Last Spring I began receiving letters from some of my constituents expressing their deep gratitude for an organization called InspireHealth. I had never heard of InspireHealth, but based on the personal experiences that these constituents shared I could tell that the people and programs offered there had had a deep impact on their lives. Intrigued and wanting to learn more, we got in touch with the Victoria Inspire Health office, located right here in Oak Bay, and arranged for a meeting with Dr. Mimi Weldon.

Co-Founded in 1997 by two Vancouver-area doctors, Dr. Roger Rogers and Dr. Hal Gunn, InspireHealth is a not-for-profit health organization that provides free of charge, supportive clinical services to cancer patients and survivors throughout all of British Columbia. Made up of a team of doctors, nutritionists, exercise therapists, clinical counsellors and administrative staff, they provide individuals with guidance on a variety of health-related issues including diet changes, stress reduction and emotional counseling, decision making, exercise, immune system support and personal coaching. Members receive one-on-one consultations with their health professionals to support their health, answer their questions and provide them with the information they need to make decisions about their health; they are able to choose from an extensive selection of programs and services, including their signature LIFE Program; and they can attend a variety of classes which provide ongoing support and knowledge for improving their health.

InspireHealth is supported in part by the B.C. Ministry of Health, who’s annual funding covers close to two-thirds of their operational costs, and in part by private and corporate donations and grants. Currently, there are three InspireHealth locations throughout B.C, as well as an online Virtual Centre for those living in remote and rural communities. The centre here in Victoria opened its doors in October of 2011 and serves Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands with their innovative cancer care programs and services.

InspireHealth takes a non-pharmacological approach, with a focus on lifestyle factors and self-responsibility, offering cancer patients an opportunity to have a look at the ‘big picture’ of their health. Through this supportive approach patients work with their team of medical professionals as partners in their treatment, empowering them to create their own individualized plan that improves their overall health and well-being. Patients can engage with these services before, during and after their standard cancer treatments.

While InspireHealth’s model certainly sounds impressive on paper, what was even more awe-inspiring was seeing it in action. Following our meeting with Dr. Weldon, she invited us to visit the Victoria InspireHealth Centre and witness first-hand what it is they do.

Upon arrival, I was struck by how the bright, warm office, situated along Oak Bay Avenue, felt more like being in a friend’s home than a health care centre. Before beginning our tour of the site, we were invited to join the end of an interactive workshop that was taking place with a small group of patients. Led by Dr. Weldon and Clinical Counsellor Genevieve Stonebridge, we were told that the topic of the workshop that morning was passion.

The participating members shared with us the profound impact InspireHealth has had on both their recovery and their lives as a whole. By creating an environment which encompasses all aspects of their health, from the physical to the mental to the spiritual, by encouraging and empowering them to be the decision-makers in their own journeys of recovery, and by providing the resources and space necessary for their loved ones to both support these journeys and receive support themselves, InspireHealth has truly changed the lives of these individuals forever. At the end of the group workshop, Genevieve asked us all to give one word to describe how we were feeling right in that moment. As we went around the room, the word that immediately came to mind seemed an obvious choice – Inspired.

Today I had the distinct honour to attend the grand opening of the new Oak Bay Secondary School. Honourable Mike Bernier, British Columbia’s new Education Minister (right), Nils Jensen, Mayor of Oak Bay (right) and I gave brief speeches at the ceremony. Further presentations were given by Deborah Nohr, Trustee in School District 61 and Piet Langstraat, School District 61 Superintendent.

Dave Thomson, principal of Oak Bay Secondary School (left) was the Master of Ceremonies. He also introduced four students, each representing one of Oak Bay’s Pillars of Excellence: Academics (Robert Lee), Athletics (Matti Grant), Fine Arts (Veronique Beaudet) and Community Leadership and Philanthropy (Ruby Tang). These young leaders brought their own personal message to the large crowd – a message building upon comments they received this past spring from Alumni who passed them the torch (signifying a passage from the old school to the new).

Of course, while Oak Bay has four Pillars of Excellence from a student perspective, the school has a critical and foundational pillar in Mr. Dave Thomson. Without his tireless effort to guide the school through the transition from the old to the new, we would not have been in a position to celebrate the successes we did today.

Below is the text of my address:

Text of my Speech

Minister Bernier, Mayor Jensen, Distinguished Guests, Principal Thomson, Staff and especially Oak Bay Secondary School Students:

It is a distinct honour for me to be standing here before you as the MLA for Oak Bay Gordon Head. But even more importantly, it’s an honour for me to be here before you as a member of the Oak Bay class of 1979.

When I see you, the students in the audience, I see a future full of hope and opportunity. You, the youth of today, are an inspiration to me. Your passion is infectious. Your innovation and creativity fills me with hope. Your desire to make the world a better place through your community leadership is profoundly appreciated. Thank you for all you have done and all that you will continue to do for the betterment of the world around us.

If you are in Grade 9, we’re now in the only Oak Bay Secondary School you will ever know. For the older students, you have been witness to years of construction and upheaval as the new school was being built. It must be extremely exciting to finally transition into your new school.

There is so much to be proud of at Oak Bay Secondary. Collectively you have excelled in all your Pillars of Excellence: Academics, Athletics, Fine Arts and Community Leadership and Philanthropy.

Let me give you but a few examples. In the area of Leadership, Ian Cameron, student council president during my grad year is now an ABC News executive producer and married to the US National Security Advisor, Susan Rice – they are some of President Obama’s favourite dinner guests. To Academics: At my graduation, Pierre Berton, one of Canada’s most celebrated non-fiction writers and storytellers, and himself a member of the 1937 graduating class, addressed my class of 1979. To Athletics: Donald Carson, Norman Hadley and Mark Wyatt, some of Canada’s most highly regarded rugby stars are all graduates from Oak Bay (around the time I was playing rugby at this school). And to Fine Arts: Roy Henry Vickers, a household name and distinguished First Nations artist, author and speaker whose work can be found around the world was a member of the class of 1965.

I’ve only mentioned a few former alumni. Their successes could be yours. No, their successes will be yours as you continue your journey whose foundation began with the outstanding education you will receive at this new school.

I want to offer my sincere thanks to all the dedicated teachers, administrators and staff at Oak Bay – collectively you have contributed so much to the success of the students and the wonderful culture that exists here. I also want to acknowledge with gratitude the dedicated district leadership, my predecessor Ida Chong, and this government for their ongoing commitment to build this remarkable new facility.

Congratulations on the opening of the New Oak Bay High School and thank you for the opportunity to address you today. Enjoy your new school and continue your proud tradition of excellence in whatever path you choose to follow.

Today in the Legislature we moved to second reading of the absurd Bill 34 – Red Tape Reduction Day Act. The sole purpose of the two-line Bill is to enshrine in law that in British Columbia, the first Wednesday in March would be declared Red Tape Reduction Day. As I noted yesterday, I was taken aback by the hyper partisan rhetoric embodied in this bill.

Thank you to all those who posted comments on my Facebook page yesterday on Bill 34. I quoted from them extensively in the legislature today.

In British Columbia’s history there have been only five other Bills that legislated the dedication of a particular day. These are:

1. British Columbia Day Act [1996]
2. Douglas Day Act [1996]
3. Holocaust Memorial Day Act [2000]
4. Family Day Act [2012]
5. Terry Fox Day Act [2014]

These dates correspond to either public holidays or profound events or individuals in our history. The normal process for government to recognize an event or occasion is through proclamation. In fact, there have been 148 such proclamations this year alone. Ironically, January 19-23 of this year was already proclaimed Red Tape Awareness Week. 2014 saw 165 such proclamations made by the Ministry of Justice.

Not only is introducing and discussing Bill 34 a ridiculous waste of our time and taxpayer money, but it also devalues the importance of other days that have previously legislated designations.

On a personal note, my mother came to Canada from the Ukraine as a refugee following the second world war. Her family were farmers and subjected to Stalin’s collectivization of farms and forced starvation. Bruce Ralston, NDP Member from Surrey-Whalley introduced the Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day Act on November 17, 2014. The government did not even allow that bill to come forward for debate. Yet today, we spent the day discussing this ridiculous and frankly insulting piece of legislation. You can imagine what British Columbia’s Ukrainian community are thinking right now.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my speeches as well as the result of the second reading vote.

When you look at the vote you might have a number of questions. I do. First, every single NDP MLA who spoke did so passionately, articulately, and forcefully against Bill 34. As I noted yesterday, I expected the NDP to vote against this legislation at second reading. Yet collectively, each and every NDP MLA voted in support of this legislation. To me, this is an indefensible, unprincipled position that simply cannot be justified. It demonstrates yet another of example of the BC NDP saying one thing then voting against everything they believe in. I was dumbfounded when the BC NDP voted the way they did. In the end, I alone voted against this bill.

Secondly, I was flabbergasted that fully 24 MLAs were not present to vote. What were they doing and why were they not in the legislature? I think these are fair question to ask you MLA if he or she was not there.

Video of My Speech

The Vote

Text of My Speech

A. Weaver: I think it’s important that I start off my speech with a little bit of history of where the term red tape actually comes from.

It all began during the reign of King Charles V in 16^th and 17^th century Spain. Back then, his administration differentiated the most important documents from those that were more mundane by tying them with a red ribbon instead of a rope. In honour of this tradition, I entered the chamber today with my papers, my important papers on this topic, tied in red tape. More recently the term red tape is used to describe unnecessary bureaucratic regulatory roadblocks.

Let’s be clear. Let’s be very clear. This bill has nothing to do with red tape. This bill is yet another example of a narcissistic government trying to take credit for the things that were done by the previous administration. This government is out of ideas.

This government calls an emergency session in July to discuss the project development agreement for its LNG pipedream, continually chasing that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that keeps never being found. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars — taxpayers’ dollars —were used to bring back the session to debate a bill that we should be debating now? But instead, what are we doing? We’re debating the absurd. We’re debating a bill that should have been done through proclamation, to name a date the red-tape-reduction day.

I’ve put a motion on the order paper, and you will see that in your order papers tomorrow. I take exception with the date proposed. My motion that I’ll bring — and give notice now that I will be calling a division on — is to move the date to April 1. There’s a very real reason why that date would be April 1.

This is a government that is void of ideas. This is a government that has no vision. This is a government that recognizes that its small business base is lost. I know that that small business base is lost. I’ve toured the province. I’ve spoken to businesses. I know that they look at this government, and they see a lack of leadership. They see a lack of leadership because they feel that this government is singularly focused on LNG, at all costs, at all expenses.

There are small businesses — left, right and centre — talking to me about this issue. They wonder where their government is for them. Where is their government actually reducing red tape? Where is their government actually supporting them? Where is their government putting their interests, the interests of British Columbians and small businesses first, instead of spending all of its time, all of its legislative agenda in trying to land its pipedream of an LNG.

Yesterday evening, I was flabbergasted that we are actually debating this. I mean, this is not even a serious bill. The taxpayer of British Columbia should be astonished that we are wasting their money, their time, to debate this, astonished that this government is debating a bill like this. Maybe we should “om the bridge again” and think about it deeply and sincerely as we contemplate more bills like this.

When I put this on my Facebook page, I had no idea. I put it out as a joke. It’s not a joke. I have some comments that were posted on my Facebook page. In my career here in the Legislature, I have had very few posts that have had such a viral organic reach in such a small amount of time. Let me tell you, the comments are not pleasant.

This bill is precisely the reason why voters in British Columbia are turned off by this government, are turned off by politics, are cynical about politicians, cynical about the political goals that they have. The reason why is because this bill has nothing to do about the well-being of British Columbians and everything to do with the narcissistic, self-congratulation government out of ideas, out of direction, visionless and losing its base in small business.

It’s a very sad day for British Columbia. Politics should be serious. We should be discussing serious issues. I welcomed the chance yesterday to discuss the Site C dam. Too bad that it wasn’t seven months ago, but nevertheless, we were able to discuss real issues. Again, it should have been done seven months ago when it would have actually meant something.

Let me read some of these comments. My favourite one, I thought, was…. Well, there are a lot of them. Here’s one: “I can’t believe there is such a thing as a Minister of Red Tape Reduction. Ludicrous. Sounds like something made up in a children’s story. There should be a minister of regulatory affairs, maybe, who is responsible for ensuring regulatory measures to ensure public safety are equitable and achievable and enforceable.”

Another one here: “Is there not anything else they could work on, like — oh, I know — child welfare, the homeless, education, etc.?” “Isn’t that, by nature, an oxymoron?” “I was looking for the line with the words ‘the Onion’ beside my post.” For those who don’t know, the Onion, of course, is a comical, satirical magazine in the U.S. “While they’re at it, can you ask them to make an official silly walks day?” “We’ve already got a Ministry of Red Tape.”

I’ve got to read a few more. “Ha, ha, ha. Let’s do yoga on the bridge.” I’ve already used that one. “What about hard hat day?” somebody posted. “Got to be bright blue.”

Let’s do some more. Well, this one is very dear to my heart. It says: “We could easily reduce red tape.” In capital letters: “Get rid of the Liberals.”

Here’s another one: “Well, that is what the federal Conservatives are touting, 40 percent less red tape, and Clark is a….” With respect. I’m quoting here. “The person, the Premier, is a con,” it says here.

“The stupidity of the B.C. Liberals never fails to surprise me.” Another quote. I could go on and on. “Words escape me.” “Who are these people?” “This is too absurd for words” “Face palm. No, wait. Is it April 1?”  That comment on my Facebook page — I really like to engage my constituents on Facebook — prompted me to put in this amendment to this bill, this ridiculous bill, to change the date to April 1.

“Why? Why? Why? No direction. No leadership. No brains,” is another comment. I’m not picking and choosing. I’m just reading the comments. “What’s next, anti-provincial holiday day?” “How much did it produce to then reduce?” That’s a good one. How much red tape are we introducing to then reduce it?

We could keep on going. “Did it pass?” somebody asked. “Baffling, staggering, stupefying.” “I solemnly swear never to vote for those responsible ever again.” “Give me a break. With PCTIA taking over the language sector, the B.C. government has shown they have no concept of red tape and the harm it does to businesses — businesses that support B.C. residents and the B.C. economy in general.”

These are not my friends and relatives. These are random people commenting on this. Here, “Oh, can we start with the B.C. Liberals?” another comment about reducing red tape. “Comment: no comment.” “Oh, seriously? It’s not even April 1.What a waste of time.”

Here we have another one, and this one is truly my favourite. This one makes me happier than all of the others combined. I will not say this person’s name, but he said the following. This is somebody who never voted in his life before because he thinks that all politicians are corrupt. He thinks that politics is a waste of time. He has lost hope in politics. He thinks the government is corrupt. With respect. He doesn’t believe in support of the opposition either, and he said this.

“Mr. Weaver” — Mr. MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head — “I have been thinking long and hard what you told me when I commented on not voting. You made some very valid points, and I have decided to vote. I wish to thank you, and I wish you good luck in the next election.” It is precisely this type of bill brought to us today that is encouraging these non-voters to regain their democracy.

I keep going: “The only thing missing was Mayor Quimby in his sash.” “On that point, I have to agree with you. A bill is not needed to reduce red tape. That requires a minister who knows how to accomplish that within his or her department.” “Seriously? Are we being pranked?” “Stranger than a Monty Python skit.” “What a waste of time and the paper it is written on.”

I keep going on: “This is the kind of waste of time we have to shed. We have a lot of serious issues that need our senior levels of government.” “The Premier leaves me speechless, but Andrew, you and others like you give me hope.”

I won’t bore the House. I’ve got another four pages of them, and not a single one of these comments…. And I come from a riding that was for 17 years the home of a Liberal cabinet minister, a riding that was the only Conservative riding in the province of British Columbia when Dr. Scott Wallace sat in this Legislature here. This is what my constituents are saying — my constituents, who this government would honestly believe form their base.

Well, let me tell you, they don’t have a base anymore, because this government has lost touch with its base, it’s lost touch with the people of British Columbia, it’s lost touch with small business, and this is a desperate attempt for them to try to regain some control of their base. Sadly, it won’t work. It isn’t going to work, and it sadly — well, happily for us — in only two years, this government will be replaced.

Today in the Legislature, we debated the merits of the Site C project. The motion brought forward for debate by Bill Bennett, the Minister of Energy and Mines, was as follows:

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.

I’ve written extensively on this topic over the years and so spoke strongly against the motion. Please consider reading my rationale for taking this position.

Text of my Speech

On April the 19^th of 2010, I, along with numerous others, travelled to Hudson’s Hope to hear then Premier Gordon Campbell announce 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^th, 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 costs and employment opportunities. Geothermal, wind, tidal and smaller hydro projects would deal 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, 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.

(1) The panel “concludes that 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 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 represented by the 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 the effects cannot be mitigated”;

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

In 2010, the projected construction costs for the dam was $6.6 billion. But by May of 2011, that cost had increased to $7 9 billion — a 20 percent increase. By 2014, it rose a further 11 percent to $8.8 billion.

Now, there’s considerable upside uncertainty 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 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.

1. he said: “It’s a tough, tight marketplace right now.”
2. he said: “What we’re seeing in these bids when they come in is they’re higher, much higher, than we have budgeted for.”
3. 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 economists 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 potions 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. 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. This 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 — I quote Mr. McCullough — “could 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.

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.

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 equaling 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 is 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.

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. 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 cost 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 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.

So let’s look at wind power. Recently a study was produced by the investment banking firm Lazard, which suggested that the cost of unsubsidized utility-scale wind could be produced as low as $19 per megawatt hour. I repeat that the cost of 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 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 is 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.

The minimal production of wind power in British Columbia compared to other jurisdictions around the world is 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 the 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 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:

1) The construction of Site C dam will flood 6,427 acres of class 1 and 2 agricultural land and a total of 15,985 acres of class 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.

2) 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 valued cultural sites would be permanently lost.

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

4) the risks of cost overruns associated with the construction of the Site C dam is borne by the taxpayer. The risks of 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.

5) the installation of wind and other renewable energy projects can be done in partnership with First Nations, who would benefit from both local jobs as well as of 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.

6) it would take 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.

7) 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 and 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 pipe dream.

For what? A desperate attempt to fulfill a suite of irresponsible election promises made in the run-up to the 2013 election. A 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 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 have 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.

Video of my Speech

The Vote

Today was a day I never thought I would ever see in the BC Legislature. It was a day when the BC Liberals, void of ideas and a vision, introduced the most ridiculous bill I have ever seen — a bill that I voted against being read even a first time. The sole purpose of the two-line Bill was to enshrine in law that in British Columbia, the first Wednesday in March would be declared Red Tape Reduction Day.

Now voting against a bill at first reading is not something you do lightly. There is a tradition and an unwritten rule in the legislature that MLAs unanimously vote for all bills (government or private member) to be read a first time so that they can see it printed. Substantive debate typically follows during second reading deliberations. But after hearing the introductory remarks from Coralee Oakes, the Minister of  Small Business and Red Tape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch, both Vicki Huntington (Delta South) and I felt we were left with no choice.

Below I reproduce the introductory remarks for the Bill.

Introductory Text for Bill 34

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 reforms 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.

Vicki Huntington, MLA for Delta South, and I were taken aback by the hyper partisan rhetoric embodied in this bill. Below is the result of the vote at first reading. I am reasonably confident that the NDP will vote against the Bill at second reading.

For interest, I also reproduce the printed text of the entire Bill which became available once it passed first reading.

The question I ask you is this: do you think that BC MLAs should spend their time debating this Bill? The government spent an enormous amount of money holding a special summer session designed to try and land a project development agreement and hence final investment decision with Petronas. Surely that money could have been better used and we could have instead debated Bill 30, Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act during the present session.

The 1^st Reading Vote

Full Text of Bill 34

HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows:

Red Tape Reduction Day

1 The first Wednesday in March is Red Tape Reduction Day.

Commencement

2 This Act comes into force on the date of Royal Assent.