British Columbians pay less for electricity than most North Americans and consume more hydro per capita. The residen- tial sector in BC consumes 31 percent of BC Hydro’s total annual billed sales. With energy demands forecasted to in- crease approximately 30 percent over the next 25 years and with BC poised to become a net importer of hydro energy, there is little wonder that Premier Gordon Campbell recently resurrected the Site C controversy. At the recent Union of BC Municipalities Annual Convention in September, “A ¢ Premier Campbell declared that, “...our option for clean large-scale power is very limited (and) we are going to begin the process to seriously consider Site C.” Given the ‘on again — off again’ history of Site C, one wonders whether this is just another trial balloon initiated by government to “test the waters” (pun intended). In July of this year an initiative, “Paddle for the Peace”, brought together First Nations and other residents, en- vironmentalists and politicos to the valley to voice their concerns over environmental and social impacts of further interference with flow of the Peace River. As in the 1970s, the local inhabitants are protective of their homes, lifestyles and the local environment. The valley, situ- ated between Hudson’s Hope and Fort St. John, is home to herds of deer, farms and ranches, and First Nations heritage sites. The Site C Dam Project would flood 80 kilometres of valley or approximately 5000 hectares. Site C, the third dam on the Peace would provide 7600 person years of work and generate 900 megawatts of hydro electric power, enough to Do wn on the Corner | OVER THE EDGE October 10-14, 2007 Sate Conroy - Columnist provide energy for 500 000 homes. 25 farming families would have to be relocated. The question we all have to ask is, “Is it worth it?” And, “What are the alternatives?” BC Hydro has put into place several conservation programs (part of their demand-side management initiative), Green & Alternative Energy; Customer Generation; Resource Smart jects passé; dinosaurs from some bygone era? BC Hydro has a mandate to secure energy to satisfy the needs of British Columbians. In the process, as stated on their website, hydro is committed to environmentally responsible practices, to respecting and responding to diverse cultures and interests, to encouraging stakeholder engagement, and to dem- onstrating a respectful attitude towards the property of others. Hydro electric power has long been considered a re- the recent Union of BC Municipalities Annual newable, efficient and green resource. However, the Convention in motes Premier Campbell declared that, ...our option for clean large-scale power is very limited (and) we are going to begin. the process to ser- ay iously consider Site C. and the one we are all familiar with, Power Smart. These initia- tives are Hydro’s front line efforts to stem the flow of energy through creative use-reduction practices. Presently, Hydro has contracts for 35-40 ‘run of the river’ micro-hydro projects, some that are now supplying hydro electricity into the grid. These and future Independent Power Producers (IPPs) prod- uce 10 to 50 megawatts of power with no diversion of water and minimal environmental footprint. The end criteria for these projects is low impact and green, renewable energy. Is a large hydro electric project justifiable? Are mega pro- International Rivers Network has published “Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewable Initia- tives”, which has been endorsed by the Suzuki Founda- tion. IRN’ s objections: large hydro creates major negative ecological and social impacts; large government funded projects crowd out funds for private small renewables; large hydro reservoirs emit significant green house gases. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation opposes large hydro on the grounds that inevitably the taxpayer is being set up for more cost overruns. The CTF explains that small hydro produces a megawatt of power for 2-3 million dollars whereas BC Hydro admits that the 900 megawatts produced by Site C would cost 5 million dollars per megawatt. Whatever the outcome of the ensuing debate, you can rest assured that the politicians, environmentalists, local interests and First Nations will up the ante and the pressure to move ahead with Site C will increase - at least until the next elec- tion. The Quebec Montebello ummit SPP Protest Part 3 of 3 - Why the SPP Protested in the First Place JEREMY JOHNSON Srarr Wrirer One thing is for sure, protestors were at the SPP summit for a multi- tude of reasons. While this article will try to cover as many of those issues as possible regarding oppos- ition of the SPP, there is no guaran- tee that this will touch on all of the issues at hand. One of the issues is that the SPP was supposed to “integrate” the three countries in many different ways. Teresa Healy of the Canadian Labour Congress wrote in a paper about deep integration in February this year stating, “What the SPP reveals, is that government execu- tives in North America are willing to cooperate to avoid legislative change and public debate. Democratic debate and decision is making way for privileged cor- porate. access and new rules that undermine sovereignty and human rights. 3” Essentially, the “deep integration” would “harmonize” regulations, which would include de-regulations of large corporations. Some of the rules that are supposed to keep cor- porations in check in Canada would be discarded in favour of US style rules which have been sharply criti- cised in the past, particularly in the movie “The Corporation”. Mean- while, laws surrounding basic rights of the individual would also change. Currently in the US, there is a fire- storm surrounding a recently passed law that would allow communica- tion companies to wiretap individ- At the end of 2004, Canada had just 8 years worth of conventional oil re- serves and 9 years worth of natural gas. While Quebec and the Atlantic provinces depend on insecure im- ports to meet 90% of their oil needs and Ontario for 40% of its supplies, Harper has no plan to ship western crude to eastern Canada. Instead Council). Members of this exclu- sive organization includes execu- tives from Ford, General Motors, Merck, Wal-Mart, Campbells Soup, Gillette, Whirlpool, CN, Bell, the Home Depot, Scotiabank, Manulife Financial and Canfor Corporation. A Maclean’s magazine article de- scribed NACC as “NAFTA 2.0” and uals without , further said the need of Lssentially, in order for Canada to integrate and harmon- that NACC Sra an tze its policies with the US, Canada would have to change its * cheny” picked group US govern- regulations to allow higher amounts of. pesticide residues in OF aera ment, AKA who were the NSA fe ood for trade.” whisked to Warrentless Cancun in wiretapping program. of conserving these resources for March by the leaders of Canada, Another issue is Canada’s energy resources. Common Frontiers Can- ada offers a paper explaining these issues. Excerpt: “An SPP-sponsored workshop on the tar sands held in Houston on in January of 2006 en- visioned an increase in tar sands production from around one mil- lion barrels a day currently to five million barrels by 2030 with most of the increase exported to the USA. [...] Harper’s enthusiasm to develop the tar sands for export ig- nores Canada’s own vulnerability. future generations, Harper favors using scarce and cleaner-burning natural gas to extract dirtier syn- thetic oil from the tar sands.” The paper also features the health and safety risks of Canadians, among other things. Another criticism of the SPP is the fact that public consultation has been “frozen out”. The criticism also explains that the only people influencing the SPP are large corporate executives who are members of NACC (The North American Competitiveness the US and Mexico, and asked to come up with a plan for taking North American integration be- yond NAFTA.” In a nutshell, large corporations could possibly bypass public scrutiny and simply ask of- ficials directly what they wanted in secrecy. One issue that is particularly hard to stomach for many is the food regulations. In this case, the US deems the stricter pesticide limit in Canada a “trade barrier”, since pesticide regulations for food are more lax in the US. Essentially, in order for Canada to integrate and harmonize its policies with the US, Canada would have to change its regulations to allow higher amounts of pesticide resi- dues in food for trade. With allegations of police be- ing used to try and stop opposition flying about in this case only to be partly confirmed by the admis- sion of Quebec’s media release, the Montebello summit has become a story where paranoia, at least this time, was backed up by solid evi- dence. While who is to blame is still - mere finger pointing at this point in time, the public relations damage to multiple levels of government has already been done. While there are many possible outcomes, one thing is for certain, it has raised awareness for the matters at hand with regards to the SPP tremendously. For a more complete look on why many are opposed to the SPP, a website that has a wealth of infor- mation is www.canadians.org. Most of the information in this article was found by clicking on the ‘Integrate This!’ logo and then clicking the ‘backgrounders’ link. Several other resources are available on the web- site as well.