WARD STAMER: There’s a bunch of unanswered questions. That is why this side of the House doesn’t agree with this rubber stamp, because that’s really what this is.

When you start looking at what’s going on with these projects, with overlapping boundaries with First Nations and all through the consultation process, I’m just wondering how this is actually going to work if it’s only up to cabinet to make that decision and not allowing the people of this province, the people that are in this room right now, to be able to be part of that process

~~ Ward Stamer – MLA for Kamloops North Thompson, and Opposition Forestry Critic

The reality is we have an energy electrification deficit in this province. We knew this was coming years ago. BC Hydro did not adequately plan for the future. Now they’re trying to wrap everything together in clean energy because of some unknown reason other than we’re supposed to save the planet all by ourselves.

The reality is we need to have certainty of supply not only for electrification and electricity but for a wide variety of things in this product. Without input, we don’t have output ...

... some of the concerns that have been brought on this side of the House not only in the streamlining process that this government says it desperately needs but in the negative impacts to our environment…. Because we know that if we’re going to be putting these projects together, we’re going to be negatively impacting the environment.

When you look at the sheer scope of just those nine wind projects that are going to be built, the amount of concrete that’s going to have to be transported to those locations, the amount of excavation that is going to have to take place, the crossing of all the streams and the reclassification and possibly changing of bridges, those are all negative impacts to our environment.

Yet now, the government feels that they don’t have to have any public consultation. They can decide whether there is an environmental assessment or not because we really, really, really, really, really need electricity. Well, we’ve known that for years. So that doesn’t make any excuse not to do it properly. It also doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be looking at other tools in the toolbox ...

... we still haven’t determined exactly how that’s going to work out with this (streamlining) process. We know that in the Vancouver Sun today, there were some comments made by Assembly of First Nations Chief Teegee about Bill 15, and a lot of that was around the fast-tracking of process. I’m not entirely sure what they’re going to think about Bill 14.

But when you start looking at what’s going on with these projects, with overlapping boundaries with First Nations and all through the consultation process, I’m just wondering how this is actually going to work if it’s only up to cabinet to make that decision and not allowing the people of this province, the people that are in this room right now, to be able to be part of that process.

... I think we’ve already talked about a bunch of the different negativity aspects of this project. Whether it’s access for landowners; access for the Cattlemen’s Association, which was here this week; access for First Nations; access for community forests; access for forests in general and the licensees that have a legal responsibility and a right to be able to use those forest service roads, the same roads that these projects are going to be using at the same time.

There’s a bunch of unanswered questions. That is why this side of the House doesn’t agree with this rubber stamp, because that’s really what this is. This is kind of like: “Just trust us, and we’re going to get it done.” Well, if past projects are any indication of “trust us, and we’re going to get this done” — if it ever does get done — it’s going to be half as good and twice as much money. That’s what their record speaks for.

When we talk about process, by allowing the regulator to have sole jurisdiction in this, the regulator will be able to change not only the regulations. There can be laws changed as well. Now, again, that’s why we’re here. That’s why the members in this House are here. It’s to hear from the public, hear their concerns and make the laws. It isn’t for the cabinet to make the laws.

That’s why we’ve had so much push-back from Bill 7. That’s why the government took amendment 4 out of Bill 7. It was specifically because of that.

This legislation also gives the regulator the authority to suspend or cancel permits. These are existing permits. These could be permits for hunting, trapping, angling, possibly community forest licences, possibly forest licences. The list goes on. Again, this allows the government to rewrite whatever they want. So, excuse me if I’m a little bit skeptical on the trust side of things.

In the last little while, certainly in the last eight years, this government has been able to do whatever they want, when they want, when they have those types of powers, without any checks or balances. Now, we also heard from the other side about sovereignty and that we shouldn’t be relying on our neighbours to the south.

Well, they’re right. My mom used to tell me all the time: “Don’t worry about what somebody else is doing; worry about what you’re doing.” And that’s exactly what this side of the House is doing. We are worrying about what we’re doing here in British Columbia.

If people out there aren’t totally familiar with the way electricity works in this province, it’s a buy and sell. We sell power to the U.S. at peak times, for peak dollars, and then, we turn around and import cheaper power at night. That’s how it’s always worked. But now we are a net importer of power. Last year it was over $500 million that we had to import, and I’m guessing it’ll be more this year.

Even though our largest clean energy generator is hydroelectric, we’re still at the whim of Mother Nature. We still may not have enough water for electricity on the demands that we have.

... I look forward to the opportunity, when we get to committee, to be able to ask the minister specifically on the numbers that I asked for before. Because again, we cannot afford to move forward on any of these projects without knowing exactly how much they’re going to cost, how much power they’re actually going to create and when that power will actually be generated and distributed in this province.

When the member across says that we’re going to be able to have enough power to generate 500,000 homes from these last ten that have been announced, I would vehemently disagree with that. Because in the past, in any other jurisdiction in the world, that isn’t true. So not only are we going to get half of what we think we’re going to get, or what’s been planned, it’ll end up costing us twice as much in the future.

One of the other things that affects many of us that aren’t in the Lower Mainland … and it does affect some in the Lower Mainland ... because maybe this will be a wind farm coming near you. I mean maybe it’s going to end, and the next one will be down in the valley. We don’t know. It could be the next call for power.

This allows the regulator to single-handedly change the regulations in regard to ALRs. I know there are members on the other side that would disagree with that, but again, with these streamlining of processes, what’s to say that that doesn’t happen? Because that’s what I see in my notes.

Another thing it does is it allows the cabinet to decide who actually gets these projects. So again, no oversight, no consultation. I mentioned it earlier in my remarks to the member across about where are the numbers, where are the agreements. We’ve seen nothing.

Now, I’ve heard stories that many of these projects, that have already been approved, have significant financial challenges on the structuring of the way the corporations were designed and where the financing is coming from. Again, there is no clear timeline on when these projects are actually going to be built or come online.

This streamlining process is supposed to enable the government to speed this up so that this power will be available sooner than was originally planned or originally needed. But we have seen nothing concrete in timelines. Is it two years? Five years? Eight years? Ten years? We have no idea. Yet we’re supposed to take it on faith: “Not only are we working on it; we desperately need it. We need you guys to basically give us a blank cheque.” But we have no idea when these projects are coming online.

... all we’ve received is that we really, really need the electricity, and we’ll do everything we possibly can, but it has to be clean. Well, how clean does it have to be? How clean? Because we know that the targets that were originally designed by this government for 2030 seem to be changing. We just heard this week the Energy Minister mentioning that if LNG 2 comes online, those emission targets and those emissions wouldn’t count because it was actually planned pre-2030. Wow.

Now they’re changing the parameters of how they determine what their targets actually are. Does that mean that they’re going to change the parameters of what’s clean and what’s not clean?

I can argue that if we’re going to use biomass as a renewable resource, a renewable generation, does that mean that that’s going to be included in this next round of requests? Because I can guarantee you that biomass does not have zero emissions. It may be close, but it’s not net zero.

I’ve said this before, and maybe it’s only a personal reflection, but quite frankly, net zero is for zeros -- we’re never going to get to zero. Nowhere in this world is it zero. So why are we destroying our economy by trying to get to zero? Particularly when the government is moving the goal posts when it comes to what actually counts for climate targets and what doesn’t.

... I heard a comment, also earlier today, about not supporting LNG, liquefied natural gas. Well, part of the challenge of that is that we are sacrificing clean hydroelectric power from Site C to be able to use that power in Kitimat. Now, I can argue that we should probably be using more natural gas power generation, because that liquefied natural gas is replacing the dirty coal that other jurisdictions, in the Asia Pacific, are using right now, and I feel pretty good about that.

Even though it’s another jurisdiction not even trying to reduce their emissions, we’re actually forcing them to do it by supplying them with a cleaner form of energy.

When we look at a couple of the bills that are before us, including Bill 14, there’s a reason why we got to this place. Two reasons actually. The first reason was that we prided ourselves in this province to have some of the strongest environmental standards in the world. Some of us might say that we were forced to do it. Some of us wanted to do it. Some of us didn’t want to do it. The reality is that we all support it. We’re better for it.

This streamlining is really not what we need. We need to be able to make sure, with the guidance of this House, that those environmental standards are maintained, not just with our First Nations, not just with public consultation but with the people in this room that have just as much experience on this side as the other side. That’s what’s important — to make sure that we do it right and not to start running around and pretending that we’re desperate. Well, the only reason why we’re desperate is because of lack of planning. That’s why we’re desperate.

(This government is) in a bind, they’re desperate and they want us to give them a blank cheque with this Bill 14. Well, not from me and not from anybody else in this House until they can convince us that the proper environmental standards are going to be met, that we’re going to be able to see all the costing before it goes online, that we’re going to be able to see what the negative impacts to the environment will be.

And what assurances do we have there won’t be any cost overruns? Again, streamlining is supposed to improve the process, make it cheaper. Well, the proof will be in the pudding. Who’s to say that they won’t have cost overruns? Particularly when we talk about the U.S. and the tariff threats.

So how confident is the government in these costing proposals that they’ve already agreed to? What happens if they go over budget? Who is going to pay for the difference?

In closing, I have many unanswered questions when it comes to this bill, particularly in not being able to know exactly what we’re dealing with and not having the flexibility to be looking at all the opportunities when it comes to electrification. I take exception when the other side says: “You’re against electricity.”

Of course we’re not. But the reality is we need all the power generation tools, not just strictly wind and solar. Because we know that if the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine, we don’t get any power out of that stuff. So we need to be able to make sure that we have an equal balance when it comes to our future growth for electricity in this province.

I yield the rest of my time.