The NDP government’s arithmetic on Site C cancellation costs is “deeply flawed,” has “no logic at all,” and is “appalling,” according to three project financing experts.
In the month of October, with almost 2,000 people working to build the Site C dam, a total of 18 apprentices were getting on-the-job trades training on the construction site of British Columbia's most expensive public-infrastructure project in history.
"That's pathetic," Premier John Horgan said in an interview.
A day after B.C.'s ruling New Democrats and their allies in labour groups made statements to mark the UN’s International Human Rights Day on December 10, the Indigenous peoples of the province were given a rude shock with the announcement of the provincial government’s green light for the controversial Site C dam project.
Premier John Horgan had an opportunity to protect British Columbians from a huge financial burden. He failed to do so. Instead, on Monday he announced that his government would complete construction of Site C.
Continuing with Site C is a bad decision on so many levels. What’s worse is how low Horgan had to stoop to try to rationalize it. He engaged in irresponsible fear-mongering, the logic of which does not stand up under scrutiny.
John Horgan’s NDP government ignored basic truths and now commits BC to greater environmental disaster.
The astoundingly stupid approval of Site C, an over-budget mega-project with no demonstrable need and plenty of cheaper alternatives, marks a black day for B.C.’s NDP government.
From: Rob Botterell <rbotterell@telus.net>
Subject: Public E-Mail to Attorney General David Eby and Environment
Minister George Heyman
Date: December 12, 2017 8:00:44 AM PST
Attorney General Eby and Environment Minister Heyman:
Given the urgency of this matter I am corresponding by e-mail.
Your collective Cabinet decision to complete Site C yesterday was justified
primarily on the basis, “that if we abandoned the Site C project, we
would incur an immediate $3-4bn public charge on either hydro ratepayers or
BC taxpayers.”
Reconciliation is not just about rhetoric, it is material. It is about how economic costs and benefits are shared. If we are to be serious about it, we have to be ready to take on costs that are both political and economic. The sunk and termination costs of Site C are substantial and so are the foregone benefits of reliable baseload power. If we want our governments to take on these costs in our name without fear, we have to make it a common sense proposition that they are worth taking on to forge a new relationship with First Nations.
