The Legislature is back in session and your MLA is hard at work holding the government to account.
In his address to the Throne Speech Michael takes aim at the aspects that concern “Green Energy.”
The official Hansard below.
Enjoy!
2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th 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)
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2010
Morning Sitting
Volume 10, Number 7
M. Sather: It’s my pleasure to rise today to respond to the throne speech 2010 version. You know, listening to the speeches about the throne speech from the government side, reading the throne speech, it’s like being in a time warp. I feel like we’re back in 2001-2002 again when the government is coming up with the same failed solutions that they brought up then, the same language, the same ideas that have proven to be inadequate in a modern world.
Yet that’s what we’re hearing. It’s totally remarkable that the crisis that we’ve faced over the last year and a half to two years seems to have had no effect whatsoever on the thinking of this government, and so we hear a great deal again about cutting red tape.
Remember that one? Everybody will remember that one from 2001. That was, you know, when the government rode in on their white charger. “All this miserable red tape in government — we’re going to get rid of it, because, don’t you know, it’s just in the way of a better life for all.” But in fact, what most of the world has learned — sadly, apparently not this government — is that regulation actually has a place in government.
I mean, we’ve had a complete collapse due to deregulation, a complete collapse that seems to have gone unnoticed by the Premier, by the Finance Minister and by the government caucus, because they, dragging the rest of British Columbia along with them, are riding that same horse.
The same language that we heard back then is back into the forefront now, even talking about the five great goals that I thought had mercifully been buried because they weren’t being met, clearly. But the Premier has decided that the future — his future, anyway — lies in the completion of the five great goals that started, I guess, he says, in 2005. I’m not sure what the first four years of this reign were. Maybe that was the silver medal or the bronze medal. I don’t know what that was, but anyway, the Premier says it all started in 2005, and we’ve got to meet those goals, and he’s going to be around long enough to see that happen.
All of this kind of thinking coming from this government is regurgitated stuff. This is stuff that we’ve heard a long time ago. And there’s an aggressiveness to this throne speech, a determination, a redetermination, I guess, by the Premier to forge ahead strongly with the failed agenda that he brought forward in the first part of this decade.
We see some interesting discussion in the throne speech around a number of subjects. One of them that I wanted to talk a little bit about is Site C. Site C, of course, is on the Peace River in the Fort St. John area. There’s been lots of discussion over the years about whether or not to develop Site C, should it be developed at all, what are the benefits, what are the costs and so on and so forth.
In the throne speech the government says it “will optimize existing generation facilities and report on the C review this spring. It will develop and capture B.C.’s unique capability to firm and shape the intermittent power supply that characterizes new sources of clean energy to develop reliable, competitively priced, clean power” and when it is needed most.
That certainly sounds to me like an endorsement for Site C. When they talk about capturing “the capability to firm and shape the intermittent power supply,” of course, the intermittent power supply they’re talking about are things like run of river. You know, during the spring freshet is when it produces most of its power, and you need a steady supply such as you get from a large hydroelectric dam like Site C. So this endorsement is pretty clear, and it’s got some interesting ramifications.
It’s certainly worthy of discussion — very much so. And I expect at sometime during the current term of this government we’ll be having further discussion on Site C. But what exactly is going on with Site C? Well, there are some interesting developments that have occurred.
You see, one of the things that has come up, of course, with Site C that I wanted to bring up is coordination — supposedly; it’s certainly being talked about — between Site C power, were it to be developed, and the massive shale gas developments in northeastern British Columbia in the Fort Nelson area.
The potential new transmission line interconnecting Fort Nelson to the British Columbia Transmission Corporation integrated system can be found in B.C. Hydro’s long-term acquisition plan, which says: “B.C. Hydro has requested that BCTC” — British Columbia Transmission Corporation — “complete a planning-level assessment with respect to a new transmission connection between the Peace region and Fort Nelson.” It goes on to say that “new transmission infrastructure will link northeastern B.C. to our integrated grid.”
An Hon. Member: I can’t even imagine that.
M. Sather: The member can’t imagine it. Well, you know, put out your feelers there. I’m sure the member, who is from that area, can imagine it quite clearly, and
[ Page 3081 ]
I expect he’s quite aware of the discussion that’s taking place in the northeast about the connection between Site C and the shale gas developments in the northeast. He’s very aware of it, I’m sure.
It goes on to say that a “new transmission infrastructure will link northeastern B.C. to our integrated grid, provide clean power” — so it says — “to the energy industry and open up new capacity for clean power exports to Alberta, Saskatchewan and south of the border.” Okay. “We will seek major transmission upgrades with utilities in California and elsewhere.”
So the government is always talking about how we are short of power in British Columbia, we are short of electricity. But is that the game? Is that the game? I don’t think so. The game is about exporting power, and this is another indication of what the true intentions of this government are with regard to Site C and of course with regard to run of the river….
Interjection.
M. Sather: The member’s worried about the lights being turned off. You know, I guess there’s a boogeyman under every bed for the member but….
G. Coons: The lights are already off on their side.
M. Sather: My colleague says the lights are already off, and that’s unkind to the other side. I think we have to admit that there is some light on the other side, albeit dim. Lights are on and nobody’s home. There it goes.
“Green energy is bad,” the member said. No, green energy isn’t bad. But what we’re here to discuss — well, I’m here to discuss anyway — is: is it green energy we’re in fact talking about?
According to Michele Rampersad, who is with Nexen Inc., and Nexen is one of the corporations that’s planning to develop the shale gas deposit…. She says: “With the geographical location of Horn River,” — that’s where the shale gas is — “we feel it makes sense to come across and feed those volumes over to the oil sands.” So develop Site C; ship the power to the shale gas deposits. To what? To power the oil sands. Now, that is a green project if I ever saw one.
The oil sands, the single dirtiest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world — that is what this impetus, this enthusiasm for Site C is driven by, in large measure. It’s not about providing energy for British Columbians. That’s the farce. That’s the doublespeak that this government has engaged in for years, and it’s simply not the case.
I think it’s disingenuous of member after member to get up in this House, from the government side, and talk about how proud they are of all the clean energy developments that this government is involved in. It’s indicative of…. I’m going to call it a tired government, to be charitable — a tired government.
In many areas we’ve been asking this government to come clean on what their real intentions are. They don’t do it. There has been greenwashing galore for years from this government. They won’t tell us. They won’t come out and say: “You know what? We want this power for export. We want this power to produce oil from the tar sands.”
That’s okay if the government wants to say that we’re in favour of facilitating the development of the tar sands, but don’t at the same time try to tell British Columbians that your agenda is about clean and green energy. It’s not. So I think it’s really incumbent upon the government to come clean on that.
I expect the member from the northeast that spoke earlier may have been at a recent presentation made by Sen. Richard Neufeld, who of course was the former Energy Minister in this government. On February 8, speaking to the Fort St. John city council, he encouraged the council to get on the train of Site C.
He said: “I know that there has been some discussion ongoing about the amount of electricity that would be needed in Fort Nelson with the advent of the Horn River basin, which is in the magnitude of 500 megawatts. Understanding that Site C would generate about 900 megawatts; it’s a significant amount of Site C.” Indeed it is. It’s over half, as a matter of fact.
So here you have the former Energy Minister of this government, from that particular area, saying that Site C would use half of that to develop the shale gas deposits to ship the natural gas resource over to the tar sands to develop the tar sands. Sweet but disingenuous, and therein lies the problem.
You know, the whole thing about the energy plan of this government, the so-called energy plan, the run of the river…. It’s really interesting to look at how that particular issue is being played out by this government. Originally — and for several years, again — it was all this misconstruing of the energy needs of British Columbia. “We have to have run-of-the-river development because we’re short of energy.” But that discussion has been shifted by the government quite considerably so that now they’re quite upfront about the fact that that power is going to, again, be for export.
It’s a torturous trail that this government has left around the energy discussion in British Columbia. So what I’m hoping, anyway, is that the government will come clean, stop misleading British Columbians around their energy plan and tell it like it is. It’s largely about energy export.
Look at the people that are involved, too. When you look at run of the river, we all know that there are large numbers of folks who have worked with this government that have gone over to work for Plutonic and other
[ Page 3082 ]
people in the run-of-the-river business. So there are all these financial interconnections that leave British Columbians with a great deal of doubt about the intentions of this government with regard to energy, with regard to run-of-the-river projects and now with regard to Site C, and concerns about the veracity of this government that I would say are well-founded.
Another thing I wanted to make comment on from the throne speech, again on clean energy or so-called clean energy…. The throne speech says: “A new clean energy act will encourage new investments in independent power production while strengthening B.C. Hydro.” I don’t know how they’re exactly going to do that — strengthen B.C. Hydro. That will be interesting to see.
“It will provide for fair, predictable, clean power calls.” This is a word that the government is bandying around a lot this year — “predictable.” Heard the Forests Minister talk about it yesterday. Predictable, clean power calls. Not like the last call that was turned down by the regulatory commission. The government said: “Uh-uh, can’t do that. That’s not allowed.”
It’s so bizarre, because whenever the government wants to hide behind a regulatory body, like the Minister of Mines does with the local mining development in my area…. He says: “Oh, can’t meddle with that. The mining inspector has ultimate rule. I would never do a thing like that.”
Then, of course, when it comes to what they see as interference with what they want to do, such as push run of the river — even though the major users of electricity in this province have cautioned the government greatly about their run-of-the-river agenda, their clean call through B.C. Hydro. You know, paying $120 a megawatt hour for power that you’ll only be able to sell for $50 to $60 doesn’t sound like a sound business plan to them and doesn’t sound like a sound business plan to me.
But there’s an agenda here. There’s a fervour. There’s a determination on the part of the Premier and on the part of this government to jam run-of-the-river projects down the throats of British Columbians, whether it’s in our best interests or not. It causes British Columbians to have doubts about the intentions of this government. I think it’s incumbent upon the government to, as I say, come clean about their intentions.
I will give them some credit. They are coming more clean about their intentions with regard to power export. It was a very hidden thing for a while there, but not quite so much anymore.
Now if we look at these so-called equivalency agreements that government is keen on engaging in because you know, we got to get rid of a lot of that red tape. They did that on things like streamside protection. There are any number of environmental regulations that are red tape to this government.
The environmental assessment process has not been going entirely the way they want it to, so they’re going to come up with some equivalency agreements with Ottawa to ensure that they get the result they want.
You know, I think the agenda here…. And the government can tell me I’m all wrong about this maybe, but I think they don’t trust or want the federal government involved in the regulatory process. In particular, they don’t want the Department of Fisheries and Oceans involved because those folks — those of them that are still on the job and able to speak up — actually know something about salmon.
We don’t have that expertise. We’re not supposed to have. That’s their jurisdiction. But those people are problematic. For example, when it comes to run-of-the river projects, unfortunately, there are salmon in a number of those rivers. And what the heck, you get those Fisheries biologists out of there. That would help a little bit too.
I’m sure the equivalency agreement can be worked out to get rid of some more of that red tape. It’s ridiculous having all of these environmental regulations, although this government wants to be and says they are…. The Minister of Forests said yesterday: “We intend to be…” — what is it? — “…strongest fisheries regulations in the world or in North America…” or something.
An Hon. Member: The universe.
M. Sather: The universe.
Another thing that’s topical and mentioned in the throne speech is bioenergy. The last speaker just mentioned it as well. The throne speech says that we have enormous potential in bioenergy. “Bioenergy creates new uses for waste wood and beetle-killed forests and new jobs for forest workers.” The thing is that it’s not necessarily in all cases. I mean, it may very well be the best use in many cases for beetle-killed wood because it’s true that that rotting wood in the forest is releasing greenhouse gases as it rots.
So it may, in fact, be the best use for some of it but not necessarily for all of it. There are a lot of younger forests that are quickly growing up in some of that territory. I’ve seen it in the Cariboo. You know, some studies have shown that it’s not the best thing to do — to be in there logging with heavy equipment in those forests — and that there may be a smaller number of forests that could be used for that purpose.
What I think about is the history of this government in forest management. You talk to folks in the forest industry, whether they be from Vancouver Island — my colleagues there talk to them and have talked about it a lot in this House — or wherever it is, it seems, in the province, the resounding concern that’s been raised is the huge amount of wood waste that’s been left in the forest.
Logging practices, as allowed by this government, have resulted in a tremendous amount of waste, which
[ Page 3083 ]
is problematic in several respects. Clearly, that’s a source of greenhouse gas emissions that is unnecessary. The other part, of course, is the loss of jobs. It’s the loss of productivity. It’s the loss of the capacity to develop our export market in a way that helps British Columbians more.
I’ve done some work myself and have visited the Flathead area. I notice that the Flathead in southeastern British Columbia is mentioned in the throne speech, and I’m pleased about that. It says that “mining, oil and gas development and coalbed gas extraction will not be permitted in British Columbia’s Flathead Valley.”
That’s what we’ve been calling for, for a number of years, and I think that’s a good move. But it doesn’t go far enough either, because what is really being called for there in addition to that, as the government knows, is the extension of the park system, of the Waterton Glacier system. This doesn’t have any mention of that, so I’m hoping that the government hasn’t ruled out that as a possibility in their discussions.
Turning to another subject, the throne speech says, “B.C.’s success in private-public partnerships has also sent a resounding message around the world. We will expand those partnerships” in various areas. Well, they haven’t been a resounding success throughout. Some can arguably be successful, but others certainly haven’t panned out, certainly not without a bailout anyway — like the Port Mann Bridge, where the private partner failed financially, and we the taxpayers have had to ride into save the day.
In my own area the Golden Ears Bridge, which the former Transportation Minister and now the Health Minister repeatedly would say is a project that was on budget, on time, when it clearly was two years….
It was delivered two years after the government said it would be delivered, and it was supposed to be $600 million — announced that — and is over $1.1 billion. We’ve got problems now with that bridge being underutilized, and of course, being that it’s a P3 project, guess who’s going to have to pick up the slack, the financial…?
We have obligations, and one of my colleagues in Burnaby mentioned yesterday about the massive amount of contractual obligations, running into the $60-some billion, that this government has incurred. It’s funny how the conservative governments always talk about being tight-fisted financially, but then they “spend like banshees,” to quote my wife.
We’re going to have to pick up the slack there. I don’t know how much that’s going to be. We have obligations with the private developer to build that bridge, and they’re obviously going to hold us to it. Perhaps if, when, the Port Mann bridge development happens, the Golden Ears Bridge will be used more than it currently is. But as it now stands, it’s being underutilized in terms of the need to meet our financial obligations.
It mentions in the throne speech, too, about electric vehicles. I like that. People know that the electric car was killed by the big automakers in the ’90s, and it’s absolutely time that it be resurrected. I’m not sure what role British Columbia can play in that, but I hope that whatever we can do, we will do. I encourage the government for that.
Talking about hydrogen-powered vehicles…. I mean, hydrogen power seems like, on the face of it, the perfect solution — no pollution. But it doesn’t….
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.
