Their opposition would stand until the Clean Energy Acts changes to consider the use of natural gas for power generation, instead of flooding the Peace River.

In the past the board has not taken a stance on Site C. Director White initially agreed that it was not the role of the board to take a position, and was happy to sit on the fence, but after listening to both sides he has made up his mind.

“I believe that stating an opposition will garner more of a response from government than if we were just to suggest things to it.”

However, many directors had a problem with the motion including anything to do with the Clean Energy Act.

At the previous PRRD meeting, Director Evan Saugstad of Chetwynd spoke to how he believes natural gas should be included in the Clean Energy Act, something he argues would be beneficial to Site C. At that time Council voted to have staff look into legislation and who the Regional District can write regarding this.

However, he, along with other directors, believe the Clean Energy Act should be kept separate from their thoughts on Site C, and not be used as a threat. Saugstad also pointed out that a split decision doesn’t send a message to government. The vote would have to be unanimous to have some weight, something he considers to be impossible.

Director Bruce Lantz of Fort St. John agreed the two shouldn’t be linked, and put a separate motion on the table. Council voted in favour of writing a letter to the appropriate ministries expressing its “strong desire” that changes to the Clean Energy Act are implemented allowing for use of natural gas for power generation.

The motion to take a stance on Site C was tabled to a further date.