Trees are already being felled in the Peace River Valley and site preparation is underway for the $8.8-billion Site C dam, which was given the go-ahead by the B.C. government in December, but on Wednesday MLAs spent the afternoon debating the megaproject.

The belated debate on the controversial project, which will flood 107 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries creating an 83-kilometre-long reservoir, was sparked by a resolution endorsing the project put forward by Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett.

The motion, which, as expected, sailed through with 39 votes in favour and 29  votes against, said the House supports Site C because “it represents the most affordable way to generate 1,100 megawatts of clean 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” — all points disputed by Site C critics, including First Nations, area residents and farmland advocates.

The debate comes on the heels of a Union of B.C. Municipalities resolution which calls on the province to send the hydroelectric dam project to the B.C. Utilities Commission for review and consultation because Site C has “raised issues, including the potential impact on B.C. Hydro ratepayers and provincial taxpayers.”

But Bennett said in the legislature that Site C has already been reviewed by several levels of experts.

“We have examined the need. We have examined the cost. We have examined the alternatives. We’ve examined the impacts. We’ve worked with First Nations as best we can. We’ve examined the environmental impact. We’ve examined the impact on agriculture. Yet the NDP claims to have a position that that’s not good enough,” he said.

In an exclusive interview with DeSmog Canada, however, Harry Swain, the chair of the Site C joint review panel, said the province should have waited to make a decision on the project until after review by the B.C. Utilities Commission. He described the failure to investigate alternatives to the dam as a “dereliction of duty.”

In addition the former CEO of BC Hydro, Marc Eliesen, said ratepayers in B.C. will face “devastating” increases to their electricity bills if Site C goes through.

The resolution appeared aimed at flushing out the views of New Democrats. The NDP is calling for a review by the B.C. Utilities Commission, but, while some New Democrats are adamantly against the dam, others have not come out against the project, which is supported by many union members.

“I’m hopeful that members of the opposition will let us know where they stand,” Bennett said.

It was a stance that infuriated New Democrat Scott Fraser, who called the motion a political stunt.

“The B.C. Liberals forced through the approval of this project already. They started construction five weeks ago,” he said.

“This motion is just a political game. It has no bearing one way or another on the outcome.”

No NDP MLAs voted in favour of the motion.

Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver said in an interview it is the type of debate that MLAs should be having — but it should have happened before a decision was made.

“I think this place would function a lot better if they had more debates like this, but they have to be meaningful, which means having them before they start construction and cutting down trees,” he said.

The NDP has been “floundering” on the topic, said Weaver, who wants government to rethink the project.

“I have been pointing out for several years now that Site C is the wrong project at the wrong time,” he said.

“There are clear, viable and cheaper alternatives which the government is deliberately ignoring in order to justify a truly damaging decision. Imagine if we invested $9-billion into the clean technology sector, what a boost that would mean to the economy and employment around the province.”

For New Democrats such as George Heyman, the promise of 10,000 jobs does not compare to the number of jobs he believes could be created through smaller power projects, alternative energy — such as geothermal, wind and solar — and reducing energy requirements by retrofitting homes.

“Why would you settle for so few jobs when other alternatives have the potential for many more jobs?” asked Heyman, who also took issue with the Site C costs, which, he said have escalated by almost $1-billion in the course of a year.

“This government is addicted to expensive megaprojects that spiral out of control,” he said.

Outside the legislature speakers at a rally, attended by more than 100 people, also called for the government to rethink its decision.

Organizer Ana Simeon, Sierra Club of B.C. coordinator, said she believes the debate was held because the UBCM vote and continuing First Nations opposition is making the government nervous.

There are also other challenges in the works including court appeals by the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations and the Peace Valley Landowner Association, that will be heard in November, and a UNESCO investigation into threats posed by Site C to the Peace/Athabasca delta and Wood Buffalo National Park, Simeon said.

“The two reasons we are so adamantly opposed to this are First Nations opposition — after the Tsilhqot’in decision it is unconscionable to ram something like this through — and the food security situation is getting really serious. This valley has strategic importance for B.C.,” she said.

Image: Larissa Stendie via Twitter

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The mayors of Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, City of North Vancouver, Victoria, Squamish and Bowen Island have declared their “non-confidence” in the National Energy Board’s (NEB) review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and are calling on the federal government to put the current process on hold until a full public hearing process is re-instated.

“It has become apparent that the NEB process does not constitute a ‘public hearing’ and is completely inadequate to assess the health and safety risks of a proposed pipeline through major metropolitan areas, and the potential risks of shipping bitumen oil to Burnaby and through Burrard Inlet, the Salish Sea, and along the coastline of British Columbia,” the mayors write in their declaration.

The mayors also call upon the Government of British Columbia to re-assert its role in environmental assessment and to establish a provincial process, including public hearings, to assess the Trans Mountain proposal.

If built, the Trans Mountain pipeline system would transport more than 890,000 barrels a day of primarily diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to B.C.’s west coast. Most of this heavy oil is destined for Westridge dock in Burnaby, where it would be loaded onto 400 oil tankers per year — a six-fold increase from current oil tanker traffic.

“The current hearing process does not allow for consideration of some of the most damaging aspects of the proposal — the inadequacy of emergency plans; the potential for marine oil spills; the effects of the project on climate change, and the threat it poses to our local economy,” says Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson. “We want to demonstrate to our residents and businesses that we are taking the potential risks seriously, and we want to work together with other municipalities in the region to protect our economy, our environment and our people.”

The mayors say the elimination of oral cross-examination from the hearing process has rendered the process inadequate. Without oral cross-examination, the municipalities have been forced to submit their questions in writing and wait on written responses back from Kinder Morgan. 

“The proponent has failed to answer the majority of questions submitted by municipalities and other intervenors,” the mayors write in their declaration. “Because of the inadequacies inherent to the review process, hundreds of questions critical to public safety and environmental impacts remain unanswered.”

The declaration continues: “We have serious concerns that the current NEB panel is neither independent from the oil industry proponents nor ready or able to assess the ‘public interest’ of British Columbians. It is no longer a credible process from either a scientific evidentiary basis, nor from a public policy and public interest perspective.”

 “We know that our concerns are shared by communities throughout the province,” says Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan. “This flawed hearing process disallows review of aspects of the proposal that could cause the most significant damage. It is critical for this project — and for all projects that can harm communities and the environment — that we have federal review processes that are rigorous and transparent.”

"The City of Victoria is concerned about the impact of increased tanker traffic on our ecology and our economy,” says Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps. “We're happy to stand with other municipalities to request a fair and rigorous process to ensure that both are safeguarded for the long term.”

Resolutions calling National Energy Board's review process of Kinder Morgan’s proposal inadequate have already been passed by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (September 2014) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (March 2015).

The province of British Columbia has also taken issue with the NEB process, particularly with regard to its failure to compel Kinder Morgan to release its oil spill response plans in B.C. — while the company releases those very same plans across the border in Washington State.

Photo: Mark Klotz via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Amid controversy about Enbridge’s spending in Kitimat before a plebiscite on its Northern Gateway oil proposal, the B.C. government introduced legislation on Wednesday that, if passed, will tighten rules for campaign financing and advertising in local government elections and referendums — but the changes come four years late and don't go far enough, says a campaign finance expert.

The new Local Elections Campaign Financing Act and Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act will require third-party advertisers to register with Elections BC, identify donors of $50 and more and report expenditures for the first time. It will also require all election advertising to clearly name a sponsor and will ensure all campaign donations and expenses are published on the Elections BC website. It will also extend the terms of office for local elected officials from three years to four.

“This is the most significant update to B.C.’s local elections process in 20 years,” Coralee Oakes, the province’s community, sport and cultural development minister, said in a statement.

However, the legislation still won’t mandate spending limits for candidates and third parties — a recommendation made by a joint B.C.-Union of B.C. Municipalities local government elections task force in 2010. The government says expense limits will be broached in a second phase of legislation before the next local election in 2018.

The task force, which reviewed more than 10,000 submissions from groups and individuals, said in its report that the intent was for its recommendations to be put in place for the 2011 local elections.

"One task force, one white paper, four years of procrastination, and the elephant is still in the room,” said Dermod Travis of Integrity BC, a non-profit that advocates for electoral finance reform.

In a submission to the province on elections reform, Integrity BC stressed the importance of implementing spending limits sooner rather than later:

The opportunity to fix a broken system, to increase accessibility to public office and to strengthen local democracy should not be lost in this process, even if it is only for one more cycle of local elections. Without meaningful electoral finance reform that includes strict election spending and contribution limits, candidacy for local government will — by and large — remain the purview of the affluent and well-connected and the public's faith in local government will continue to diminish.

The task force had clearly called for expense limits to be implemented. Its report said:

The task force believes that expense limits could increase accessibility and fairness by levelling the playing field among candidates; encouraging candidate participation; and reducing the need for large contributions to fund expensive campaigns … applying limits to third parties is important to ensuring that third party advertising cannot be used to work around restrictions on campaign spending (and accordingly, transparency).

Expressing further concerns about the impact of third-party advertisers, the report said:

Third party advertisers can have a significant impact on democratic debate in a community, but the current rules do not provide sufficient clarity on obligations of third party advertisers.

More than 1,660 elected positions on more than 250 government bodies are filled through local elections in B.C. The next local elections will be held on Nov. 15, 2014.

In the 2011 election, the largest donation was $960,000 from Vancouver businessman Rob Macdonald to the NPA. In many other Canadian cities, donations of this size aren't allowed — in Montreal, the annual cap is $300, in Toronto it’s $2,500, in Winnipeg it’s $750 and in Calgary it’s $5,000.

According to a 2010 public opinion survey conducted by the Mustel Group and commissioned by then SFU professor Kennedy Stewart, 74.5 per cent of respondents felt there should be a limit on how much any one person can donate to a local election campaign and two-thirds supported a ban on corporate and union donations.

Even if the new legislation was in affect now, the Kitimat plebiscite as structured wouldn’t fall under the new rules (a plebiscite is non-binding) — but a vote on a local bylaw or a referendum on a regional district service would. As it stands, Enbridge won't have to disclose its expenditures, which are likely to exceed $20,000 — six times what the company would be allowed to spend during a provincial vote.

Campaign spending limits for candidates and political parties have been in place at the federal level since 1974 and at the provincial level since 1995 — but it looks as though B.C.’s local elections and referendums will roll on without them until at least 2018.

Photo by Pete via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.