Firsts in the BC Legislature

After my first week in the BC Legislature, I am exlirated and enthusiastic about representing Nelson-Creston residents. It is certainly a great honour, and am looking forward to the next four years.

I added to the debate on the Speech from the Throne (the speech that outlines the Government's agenda for this session) on Thursday with my first speech in the Legislature. You can watch it online at
August 27, 2009 ~ Michelle Mungall ~ Debate on the Speech from the Throne

Then on Monday, I rose in the House ("the House" is how we refer to the room in which all MLAs meet) to make a statement about the positive public participation West and East Kootenay residents displayed when speaking out about Glacier and Howser Creeks.

Read the transcript below or watch the statement here:
Michelle Mungall, MLA - August 31, 2009 - Positive Public Participation

Tuesday, Budget Day, was another big day where I delivered my first non-partisan 2 minute statement and asked my first question during Question Period. Question Period is the daily event where the Opposition asks the Government questions about policy, legilsation and their agenda for the province. It's one of our opportunities to hold htem accountable.

The videos are here:

Contributions of Kootenay Citizens - M Mungall, MLA Nelson-Creston

QP Clip Sep 1, 2009 - M Mungall, MLA Nelson-Creston

Private Member's Statement Monday August 31, 2009:
M. Mungall: This morning it's my pleasure to rise in the House today to bring attention to the importance of public participation in land use and water management activities. Presently, in the Nelson-Creston constituency, Axor corporation has a proposal to produce private power on four creeks: Glacier, Howser, Birnam and Suck creeks.

Glacier and Howser creeks. According to the West Kootenay EcoSociety's technical assessment of the area: "These two creeks represent some of the last free-flowing, low-gradient rivers feeding the Duncan reservoir and as such play a critical role in an already heavily-impacted fishery." Of particular concern in these two creeks, of course, is the blue-listed bull trout.

[1020]
This proposal by Axor also includes a transmission line reaching from the base of Howser Creek along the Duncan reservoir and moving over the Purcell Mountains, finally ending in Invermere.

The line, if implemented, will run through the habitat of a dwindling grizzly bear population, endangered mountain caribou and the threatened wolverine. Additionally, the line would impact locally protected wilderness areas, an old-growth management area, that are home to rare and endangered plant species.

I'd like to mention that when I say "locally protected," it's not just local citizens, but it's also some of the large forestry corporations that work in our rural areas and benefit our local communities.

In return for these negative environmental impacts that many people have identified, the Axor corporation says they intend to hire about 60 percent, maybe, of their temporary workforce from the local area — that is, if our local labour force has the necessary skills. After construction, however, we may be left with a big, whopping, six full-time jobs.

This summer Axor was required by the environmental assessment office to conduct the public input phase of its application. The EAO, the environmental assessment office, can assign a public comment period. Now, they can do this, and it can start from as few as 30 days to a complete 75 days, but they decided to go with 45 days, rather than the full 75. In those 45 days the public has the opportunity to review a 7,000-page document. They've got 45 days to review that 7,000-page document, then provide informed commentary about their concerns regarding the applications.

There are also meetings. They held meetings in Kaslo, Meadow Creek and Invermere, but not Nelson — regardless of the overwhelming public demand coming from local government, from citizens, from community groups to have that public meeting in Nelson because it's centrally located for the entire region.

So with 45 days to review 7,000 pages, no meeting in the central hub of the region, people felt like it was a bit of a setup to curtail any meaningful public input, as very few average citizens have the time and skill to assess the 7,000-page document to provide input in the way that the EAO wants, nor do rural residents necessarily have the ability to travel great distances along narrow mountain roads to get to these public meetings.

But luckily, residents in the East and West Kootenays got together to review the application and discuss the proposed plans, and they made their voices heard. They refused to be daunted by what they saw as a sham of a public process.

Over 1,000 people attended the Kaslo public information session, filling the local school gym to capacity. Over 200 people in Meadow Creek — again, filling the room to capacity. Invermere saw 300 participants. Of those who spoke at the meetings, not one person commented that they were satisfied with the environmental mitigation strategies or analysis provided by the proponent.

I attended two of the meetings, and if any member from the government had attended, they would have heard from one young woman, a lifetime resident in Meadow Creek. She felt insulted that Axor, a large Montreal-based corporation, was going to come into her home, destroy beautiful back country and only offer a few jobs in return — for an area that has lost hundreds of jobs in the last few years with the downturn in the forestry sector.

This back country, I may add, is also the cornerstone of our growing tourism sector, as residents from Saskatchewan, as well as Surrey-Panorama, have written to remind me.

Finally, despite the refusal to have a Nelson meeting, we had one. To ensure the public's voice was heard, I hosted a meeting where 500 people attended to comment and learn about this project.

On top of the massive public participation at these meetings, residents of the East and West Kootenays made their voices heard on paper. Over 1,000 people have written in their comments about the process, with the EAO noting that the vast majority have significant concerns about the project and are opposed to it.

[1025]
These concerns come from average, everyday citizens, the regional district of Central Kootenay, Ktunaxa Nation Council and Okanagan Nation Alliance. Many community groups have also commented, including Wildsight, the West Kootenay EcoSociety and the West Kootenay Outdoorsmen. They all note that Axor has neglected to provide appropriate mitigation strategies to protect endangered wildlife, particularly the bull trout found in both creeks. Axor, they contend, has not done due diligence.

With such overwhelming opposition to this project, with such sharp analysis of its impacts on our area, despite a short time frame to do so, the residents of the West and East Kootenays do expect to be heard on this.

J. McIntyre: I was delighted to jump ahead and volunteer to speak in response to the member's statement on positive public participation. I actually got excited for a moment and thought that the NDP had finally seen the light about the merits of triple-P projects. Through public-private partnerships, the projects that have enjoyed such great success in the province, like the Sea to Sky Highway and the Britannia remediation mine in my own constituency and, of course, megaprojects like the Canada line and the Abbotsford hospital — all the things where we've actually enjoyed P3s….

I thought I would also take the opportunity today to maybe give a little bit of a history lesson and talk about an example of negative public participation, and that would be on the Ashlu green power project in my constituency several years ago. It went through years and years of permitting, of licensing — hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They set up a community office. They had, obviously, an environmental assessment. They had a power purchase agreement with B.C. Hydro, only to be stopped dead in their tracks at the end of the process by some of those who I think could accurately be described as NIMBYists, some of those people who listened to extreme whitewater recreationalists from the U.S. — dead in their tracks. They were local politicians and the public, some of whom — the vocal minority, I will say — were willing to override the provincial interests for green, renewable power on a river that had been identified by B.C. Hydro 20 years ago as one of the top five rivers in this province that would be beneficial for power generation.

Instead, they chose to override economic opportunities for the first nations. Squamish Nation was a partner in this project. It would give them jobs. It would give them economic opportunity, and at the end of the licence — that would be water licence — at the end of the lease, the project would revert to the Squamish first nations. But no, the ideological opposition, CUPE 378, the NDP and all those people reared up because they wanted to stop this project.

Let me tell you that we changed that process, and we now have a process where public participation is at the beginning of the project. I can give you examples, again in my own constituency. Ryan River. They're in either the preapplication or application stages now. They've had open houses in Pemberton and the areas surrounding, where the public — just as you described, Member — do have an opportunity. She talked about hundreds of people out at her project in her region.

That's why we have an EA process. That's why the public is engaged. But it's at the beginning of the process, not five years down the road, when everybody has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and hours and hours looking at this. The public has to be engaged at the beginning of the project.

I'll give you another example in my constituency. Garibaldi at Squamish is a proponent proposing a very large ski hill project. There's lots of concern in the communities — very legitimate questions and concerns raised about water source and about the size and scope of the project. I've been urging my constituents to participate.

Like the member described, a similar process. During the EAO process, in this case, there were several 30-day comment periods. The proponent was on the pin, really, to produce and answer the questions that were being raised. If they didn't, the clock was stopped, and the public then had another opportunity to comment. So they've been allowed to comment as new information feeds into the process. The clock's been stopped several times.

There are examples where public participation needs to be at the beginning, and it needs to genuinely be taken into account. The public are raising very legitimate questions.

I just shake my head in disbelief when I see this member. She was quoted as praising the BCUC decision recently in her own local paper, saying: "I think it goes to show that the NDP has been on the right path since the beginning, when we called for a moratorium on private power production." This is a member who belongs to a team who is in favour of going backwards in time, a retrogressive thing, to support an aging Burrard Thermal plant. Everyone knows it's completely out of touch with the public. The public is looking at us to produce clean, green, renewable power, not to add to GHG emissions.

[1030]
So once again the NDP is taking us back in time. This government is progressive. We're moving forward, and we're moving in tune with the public for clean, green power production in this province.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: I would remind members that this is private members' statements. It's the opportunity for private members to discuss issues that are important to their constituencies without heckling.

M. Mungall: I find it absolutely fascinating that the member from across the way has brought up the recent BCUC decision. As we heard in the Speech from the Throne, it is very clear that this government has every intention to interfere with BCUC, an independent public body only interested in public interests.

They have every intention to interfere with it using their Astroturf green guise of getting involved to make sure that we have green power. Well, we know their version of green; it's Astroturf green. It's not real green, and we're looking for the real deal, like the leaves in my constituency.

Not only do we know that they're going to intervene in BCUC, but we know it because of their past history. Ashlu — the member across the way talked about what happened in Ashlu. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about their version of public participation. The member across the way has clearly said that she finds it negative.

How on earth can public participation ever be considered negative? When people get up and get heard, that is a positive thing every single time. Thank goodness they do, because if they don't, they're not going to show up to vote. Oh, wait. But they didn't this last election, because they got tired of being ignored, and they find no outlet to positively be heard. Well, thank goodness it's different in my constituency.

This government thinks public participation is negative. So how did they deal with that in the Ashlu? Bill 30. They decided to stop local government's input into private power development with Bill 30. That is how they address public participation. That's how this government views it. Public input into these private power projects — they stop it at every step that they can. They stop it with Bill 30 and now with their Astroturf green advisory task force to BCUC.

In fact, we're very tired of being lectured in Nelson-Creston. We're very tired of it. We know hydro development. We live it every single day. Between my house and the member for Kootenay West's house, there are nine dams. Thank goodness we have the Columbia Power Corporation and the Columbia Basin Trust so that we can realize the benefits of many of those dams, not all.

Some of them are Nelson Hydro, for instance, but they're all publicly owned, and we all get to have a say over them. The dams that are being proposed now on creeks throughout the entire province — we don't get to have a say on them. We only get to have a say on them during the application process. That's not acceptable. That's not acceptable to us. We expect the government to listen to our concerns, not to lecture us.