The BC NDP Cabinet will be making a decision on Site C before the end of 2017. There are so many reasons for the government to cancel the project. Over the past few weeks the BC Green Caucus has highlighted many of the reasons in Question Period. Today, I asked Hon. Michelle Mungall (Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Products) to justify the project in light of the ongoing disruption in the global energy markets.
[Transcript]
Question
A. Olsen: We’re two decades into the 21st century, right? You wouldn’t know it listening to the questions from across the way.
Yesterday, a new record price for electricity was set in Mexico. This price was less than two cents per kilowatt hour, and what was the source of the rock bottom price? Wind.
As my friend from Cowichan Valley said last week…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
A. Olsen: …”Another day, more evidence against Site C.” We’re seeing radical disruption in the global energy markets. In the review of Site C, the BCUC noted that the major long-term risk facing Site C is disruptive technology. The BCUC found that advances in solar and wind generation and in storage capacity could dramatically lower the cost of alternatives and reduce any benefits from Site C.
My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Why, in the face of these rapid changes in the world energy market, would we want to lock ourselves into a megaproject where the only direction energy prices will go is up?
Hon. M. Mungall: As the member knows, we are doing our due diligence as we make this very important decision. This is a decision that’s going to impact British Columbians, not just today but well into the future, and we want to make sure that we’re making the right decision for B.C.’s energy future. We also need to acknowledge what has brought us here and how that impacts on the decision that we have before us in the next month.
What has concerned me most, though, in seeing what has happened in this province around the issue of Site C, is the division. I believe that that division is a result of poor process that was put in place by the B.C. Liberals. At the end of the day, this government is going to be making a decision that works for British Columbians and is about British Columbians. That’s what it should always have been about.
Supplemental
Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
A. Olsen: The division was about 18 years ago, going from one century to another. To show how late British Columbia is to the game, we’re going to have our first debate on ride-sharing in this House today, seven years after the first ride-sharing company came onto the market.
Like changes in transportation, how we create, store and use electricity is rapidly changing, and British Columbia risks being left behind — way behind. We’ve inherited the big-project mentality of our grandparents’ generation, with the threat of costly overruns like they’re seeing with Muskrat Falls in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We should be looking to build a modern grid, based on a distributed network of renewable projects. Industry drives innovation. Government should be creating the economic environment for the entrepreneurial spirit to survive. Instead, the ratepayer-subsidized megaproject that is Site C is turning innovators away, locking us into the path set by the last century. We must adapt.
My question…
Interjections.
A. Olsen: Uncomfortable. I understand it — uncomfortable.
…is for the Minister of Energy and Mines. Will we join the innovators and encourage a 21st-century system, or the big-dam, big-transmission, big-loss project that was first considered in the 1980s?
Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member, not just for the question but also for sharing his perspective on this issue. Many British Columbians have done the exact same thing. They have written to me. They’ve written to all members of this House, no doubt, saying whether they are for or against Site C proceeding. I appreciate that so many British Columbians have been engaged and involved in this process.
What I am disappointed in is that they are so divided. I do believe, as I said earlier, that that division is a direct result, because the B.C. Liberals utterly failed British Columbians when they decided to not go to the BCUC, when they decided to subvert what was due process in such a project. That was wrong, it was the wrong decision at the time, and it was always wrong. We have corrected that wrong, and we are now in the process of making a good decision that’s going to work for British Columbians for today and well into the future.
0 Comments