and her colleagues…. Talk about phony arguments. They don’t care. They will give it away. The Minister of Jobs says: “Send the jobs to Alberta.”

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

[1825]

S. Simpson: She’s happy to send them to Alberta.

What we see here is what is nothing more than cheap politics in this resolution. Now, we know cheap politics is well instilled in the DNA of Liberal cabinet ministers, so that’s just the way it is.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: That’s just the way it is, Minister.

So what do we have here? The only thing that may stop this project at this point will be a court case in November that we’ll see about, with the First Nations. That will play out. Other than that, this is a deal that is done. It’s a deal that’s done, and it’s a deal that’s done at a cost that we can’t even begin to fathom — $6.6 billion in 2007; today, $9 billion.

If we look at the performance of this government…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member.

S. Simpson: …project after project after project, we see the costs going up 50 percent, 100 percent. This government doesn’t know how to do a project without a 50 percent or a 100 percent cost overrun.

Look at B.C. Place — 100 percent overrun. The convention centre….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member.

S. Simpson: Ridiculous, ridiculous overruns.

Madame Speaker: Member, the Chair will hear the commentary.

S. Simpson: We have a project that’s $9 billion now. Will it be $10 billion, $12 billion, $13 billion, $14 billion by the time we’re done? I suppose it probably will be.

Of course, the problem here is that there has been no oversight — none at all. The B.C. Utilities Commission, the place where a project of this magnitude should have been…. This government manipulated it in every possible way and refused to allow it go there.

Do we want to understand why? It’s not hard. November 24, 2013, the Globe and Mail. What does the Minister of Energy say? “Putting Site C to a regulatory review would get in the way of the provincial government’s energy plans,” the minister said. “That would have exposed those projects to the intervener process that we have at the B.C. Utilities Commission.” We wouldn’t want that, would we? We wouldn’t want the regulatory regime, which was put in place for good reasons, to be used.

Instead, we have this manipulation by this minister, by this government, to ram this thing forward. That’s the reality that we’re talking about.

So what do we have? Instead, we have one process. We do have a process here. We have a process; it was the joint review panel. That’s probably the closest thing we got to a process. What did the joint review panel tell us? Well, let’s look at what the joint review panel told us. “Site C would seem cheap one day. But the project would be accompanied by significant environmental and social costs, and the costs would not be borne by those who benefit. The larger effects are: significant unmitigated losses to wildlife and rare plants, including losses to species under the Species at Risk Act; significant unmitigated losses to fish and fish habitat; losses of certain archaeological, historical and paleontological resources; social costs to farmers, ranchers, hunters and other users of the Peace River Valley; and forced changes to the current uses of land and water by signatories to treaty 8, other First Nations and the Métis. These losses will be borne by the people of the valley, some of whom say there is no possible compensation.”

That’s what they said, but that’s not all the joint review panel said. They said that large LNG plants, which this government suggested were part of the reason for this, and pipelines are likely to be powered by natural gas. We know they’re going to be powered by natural gas. The PDA told us that.

What else did the joint review panel say? “For a number of reasons set out in the text, the panel cannot conclude that the power of Site C is needed on the schedule presented.” That’s what the joint review panel said.

They also talked about alternatives. What did they say? “B.C. Hydro now says 700 megawatts of firm power via geothermal resources may be available at competitive prices. They are, however, forbidden by policy to de-
[ Page 9316 ]
velop it.” This is what B.C. Hydro says and the joint review panel says. As they say, B.C. Hydro is forbidden by policy to pursue it.

[1830]

There are a number of other renewable alternatives available at costs comparable to Site C, the review panel says, but these have only been roughly costed in the environmental impact statement. As a matter of public policy, B.C. Hydro is not allowed to develop them and so has not invested much in exploration, research and engineering.

You have a government here and a minister that makes a decision, goes ahead and then closes every door for looking at any legitimate alternative or renewable. This minister and government went out of their way to ensure there were no other options. But this minister knows he’ll be long gone before the people pay the price for this.

What about the claims on jobs? What about those? Well, we know that we had a process here.

I heard the speaker before me talk about Alex Fraser being a minister in the W.A.C. Bennett government. Well, I recall reading back on the history of Mr. Bennett, who created B.C. Hydro and that. In 1963, when they dammed the Peace…. Of course, he put the Allied Hydro agreement in place — an agreement that for 50 years has built hydro largely on budget and on time, a project labour agreement that created great opportunities and great jobs for British Columbians.

The last project signed by the Allied Hydro Council — of course, closely related to the Allied Hydro agreement — probably would have been claimed to be John Hart. But that agreement gets torn up.

The government tears up the Allied Hydro agreement. The government tears up the agreement that for 50 years has been a success in this province, that for 50 years has created opportunities in this province. The ministers over there tear that agreement up. And what do we see? They tear the agreement up. They try to hardball this through with B.C. Hydro.

The building trades, of course, react to that and threaten to go to court. We now have a negotiation and a memorandum of understanding. But it’s a memorandum of understanding that, I’m told, has a weighting system that nobody knows about, a weighting system that’s supposed to guarantee jobs for British Columbians.

I would note that $9 billion, $10 billion, $11 billion, $12 billion, whatever this ends up costing — all B.C. taxpayers’ money. British Columbians should get those jobs. There are no more guarantees here than there are in the LNG agreement that we debated this summer, where there’s not a single job guarantee in there. Billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money and not a single agreement — unbelievable.

I see….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member, just wait.

Ministers will come to order.

Please continue.

S. Simpson: I would say to the Minister of Energy: “You should talk to the minister of jobs and economic development.” I know that she has seen the ads that the building trades are running in Fort St. John newspapers and elsewhere saying: “What happened to the deal?” She could tell you about that, Minister.

We have a situation where you have a system that works. I guess that had to get torn up because somebody had to figure out how to mollify Phil Hochstein, who’s unhappy after he messed up skills training. You took that away from him. Now you’ve given him Site C.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: The 17th minister or 18th or 23rd or whatever the number is.

This is a stunt. When I go back and look at the motion, the motion talks about affordability. But the joint review panel says we can’t assess that because we don’t have enough information, and the government has excluded the ability to look at alternatives, renewables and other things. They’ve shut that door. So how we look at affordability is not there.

They said an environmental review process. The list of environmental impacts is long and difficult and about jobs. There is no guarantee here about those jobs.

I hear the communications person from B.C. Hydro saying in a quote that, well, half the jobs have gone to British Columbians. Congratulations. Half the jobs have gone to British Columbians. When we have half for British Columbians….

[1835]

This is the Liberal model for success. You pay 100 percent of the bills, and you get half the benefits. That’s the Liberal approach. Talk about bunglers. They bungle, and they misrepresent things, and they get themselves elected. It’s pretty impressive how they do that. I must say, that’s pretty impressive.

This motion isn’t deserving of support because of what it is. The motion isn’t deserving of support. I heard the Minister of Energy — and we’ll hear him talk about this again — talking about leadership, I think, when he made his comments at the beginning. Well, let’s talk about strong leadership.

Strong leadership isn’t about manipulating a process to close doors so that an organization like B.C. Hydro can’t look at its alternatives. That’s not strong leadership. Strong leadership isn’t about running away from regulatory organizations like the B.C. Utilities Commission.

It’s not about closing the doors on transparency, closing the doors on evidence and saying: “I don’t care about evidence.” Well, I know that the minister will say any-
[ Page 9317 ]
thing to get this done. He will say anything. And that’s why most British Columbians aren’t much concerned about what the minister says, because it’s anything that comes out of his mouth.

What strong leadership is about…. If this minister wanted to demonstrate some kind of strong leadership, it’s about having the courage of your convictions to send this project to the Utilities Commission. It’s the courage of your convictions to allow a real analysis of this project, a real assessment, to tell B.C. Hydro to go look at renewables, to tell them to go out and look at Revelstoke 6, to look at other options and come back with a plan that puts British Columbians first instead of Liberals, their political agenda and their friends. That’s what we’re doing today.

This motion is just a commentary on the dismal situation across the bench from us. It’s a commentary on a government that is desperate. LNG went in the ditch in a big way, so they need a megaproject. Who cares what happens to British Columbians? Who cares about taxpayers? “Let’s throw this one up and see if it sticks, because we need a megaproject for the Premier.” That’s what we’ve got here.

It’s just bad politics, bad science, bad programs, bad policy. But it comes from a bad government, so who would expect anything else?

V. Huntington: It’s always such a hard act to follow the member.

It’s taken me a long time to reach a conclusion on the building of the Site C dam. And the minister is right. On an issue this important to British Columbia, we owe our constituents a clear statement of our position.

I’ve been north to see what Site C means to the Peace Valley. I’ve stood on the dam site. I visited the camps — huge camps — which the Site C camps will dwarf. I’ve seen the fabulous industrial might of the oil and gas industry. It’s fascinating. It’s exciting. It’s big machinery, big money, big and very bright minds. And I’ve listened to and struggled with the arguments on both sides.

I have to say that, yes, there will be jobs. But I must ask: how many jobs? Is it going to be 50 percent of that lovely 10,000 number that we keep hearing? Is Alberta going to get all of the construction jobs because it’s so much cheaper to bid out of Alberta than in British Columbia? And how many jobs can we expect when the Premier has to tell B.C. Hydro to make a deal with labour?

Yes, it’s clean energy, but it’s clean energy that’s destined to fuel a new industry that will make a farce of B.C.’s own carbon regulations. And I’ve seen the effects of the development Site C will have on a supercharged northeast B.C.: the cumulative impact in the boreal forest, huge camps, gas pipelines, water pipelines, oil pipelines, roads, water pits, construction sites, drilling sites, seismic lines and resource roads.

[1840]

I’ve seen the loss of superb agricultural land at a time when we have a desperate need for food security, not only in British Columbia but in Canada and throughout the world. I’ve seen what the loss of heritage will mean — the ancient Beringia corridor, the earliest site of non-native habitation; the Rocky Mountain Fort. I’ve seen what the loss of critical habitat will mean — the failure to observe aboriginal rights and the protection of traditional territories.

When I look at this motion, I am struck by its arrogance, its sheer delight in ignoring the realities surrounding the decision to build the dam. And I am most struck by its typical attitude toward process — any process that gets in the way of the minister’s idea of what is righteous. Process has been irrelevant in this Site C saga.

The ALC? It has ignored the application process that’s required by law. A thorough environmental review? We have rewritten our environmental laws. It’s a broken system and a broken process. We’ve rewritten the regulations. We’ve struck the word “environment” from the Navigable Waters Act and website. We’ve narrowed the terms of reference so that there’s no consideration of cumulative effects, related projects. We look at how to mitigate a project, not whether or not it should proceed.

We’ve read the decision from the review panel in a narrow fashion. The panel says that the biological diversity of the Peace is a global asset of great value to present and future generations. The panel says the loss of biodiversity has a cost in terms of its loss to world biodiversity and heritage. It also has a financial cost.

The panel said the project should go to the BCUC. That is the worst of all of the lack of process in this: the exemption of a project from the BCUC. And this is what has finally turned my opinion on the matter: the government’s fear of having experts determine whether the project was needed.

The decision to proceed with Site C was such a foregone conclusion and was so bad that the chair of the review panel actually broke silence and said the government’s decision was not in the public interest; that it was obvious the government had been determined to go ahead regardless; that it deserves scrutiny by the experts in BCUC; that the cost forecast done by members of the construction industry was nothing more than putting the fox in the henhouse.

So the minister can say whatever he wants. But unless he has the gumption to put this project in front of the commission that is legally bound to review it; unless he wants to find out the truth, however annoying it may be; I will never support anything he says about building Site C.

Process is important, so important. Time-consuming? Yes. Frustrating? Yes. Hard work? Yes. But process gives us all a common approach, a common understanding of what is needed, a face to the law. It suggests fairness, a lack of bias and a willingness to listen. It suggests that democracy is alive.

People depend on process. It lets us participate peacefully with some level of hope and trust. But when a gov-
[ Page 9318 ]
ernment not only stops listening, but also decides that process is getting in the way, then the people have nothing — absolutely nothing. They lose faith, they lose hope, they lose trust, and they get angry.

Without process, there are only three ways to turn: the courts, and risk bankruptcy; activism; or a growing distrust and disdain for government. I ask government members opposite: do you see what we see out there? Do you see the court cases, the demonstrations, the public distrust of government?

Democracy is a balancing act. It requires both sides to respect the rules. When it comes to Site C, this government hasn’t respected the rules for a long time.

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. B. Bennett: Let me wrap it up.

It was a good debate on both sides. The only disappointment for me personally is that the vast majority of NDP opposition members refused to actually say whether they supported the Site C project or not.

[1845]

When I first stood up here a few hours ago, I predicted that the NDP would bob and weave on this. They really are afraid to have their members actually say whether they support the Site C project or not. There are NDP members who are very tightly tied to the labour movement, and good for them. We all find our constituencies wherever we find them. We get elected because we find people of common view, and they support us and help us get elected. There are members over there who know darn well that the right thing to do is to support this project. But they’ve been told, obviously….

Most of them didn’t get a chance to speak here today, and that’s a shame. Most of them didn’t get that opportunity to speak. But the members who did speak — some of them spoke passionately.

The member for Saanich South, who can be very passionate, spoke passionately about agriculture. She’s wrong about what she said about the profound impact on agriculture, based on what the independent panel said. This is not my opinion. What the panel said was that the impact on agriculture in fact was not significant.

I mean no disrespect to the people — particularly the people who are going to lose land and who are going to have to maybe, in some cases, even lose their homes. There’s absolutely no way to sugar-coat that. We get that. But the panel looked at everything and found a balance and recommended, in fact, that this was the best way to acquire the electricity.

What I heard, essentially…. Well, I heard one member.… I heard a few members basically say: “All B.C. Hydro projects are over budget. They’re just all over budget. All of them are over budget.” One of the members from Victoria stood up and said: “Four transmission lines are $500 million over budget.” I have no idea where she got that kind of information except that somebody probably wrote it down for her, and she said it in the House. It’s just not true.

You know, if there was more time, I could read into the record eight capital projects that B.C. Hydro has done in the very recent past that were actually under budget. I will also tell members that in fact, the capital projects built in the last three years came in, overall, under budget. For the NDP to stand in this House and say over and over and over again that B.C. Hydro can’t build anything on time, on budget, is demonstrably wrong, and we can prove it.

I also heard here, this afternoon, my critic argue that we should keep Burrard Thermal. That is an unbelievable position for the NDP to take. It is a dirty plant that produces dirty electricity, when it produces anything. It would take $400 million to get it up to snuff. Even when it was up to snuff, it would still be inefficient and rarely used.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: It would produce significant greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a very, very strange position for my critic to take. But I think the strangest position for my critic to take….

This one was piggybacked. There was a bunch of the NDP members that talked about Revelstoke 6. Well, the solution to all of our problems, apparently, according to the NDP, is: “Well, let’s just go build Revelstoke 6.”

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: The hon. member is saying: “Why did you shelve Revelstoke 6?”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Speaker, it would be my great pleasure, my great pleasure, to tell the member that actually, Revelstoke 6 is being built. It may, in fact, be in operation before Site C. Revelstoke 6 is going to be built, so I’m going to give the member the opportunity to change his mind on the whole Site C debate. He may decide to support the Site C project at this point.

I should also tell that member and other members that in fact, Revelstoke 6 will produce zero energy — zero energy. It is a 100 percent capacity project, so to suggest that Revelstoke 6 should supplant the Site C project just shows that the member has a little bit more homework to do.

[1850]

He’s a solid critic, and I respect him. He comes up with the odd good question, but he certainly was off base on this one. A lot of speakers today said that we didn’t look at all of the alternatives. That is a….

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, it’s not true, but analyze that. I mean, the NDP and the Green Party member stood up and basically said: “Well, we could get that electricity from geothermal.” Okay, so where? What geothermal project is there in B.C.? There are none. There are zero. They have had opportunities, numerous occasions, to bid into calls. The standing offer program is there today. They can bid in today, under the standing offer program, up to 15 megawatts — no problem. They’re not there.

It doesn’t exist yet. Do I hope it exists some day? Absolutely. I said earlier in my speech that I really hope that geothermal does get developed. But it’s not there, and it’s not going to be there ten years from now. That leaves wind, solar, bioenergy and tidal, I suppose. Tidal is not nearly developed enough to be having a discussion about finding 1,100 megawatts.

It was suggested today by both the NDP and the Green member that we could just use wind. The cost of wind has come down. There’s no question about that. But what would that do to the ratepayer? Well, if you get 1,100 megawatts of wind you, in fact, are going to also need 1,100 megawatts of something else that’s firm. So you’re going to have to have gas plants all over the province to back up that wind power, because the wind doesn’t always blow.

It may be news for the opposition. This may be like a news flash: the wind doesn’t always blow, and the sun doesn’t always shine. So you have to have some sort of firm energy to back that up. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. B. Bennett: Of course, the big one, it seemed like for everybody — the NDP and the two independents — is to send it to the BCUC. I’m really curious to know why the NDP, in particular, thinks that it’s a really good idea for the BCUC to make a big energy policy decision about a big energy project. When they, the NDP, were in government in the 1990s and one of their members, a member who I have the utmost respect for, was Energy Minister….

I’m not going to read the quotes out again, because it seems unnecessary. But when these folks, these colleagues of ours across the way, were in government in the 1990s, they actually said, probably right here in this place: “We don’t think that we should take these power plant projects to the BCUC. That’s just like red tape. Once they go through an environmental assessment and they have some independent assessment, that ought to be good enough.” That’s what they said. I don’t know how you square that.

I don’t hear anything from the other side right now, so I think they’re having trouble squaring that.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s been suggested…. You know, there are a few folks shouting things out like “read the act.” Somebody actually suggested that what we did was illegal. What I would say is: read the legislation. What we did was completely within the legislation of British Columbia in all ways.

I think I’ll go back to where I started when I first stood up here. What has come out of this debate here today? This debate has been referred to as a stunt and a waste of time. The guy….

Interjections.

[1855]

Hon. B. Bennett: Now they’re wasting time. They’re wasting time. The guy who said that actually spoke for the longest.

The public deserves to know where politicians stand on major issues. Every single NDP member except one, the man from Port Alberni — God love him — had the you-know-what to say here today that he opposes the Site C project. Good for him, but nobody else over there did.

Thank you, hon. Speaker. I call the motion.

[1900]

Madame Speaker: Excuse me, Madam Clerk.

For the purposes of recording the vote, there should be silence in the chamber.

Please proceed.

Motion approved on the following division:

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 7:02 p.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