Today in the legislature during Question Period I rose to quiz the government on its irresponsible and misleading claims concerning our LNG potential. I’ve been pointing out the same thing for three years. An LNG industry in BC is not going to be an economic reality any time soon — the numbers just don’t add up. Yet during this time the BC Liberals have given us three years of hot air and broken promises. Franky, the LNG Emperor has no clothes and it’s time that British Columbians are told the truth.

As I pointed out two weeks ago, Goldman Sachs has forecast a 13 percent drop in LNG prices in 2017 and a further 23 percent drop by 2018. And the U.S. starts shipping LNG in January of 2016. The forecast spot price in Japan is $6.13 in 2016, compared to $7.49 now. Goldman Sachs has projected a $5.19 spot price for landed LNG in Japan in 2017 and a $4.75 spot price in Japan for 2018. It’s looking more and more like British Columbianas will have to literally pay people to take our gas.

During Question Period, I posed two questions to the Minister of Natural Gas Development. Frankly, in my view, his answers were shocking. But I will let you be the judge.

As a direct response to the absurd responses I received, immediately after question period I stood and moved that the house proceed to an emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 35  on a plan for B.C.’s economy in light of the monumental failure of this government’s plan for LNG and the urgent need to transition to a low-carbon economy. I am grateful for the support of the BC NDP in my attempt to stimulate such a debate. The government argued such a debate was not needed and in the end, the speaker ruled on the side of the government.

Below I reproduce the Question Period exchange. I also provide the video and text of the discussions as to whether or not we should have the emergency debate.

Video of Question Period Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: In the lead-up to the last election, British Columbians were sold a bill of goods by this government. The promise of 100,000 jobs, a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $1 trillion hit to GDP, a debt-free B.C. and on and on.

This government has spent the last three years touting B.C.’s imminent LNG industrial boom. They sent a signal to the market that if industry wanted to do business in B.C., it had better have something to do with LNG.

We were summoned for an urgent summer session of the Legislature to debate the project development agreement for Petronas’ LNG proposal, yet the months continue to pass. The global market supply of gas gets bigger and bigger. Company after company move on to other jurisdictions, and this government remains silent about a plan B.

My question to the minister is this: given the monumental failure of this government’s plans for LNG, what is plan B for the B.C. economy?

Answer

Hon. R. Coleman: I’ve only got two minutes?

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. R. Coleman: The only monumental failure in this House is that member’s inability to understand how important natural gas could be to the GHGs in the world sent from British Columbia.

Let’s give the member a little recap. We have a conditional FID. We have a project development agreement and one major project in Prince Rupert. We have environmental assessment certificates on three or four additional projects. We have 20 proposals in British Columbia for LNG, opportunities in B.C. Just yesterday, hon. Member, I was at Tilbury where they’re actually building a tank and expanding the Tilbury operation for Fortis for LNG to go into places like Hawaii. At the same time….

I know the member has an issue with First Nations having opportunities and changing their lives and the opportunity of a generation about LNG. But just yesterday the Tsawwassen First Nation announced that they’re going to do a referendum on accepting a proposal from a company, Mitsui, to put an LNG plant on their property in Tsawwassen for the future of their community.

We have 28 pipeline benefit agreements across the north for communities of First Nations, who will see an opportunity for trades, opportunities and a change in the lives of their young people, an opportunity for jobs.

We are moving forward with LNG. I know it drives the member crazy but that’s the way it is, hon. Member.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Well, I think we should change the name of the ministry to the ministry of gas and hot air, based on that speech.

In just two short weeks, leaders from around the world will descend on Paris to attend the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Next week the Premier will attend a first ministers meeting in Ottawa to come up with a national strategy prior to Paris.

Yet our government’s promise of wealth and prosperity from a hypothetical LNG industry is entirely inconsistent with a B.C. — let alone a national — strategy to reduce green house gas emissions. What will the government do today to invest in B.C.’s economy in light of the monumental failure of its LNG plans and the urgent need to transform to a low-carbon economy consistent with international efforts?

Answer

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe the member ought to do a little bit of research. I know he thinks he’s an expert on this, but maybe he should go to China and see just how bad the air is and know that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel in the world can actually change the lives and health outcomes for hundreds of millions of people.

If he did, he would recognize that the world needs a transition fuel to reduce pollution, reduce GHGs in the atmosphere, take the particulates out of the air, give people better health outcomes. At the same time, while doing that, help the economy in British Columbia to improve the lives Asia, by bringing LNG from British Columbia to Asia to help them deal with a significant problem — at the same time, getting the maximum benefit from a resource that British Columbians have every right to get the benefit from.

Text of Request for Emergency Debate

A. Weaver: Again, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35. As advised in Standing Order 35, I gave the Chair advance notice, and I’ve provided a written statement of the matter proposed to the Clerk.

By leave, I move that the House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance — namely, a debate concerning an economic backup plan for British Columbia given the complete collapse of this government’s all-in strategy on LNG and the urgent need to transition to a low-carbon economy.

This government spent the last three years touting B.C.’s imminent LNG industrial boom. They sent a signal to the market that if you wanted to do business here in B.C., it had to be something to do with LNG. Clearly, not the signal that many sectors wanted to hear.

From the answers in question period, it’s clear that government has no plan B. It’s clear that they have no climate strategy. Frankly, it’s clear that they’re rudderless.

As legislators, we have a duty to the people of British Columbia to urgently turn our attention towards a debate for plan B for B.C.’s economy prior to next week’s first ministers’ meeting in Ottawa and the upcoming UNFCCC meeting in Paris.

As section 35 demands, there is no other time in this session to debate such a plan for B.C.’s economy in light of the monumental failure of this government’s plan for LNG and the urgent need to transition to a low-carbon economy.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m also obliged to the member for having not only provided the Chair but having provided me with advanced copy of his comments, which I should say bear a striking similarity to his comments in question period. That is not altogether insignificant, because one of the issues….

I must say that I am sorely tempted, given the nature of the subject advanced, to suggest that the House accommodate the member. But I am obliged to point out that the rules governing the application of Standing Order 35 are very strict and very specific, and that is for good reason.

The urgency of debate and the opportunity for debate. The member has just indirectly alluded, on this particular issue, to the opportunity that has existed in this chamber to make submissions on this very point. He did so mere moments ago in his participation in question period.

His remarks provided me with the opportunity to go back and review what he had to say earlier in this chamber, in September, in a debate that took place around energy matters, and again, I applaud him for his consistency, and I point out that I remain unconvinced about his approach and his arguments.

Nonetheless, the more important feature is that there has been ample opportunity. It is the urgency of debate, not the urgency of the matter itself. For that reason alone, I would suggest that the member in his submission to the Chair has failed to make the case for invoking section 35.

M. Farnworth: Just following on the Government House Leader’s comments, I know when this issue was raised back earlier in the summer session, the official opposition indicated that it would be supportive of a debate around the climate change and the conference in Paris.

That still remains our position. So if it was the Speaker’s view that, in fact, the motion moved by the member from Oak Bay, we would be supportive of the ability to have that debate.

Video of Request for Emergency Debate

Today in the legislature I rose to speak at second reading on Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2015. Bill 41 proposed amendments in four general areas:

1. Advanced Education
2. Children and Family Development
3. Energy and Mines
4. Justice amendments

I generally spoke in favour of the amendments with notable caveats that I will explore further tomorrow at Committee stage. Below are the text and video of my speech.

Text of my Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to speak to Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2015. It’s another one of the miscellaneous statutes acts, this one with amendments in four different areas — the first, of course, being Advanced Education amendments that my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake discussed recently. Part 2 is Children and Family Development amendments; part 3, Energy and Mines amendments, specifically with respect to BCUC; and part 4, Justice amendments.

This bill actually covers a rather large number of bills within the four categories: the Child, Family and Community Service Act; the College and Institute Act; the University Act; the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act; and the Utilities Commission Act.

The amendments clarify a few definitions and generally expand regulatory and exemption powers for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or, in the case of the Utilities Commission Act, the minister assigned in the place of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This amendment bill seems to follow a pattern of a rather large number of these bills we’ve seen this year where the legislation is made somewhat increasingly vague and left up, often, to the discretion of the appointed minister or regulator.

With respect to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the amendments are said to enable the expansion of the agreements with young adults program, allowing the Ministry of Children and Family Development to extend the duration of agreements and raise the age limit. Now, this is important. This is an important piece of legislation that is dealing with the transition of youth from the ages of 18 to 19 who often fall between the cracks as they move from being a child to an adult. Being able to allow the…. The amendment will allow and enable agreements to be used for life skills programs, in addition to the current educational, vocational and rehabilitation programs, meaning that children will be able to transition better.

I was speaking this last Saturday with an RCMP officer from the Victoria region, out on the West Shore, who said that the single most common call they get are calls with respect to adolescent mental health issues. Now, part of the problem, of course, is that these adolescents who move into adulthood fall between the cracks after they age out. This legislation allows ministries to actually coordinate — extend the coverage — under Children and Family Development, and it’s a very fine piece of legislation that I’m very proud to support.

On the same note, the changes to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act add further amendments that I’m very pleased to support. In particular, the changes will allow for child and spousal support decisions from other provinces and territories and countries to be more efficiently processed. The administrative changes will allow support order decisions from jurisdictions that do not provide court-certified copies of decisions, such those reached by tribunal, to be registered with the B.C. court. In addition, instead of using the court sheriff services to serve applications for support from other jurisdictions, the director of maintenance enforcement will now use a private process server.

Out-of-province support orders are often hard to collect and said to account for about 11 percent of family maintenance enforcement program cases. So again, an important piece of legislation within the broader Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Then we move to the Utilities Commission Act changes. Now, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway — I believe it was Vancouver-Kingsway — gave a very eloquent and fine analysis of the changes to the Utilities Commission Act, in particular how it affects BCUC. The changes include…. They’re being told to implement recommendations from the BCUC — British Columbia Utilities Commission — Core Review Task Force. That task force was initiated by government in 2014 in responses to concerns raised by customer groups and utilities about BCUC’s capacity to deliver clear and timely decisions.

The proposed legislative amendments are said to increase the BCUC’s effectiveness and efficiency and reduce the cost of regulation for ratepayers, who pay for BCUC in their utility raise. It all sounds fine at face value, but in terms of the implementation, what’s being proposed is that the amendments really seem to focus on increasing power and exemption abilities of the minister.

Now, while some ratepayer groups consulted during the core review are said to support these changes, it’s a disturbing trend that we’re seeing more and more often within this government’s legislation: to put more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer and ask British Columbians to trust us. As we saw earlier today, there are times when “trust us” simply is not good enough.

The final component of this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act is with respect to changes to the College and Institute Act and the University Act. As I mentioned, my colleague from Vancouver–Swan Lake did a fine job outlining some of the…

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Did I say Vancouver–Swan Lake?

 With humble apologies to the member from Victoria-Quilchena, the member for Victoria–Swan Lake outlined some of the issues that some university student groups have felt concern on. The amendments here to both the University Act and the College and Institute Act make adjustments to how fees are collected, or can be collected, from people who leave student societies. The Minister of Advanced Education says he will consult with student societies to determine which program or service fees should be protected under legislation.

I understand why this legislation was brought in. With the recent passage of the Societies Act, we were left with a rather concerning gap in legislation, which led to questions as to what would happen to the fees if students pulled out of the student societies. I recognize that the minister, in consultation with a variety of student groups, put forward the amendments that we see before us today in both the order papers as well as in the original act.

There has been some concern that too much power will be granted to the minister to determine what is or is not considered a fee. It’s something that…. Rather than pass judgment on it at this particular junction, I will ask for some specific examples during committee stage, to get on record a certain number of these examples to see whether or not this is what the minister believes to be considered as student fees or student charges.

As the member for Victoria–Swan Lake…. The UVic Students Society has been quite vocal about their concerns with this specific piece of legislation. They knew that changes regarding fees levied against those who leave the student society were coming. They were concerned. They did not expect the format that the government used to bring these changes in to be the one we see today. In fairness to the minister who brought in the changes, it’s not clear to me, in the time frame that the minister had, that it was able to, under the same umbrella, bring all potential types and qualifiers and identify all those that would be viewed to be student fees now. The minister has committed to engaging student groups in the future to discuss this.

Nevertheless, it has left an element of uncertainty. When there’s uncertainty, there’s concern, because student groups — not only the University of Victoria and others — believe that they are being asked to trust us once again.

I will say that the student group at the University of British Columbia seemed to be more supportive of the changes as put in, although they, too, note the irony of almost a catch-22 being in place. I don’t think it’s fair, but a catch-22 is in place, where they say that the Societies Act seems to imply, quite logically, that only members of a society can cast votes on society business.

Yet there is an administrative problem, because students who resign their membership must continue to pay student fees. The bill specifies that these students must also continue to have voting rights. That seems to be in conflict with the Societies Act. But, as I will outline, there are ways around this, which brings me to a comment. I’m concerned that, in fact…. Ironically, in light of the amount of time we’ve spent during this session discussing red-tape reduction, it seems to me that one of the consequences of this amendment is a rather substantive increase in red tape to be applied to student organizations in British Columbia.

The bill separates the fees that students face into multiple, regulation-dependent categories, which may operate in different ways. There are a number of issues that I can think of that need to be addressed in the committee stage, as I mentioned, that I’ll cover later. But first, this bill creates the so-called red tape for student societies that I alluded to earlier as follows.

Previously, a simple annual vote took place. Annually, students would vote. That vote took place to elect a student board and was used to pass any new funding. The student board would be elected. New funding would be approved or not approved by a referendum, and it would be done with all students who are members of the student union or society voting.

However, the bill appears to morph this process into a far more convoluted red-tape process. I should have worn some red tape over my suit here today. Student societies must now account for a new category of students who will cast ballots on funding referendums and not on the student election.

This strikes me as odd — that you’ll have various groups of students voting on various things, in light of the fact that student turnout at the best of times is not as high as it could be. They already suffer from limited turnout in many universities around the province, let alone making this much more complicated and having different categories of students being able to vote for something or against something.

Secondly, the bill confers, I would argue, unnecessary powers to the minister to decide which fees apply in which ways. Now again, I recognize that this probably was left as a matter of regulation in light of the timeliness of trying to get something passed this session so that student groups collecting fees from students who secede from the union or society that represents them would be in place sooner than later. I recognize that.

However, there are questions that we can explore at committee stage, and they’ll follow along these lines. In general, there’s an issue with the increased reliance on regulation to set policy. However, in that case, there should be a simple remedy. Consult with student unions about the specific fees they levy and draft the legislation accordingly.

Again, we are told that the regulations will come in place through consultation with the student groups. Again, as I’ve argued earlier and pointed out, some of these student groups more so than others feel that they’re being asked to trust the government. Depending on the various student groups, some will trust them more than others.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The minister, of course, is suggesting that we should all trust government. Well, as I mentioned earlier, trusting government in many cases is simply not good enough. We don’t have to reiterate the example we heard today during question period and the resolution I brought forward for emergency debate on the Shawnigan Lake situation.

The change, as I mentioned, also appears to allow the government to decide which fees are appropriate. That, again, could potentially limit the union’s or society’s ability to challenge government decisions it doesn’t support.

Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that the university of somewhere in B.C. decides to form…. Through referendum, the students decide that they want to put a group there, a union. Their union, through the fees, have decided a club is going to be formed. It’s going to be the “We have to get the Liberals out in 2017” club.

Now, that’s a fee that has been approved by referendum, and students then…. Maybe one or two in the university who don’t agree with that pull out of the student society. The decision as to whether or not that fee that was elected democratically…. Whether or not the students who pull out can actually take their payment of the fees with them is left up to the minister to decide.

Clearly, there is a potential conflict there. There’s a potential question as to whether or not the minister will or will not support. I gave a rather crass example. But we could actually move a little closer to where it’s not so clear.  Obviously, all of British Columbia has sincere trust in the present Minister of Advanced Education to do absolutely no wrong at any time. Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that there were a minister who ideologically did not believe that men could be with other men and marry other men, and that therefore that minister…. I’m sure there are many of them in this government who feel that way strongly. Perhaps they are in a position of decision-making.

They, then, could decide: “You know what? These fees are not allowable.” Hence the concern of some student groups over others. Now, as I pointed out, this clearly would not happen in British Columbia with the esteemed leadership of the Minister of Advanced Education, also representing Vancouver-Quilchena. But there may be other ministers, at some point in the future, who will be less trustworthy.

Finally, I will say that much of this I’m going to try to deal with in committee stage, by providing specific examples of specific clubs that do exist already in some universities, and see whether or not the fees to these clubs were the types of fees that the minister was thinking are allowable to actually be passed on as a direct cost back to the students union if the students pull out of the union or the society that represented them.

With that, I thank you for your time.

Video of my Speech

Today in the Legislature I rose, pursuant to Standing Order 35, to call for an emergency debate on the recent failure of the contaminated soil site storm water containment and clarification system at the South Island Aggregates/Cobble Hill Holding/South Island Resource Management operations.

There are two active cases before the BC Supreme Court concerning the process that led to the granting of the permits by the Ministry of Environment.  The CVRD is seeking to have its land-use bylaws upheld, as this is not a permitted land use for this location. The Shawnigan Residents Association has filed a Judicial Review of the decision by the Environmental Appeal Board to uphold the permit, and they have brought forward new and very important information that was not considered by the Environmental Appeal Board.  Local residents are desperate to protect their water supply, and last week two people were arrested outside of the site.

Below I offer an extract from Hansard where I provide rationale for why I believed that holding such a debate was of urgent public importance. Please note that in a postscript below I reproduce the Speaker’s ruling.

Text of my Rationale

A. Weaver: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35. As advised in Standing Order 35, I gave the Chair notice, and I have provided a written statement of the matter proposed to the Clerk.

By leave, I move that this House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance — namely, an emergency debate concerning the recent failure of the contaminated soil site stormwater containment and clarification system at the South Island Aggregates — Cobble Hill Holdings — South Island Resource Management operations.

There were, in the past few days, at least two documented breaches of water bypassing the system into the Shawnigan potable water stream network. On November 13, Island Health issued a no-water use advisory “advising residents not to use water taken out of the lake from the south end of Lake Shawnigan, south of Butler Avenue and Verlon Road, due to suspected overflow of water from South Island Aggregates’ site.” This means that residents were being advised “not to use or draw water from the area of the lake for residential or commercial use, including bathing, personal hygiene, drinking and food preparation.”

This morning I visited the area today to witness many scores of residents of Shawnigan Lake standing along the roadside desperately seeking government action. Despite the fact that members opposite think this is a joke, I walked around the facility this morning, and there is water running off that facility today in violation of the permits that they have been granted. Yet we have the side opposite thinking this is somehow a big joke.

Last week a steady stream of trucks brought in high-sulfur soils, further contaminated with hydrocarbons from the metallurgical coal activities that occurred at Pacific Coast Terminals in Port Moody. Five thousand people draw their drinking water from this lake, and 12,000 people live within the region.

There are several court cases before that we will obviously not have time but could explore in debate, and local residents have documented many cases of non-compliance. And as of this morning, the Island Health water advisory remains in place.

As should be clear, the need for this debate is urgent. Trucks are not delivering sediments today but will start again tomorrow. British Columbians are facing very real health impacts from a decision this government has made, and there has not been and will not be an opportunity for this issue to be debated appropriately other than within the scope of Standing Order 35.

Video

Postcript

Today the government house leader, Honourable M. de Jong spoke against having such an emergency debate by saying:

“I also, in fairness to the member, indicated that I would review his remarks from last day with respect to yesterday’s application for an emergency debate and will only say this: again, by virtue of the rules and precedents that apply around the application of section 35, I don’t believe the required threshold has been met in the submission made to the House, and thereto the application to invoke Standing Order 35 should, in my respectful opinion, be declined.”

The NDP neither supported nor opposed the emergency debate.

The Speaker subsequently ruled against having the debate.

Today in the legislature we proceeded to second reading of Bill 40 – Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2015. Bill 40 introduces a number amendments being made within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Natural Gas Development and Responsible for Housing. I am supporting this important piece of legislation for reasons that I outline in my speech below.

First, this legislation enables the Oil and Gas Commission to develop and regulate any potential carbon capture and storage initiatives in BC. As I noted in my speech, in my view this is critical for future atmospheric carbon dioxide removal. And British Columbia is the home of the world’s first pilot project to test the viability of technology for use in commercial scale carbon scrubbing. This exciting project is the brainchild of Canadian researcher David Keith, now a professor at Harvard University, and is being developed a Calgary-based company Carbon Engineering.

The second aspect of this bill concerns important changes changes to the Residential Tenancy Act and the Strata Property Act. They allow tenants to break a fixed-term tenancy agreement with one month’s notice to escape family violence or if a tenant moves to a long-term care facility. Electronic repayments of a tenant’s damage deposit is now also allowed.

The Strata Property Act changes allow an 80% instead of a 100% vote to wind down and subsequently disband a strata. I discuss this more in the speech below.

Text of Second Reading Speech

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to stand and rise in support of Bill 40, the Natural Gas Development Statutes Amendment Act, which, as has been mentioned already by several members both in opposition and in government, is really an amalgamation of two bills that reflect the two separate mandates of the minister involved in housing and natural gas.

Now, I will say off the bat that I do appreciate the introduction of the carbon-capture-and-storage-enabling legislation, as well as the amendments to the Strata Property Act and the Residential Tenancy Act, as I do believe they are fine pieces of legislation. But there is…. Again, the devil will be in the details, and I will explore that further in committee stage of the debate.

I would also like to thank, at the onset here, the ministry staff for providing us — my office and, in collaboration and at the same time, the member for Delta South’s office and her staff — with a very fine briefing that allowed us to ask many questions to gain insight as to the intentions of this legislation.

Now, as I’ve mentioned, I do recognize the importance of carbon-capture-and-storage-enabling legislation. My concern with this is not so much that enabling legislation is being introduced, but it’s being introduced under the purview of the Oil and Gas Commission. Let me please explain why I would do that.

There are two aspects to carbon capture and storage. There are the aspects with respect to capture and storage from what’s called geological carbon. That’s carbon that’s contained in our fossil fuels — the combustion of coal and the combustion of natural gas produce carbon dioxide. And that carbon dioxide, it’s been thought…. It has in some jurisdictions been stored underground. B.C. has a rich history of capture and storage in the sour gas component of the natural gas industry, so there is some expertise here in British Columbia already in terms of underground gas storage.

However, the second aspect of carbon capture and storage is capturing and storing not fossil carbon but present-day carbon in the atmosphere. We have, in Canada, a company that has developed under the intellectual leadership and scientific analyses and studies of David Keith, now at Harvard University, formerly at the University of Calgary. This company called Carbon Engineering has actually built its very first test site in Squamish, B.C., to capture and sequester carbon that’s already in the atmosphere.

Now, this is an example of innovation in British Columbia that I haven’t heard anything about from the opposite side. This is an example of innovation in carbon capture technology that actually is what we do need to go down sooner rather than later — that is, drawing down carbon from the atmosphere that’s already there, because the climate change in store as we equilibrate to existing levels of greenhouse gases will be profound.

So this technology, embedded within the company Carbon Engineering and situated in Squamish now with their first test facility, is fascinating in that what it does is it brings in air from the atmosphere. It then takes that air and mixes it so that you get out of that a liquid product that then reacts with solid products to create calcium carbonate. The carbon dioxide is now stored in this so-called wet phase in these little pellets. These pellets are then heated, and the pellets can then be recycled to create more calcium carbonate. In that heating process, you produce a stream of pure carbon dioxide. Now that carbon dioxide, which is a pure stream, originated in the atmosphere and can be stored in carbon capture and storage.

I believe that this government should be putting this legislation not in oil and gas but in the Environment Ministry. We have no hope of any realistic LNG coming to B.C. anytime soon. I’ve been saying that for over three years now, and I’m still waiting to eat my words as the Minister of Natural Gas said I will be doing. I notice he’s not listening right now. But I would love to be in a position of eating my words. I’m still not eating them.

Let me quote from a news release that was issued yesterday on Bloomberg — a news story from the Goldman Sachs group, which says the following: “A wave of new supply from Australia to the U.S. is deepening a glut of the fuel, raising the risk of losses for exporters and prompting some buyers to look at breaking contracts with suppliers.” Those are existing contracts.

Goldman Sachs is not a fly-by-night organization. Goldman Sachs has forecast a 13 percent drop in LNG prices in 2017 and a further 23 percent drop by 2018. And the U.S. starts shipping LNG in January of 2016.

We have no hope, yet this government is pursuing carbon capture in the oil and gas sector and is missing out critical opportunities in the innovative carbon capture sector with a Canadian company, a Calgary company, whose first test plant anywhere in the world where this is being done is in Squamish, B.C.

Do we hear anything about that? No, we hear about this fantasy of LNG, on and on. That is why it is deeply troubling that this will actually be contained within the Oil and Gas Commission because, frankly, carbon capture and storage is more than about oil and gas. It’s a grand environmental issue and should, I would argue, be based in that.

The spot price in Japan, the much-touted, soon-to-become market for all of B.C.’s gas, is $6.13 in 2016, compared to $7.49. Goldman Sachs has projected a $5.19 spot price for landed LNG in Japan in 2017 and — get this — a $4.75 spot price in Japan for 2018.

I’m not eating my words yet. I’m still waiting for the Minister of Natural Gas to show me that…. He says to himself: “You will.” No, I don’t think so — not any time soon. Maybe in the mid-2020s, but by that time, of course, there’ll be nobody accountable left in this government, because there will be a new government at that time.

As I said, I do support the carbon capture legislation that’s being brought here. We do need enabling legislation for carbon capture, just not the carbon capture this government is dreaming about. It’s about the innovation potential that we could have for innovative Canadian technology and building upon that sector.

This bill also contains important legislation changes which will protect employees within the Oil and Gas Commission from potential legal problems, providing, of course, that they make decisions in good faith, as I’m sure we would all expect our governing agencies and bodies to do and have faith and confidence that they will.

The second aspect of this bill is with respect to the rental tenancy act and the Strata Act. Now, as someone who presently lives in a bare land strata and someone who’s had a property in another strata, I recognize the difficulty in getting 100 percent agreement in a strata. Sometimes the owners of the strata don’t even live in the country where the strata is. It’s very, very difficult.

It takes just one person out of 100 to be difficult, and nothing will happen. So I recognize the importance of actually moving to a slightly lower threshold in the wind-up resolution for a strata — you know, 80 percent, 90 percent, 85 percent. I don’t know where the numbers come from. We’ll explore that a bit further in the committee stage. But I do agree and commend the minister for seeing this problem here.

One of the other things that I think needs to be discussed further in committee stage will be a potential effect, an effect that may not have been thought through, on affordability in areas such as Victoria, Vancouver and some parts of the Okanagan as strata owners recognize the value in their property.

Say you have an aging demographic who own an older building and there’s 80 percent of them who see the value in their property and say: “Maybe we should sell this so that a developer can turn this four-storey building into a 20-storey building. Look at the wealth and the prosperity that we will have.” But maybe there are a few other people out there who don’t actually have the ability to find another place. So there is some concern about people being displaced, as there might be an incentive here…. In fact, I would argue this is an incentive for certain strata to think about winding up, tearing down, selling and building anew.

Now, I recognize that that would build new supply, new rentals perhaps, new ownership and supply, and that’s a good thing, but supply does not come on stream overnight. There’s a delay as these are built, so there has to be some careful management of that, I would believe.

It’ll be interesting to see whether or not bare land stratas across the province will start seeing this as an opportunity as well. Many builders are able to build bare land stratas  where the local municipal bylaws don’t actually have to have the same level of rigour in terms of their application — widths of streets, areas for sidewalks, etc. — and there may be some pressure from bare land stratas in the months ahead to actually come off that. I don’t know how that will be handled.

In terms of the rental tenancy, again, I support the additions that have been done. I think it’s critical, in fact, to allow those who are, for example, fleeing a violent relationship and those who become very ill all of a sudden and can no longer be in their residence a means and a way, through consultation and approval by some authority — which we’ll explore further in regulations, I’m sure; we’ll see further what that means in regulations — to break a lease without having to be burdened with subsequent bills from landlords who, in many cases — particularly in Victoria, where we have a 0.6 percent vacancy rate — could, in fact, rent it and, frankly, would rent it to another person.

Finally, on the electronic payments, again, it’s incredibly important to bring this up to the 21st century. A lot of rental transactions are done through electronic payments, both in terms of receiving rent and in terms of removing damage deposits, but there is a slight caution here with the electronic payments, as the member for Delta South pointed out.

If you make an electronic payment, some people will think that they’ve made an electronic payment and it’s done. But until the recipient actually receives it and deposits it into a bank account, there is no receipt or transaction. Now, not everybody in our society has a bank account. If a landlord sends an electronic transaction, the landlord may think that the electronic transaction has been sent within…. I forget the number of days. It may be 28. It may be slightly more or less.

If that transaction is not received and deposited into an account, that transaction is deemed null and void, so there would be questions with respect to whether or not the landlord, in good faith, tried to transfer the deposit or whether they did not. This is particularly problematic with landlords who may not live in the same jurisdiction as the house that is being rented, where electronic transfers are quite common.

With that said, with the caveats aside, I do support this legislation. I look forward to exploring it further in committee stage, and I thank the Speaker and the members for their time.

Video of Second Reading Speech

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