Keeping it Real…

Keeping it Real… header image 2

Site C SHOULD Be Completed

November 13th, 2017 · 88 Comments

WAC Bennett … to those whose political/historical knowledge goes that far back … was an iconic BC leader … still remembered by most MORE for his accomplishments than his blemishes.

” Bennett advocated in 1955 for a universal medical, dental, hospital, and pharmaceutical insurance coverage.  Universal, publicly funded medical and hospital insurance was introduced as part of the federal government’s creation of what became known as Medicare”, reminds Wikipedia.

And Bennett introduced a provincial sales tax to raise money to pay for it.

That was YEARS before Saskatchewan Premier tommy Douglas introduced the actual legislation to make public health care a reality in 1962.

That was truly bold and imaginative at that time.

But Bennett is better remembered for a greater legacy: BC-owned and BC developed HUGE hydro power projects … including the Columbia and Peace River dams that …. for generations… have brought British Columbian homes and industries enormous amounts of electricity … cheaper than anywhere else in North America.

And the LEGACY of Bennett’s bold moves … no doubt opposed, chastised and condemned by hordes of political opponents, anti-development  naysayers … also have brought BC BILLIONS of dollars in revenues to fund public programs.

And, much to the chagrin of his political foes, Bennett went on to win SEVEN consecutive elections … a feat so far never again repeated by any party/leader in BC.

History has been kinder to WAC’s vision and Hydro development strategies than his opponents at the time.

In fact, I dare say many of those who have opposed/protested Site C have benefitted greatly from WAC’s Hydro mega-project dams … and so have many of their parents, grandparents .. . even kids. Lucky for them, and for the rest of us,  he did not yield to the pressures/protestors back then.

Hydro power construction projects enriched MANY BC communities; helped fund so much of the province’s infrastructure development; pay for new post-secondary institutions and universities; and brought BC BILLIONS in export revenues.

Site C can do the same.

Yes, its development was mishandled; yes, its construction costs are higher than expected (aren’t ALL major projects?); yes, there are new developments in alternative energy production that should be pursued and even encouraged.

But let’s keep it real.

Despite all the MODERN   hordes of political opponents, anti-development  naysayers … Site C will not go to waste: over the long-term it too will bring the province huge amounts of electric power needed for future development, billions in revenues from domestic and export power sales.

And let’s face it, by delaying the project for a few years or a decade, until really needed to expand BC industries and economy, costs will not go down.

Despite all the LOUD sound and fury coming from those who oppose it, a recent Angus Reid poll showed ONLY 27% of British Columbians want Site C canceled: 45% said it should Go ahead; 28% were unsure … not a rational reason for a government to stop ANY major project and send thousands of well-employed and well-paid workers packing..

Site C  SHOULD go ahead.

It may indeed prove to be LAST major hydro project in BC … but, despite the costs,  future generations decades from will benefit from the HUGE volumes of power produced.. and the revenues from their sales.

My only caveat: the provincial government should … and I’m sure can … use some of those additional revenues they told us BC will gain from their fine stewardship of our economy to mitigate current and future Hydro consumer costs to pay for completion of the project.

Site C will provide Premier John Horgan and his NDP government a success and legacy that will bring BC benefits well after their term of office …be it ONE or SEVEN like WAC … have become part of the province’s history.

Harv Oberfeld

Tags: British Columbia · National

88 responses so far ↓

  • 1 13.. // Nov 13, 2017 at 7:47 am

    Yes indeed build the dam. I would much rather power all of the future electric cars from power that doesnt come from eyesore bird killing wind farms. If Gregor and his gang want to be the greenest city then they will need plenty of clean green electricity to heat the hoards of homeless people in shipping containers stashed all over the city. Surely any light rail built in Surrey will need power and not good old diesel fuel.
    Politicaly it gives Horgan a mega project to satisfy private sector unions.
    It gives the green guy a reason to pontificate about broken promises.
    It gives the BC Liberals and the ex premier a reason to smile and four years from now they can claim the credit for the dam and wrestle the legacy back from the party of no.

  • 2 D.M. Johnston // Nov 13, 2017 at 8:52 am

    I disagree completely, I think site C is another FastFerry fiasco on steroids.

    The problem site C faces is that there is a revolution in electrical generation and the cost for power is dropping.

    What I see is a 1960’s build, build, build, philosophy without looking 3 minutes into the future.

    Mega projects, though good for the locals, kill the economy with massive future debt.

    We see the same with SkyTrain, whee taxpayers to date have paid about $7 billion more than they should have for “rail” transit.

    What does this mean, more and higher taxes and it is the big push behind this grossly dishonest mobility pricing scheme.

    The demand is stagnant for power and very soon affordable fuel cell generation will come on line and that will be a game changer in about a decade, just when Site C will come on line.

    Technology is changing so rapidly that site C may become a monument for dated thinking.

    Solar power is another game changer and now with ever improving solar production, again, what will happen in 10 years time?

    The big game changer for solar will be solar roofing tiles, now being used in Europe and with new and improved battery storage systems, there will be much less demand for hydro power.

    Site C is a gamble and like the FastFerries, which the NDP inherited and made a shambles of, this dam may prove to be the coup de gras for the NDP in this province.

    Site C is a yesterday’s project based on yesterday’s needs. We must look into the future and all I see is a fiasco. Best cut ones losses now or forever pay the piper for a White Elephant.

    (Response: I don’t agree with the Fast Ferries comparison. BC will continue to grow and prosper, in terms of investment, development and population, and will require huge amounts of power: windmills and solar etc just wont supply it all fast enough … hydro is still a HUGE BC asset … and should be used to our advantage. h.o.)

  • 3 Gene The Bean // Nov 13, 2017 at 10:26 am

    It really should have been built 30 years ago. Using the same drop of water to produce electricity multiple times is very efficient. Too bad it wasn’t as then we wouldn’t have had to deal with the biggest ripoff in Canadian history, the BC Liberals IPP scam.

    That being said, the BC Liberals rushed it through, without BCUC oversight and purposefully jump started the work, just in case, they lost the next election, which they did. They handed out sweetheart contracts to ensure it would be past the point of no return, which it probably is. The BC Liberals also lied, again, about the costs as it is now a few billion dollar$ over budget.

    Renewables are dropping in price every year. This very well could be the last hydroelectric facility ever built in the country.

    Unless the BC Liberals get in power again …. ‘cuz you never know when billions of taxpayer money needs to be thrown to friends and supporters….

    Speaking of BC Liberals, a friend was just at an informal Dianne Watts hobknob on the North Shore and said it was a joke. Held in the corner of a pub, poorly organized with most people looking around at each other not believing how Mickey Mouse it was. Hmmm…..

    (Response:Agree…BC Libs (and Hydro) did not handle this well..right from the start. But it’s well under construction, it has value and will produce not only power but huge revenues for BC in the long run. It would be foolhardy to kill it. h.o.)

  • 4 John's Aghast // Nov 13, 2017 at 10:29 am

    WAC was then Harvey. Times have changed. We are at NOW. My money’s on

  • 5 Tom_L // Nov 13, 2017 at 10:57 am

    Nice to see some enlightened thinking on this subject. Too many people just dismiss it out of hand as evil government. The fact is that we will need this power in the next decade or two and by then the costs will have jumped enormously. Build it now.

    (Response: Neither hydro prices or construction prices will ever go down … so proceeding with Site C will no doubt prove in the long run to be a wise move …despite the loud voices of the minority of naysayers (many of whom seem to oppose EVERYTHING resource related!) h.o.)

  • 6 Diverdarren // Nov 13, 2017 at 11:17 am

    Harvey, I took a look at the BCUC Final Report on Site C. Wow, what dithering. A final conclusion of… Eh, it might work out well, or it might not.

    Thanks guys! No wonder this project has become a political quagmire.

    It appears that whether Site C is viable or not depends on future energy load demands. I guess that’s kind of a no S#!T Sherlock kind of a statement, but that’s the findings.

    What will electric demand look like in the future? I think 13 touched on it above. Electric car popularity. Forbes reports “soaring demand” in the US, mostly in California. The IEA (to which both Canada and the USA, among many others are members) show demand for electric vehicle charts that clearly show where the future is going. Electric cars, and lots of them.

    We all know and can see that we are a car culture. Think of how much of our infrastructure is dedicated to the automobile.
    Power to charge those batteries will need to come from somewhere. It might as well be Site C.

    Combine this with the serious potential of longer, hotter weather, and our future demand for air conditioning. Which is another big power user. I don’t see a lot of predictions from people that our power consumption is going in a downward trend.

    Site C has already eaten up a sizeable bit of tax dollars. Canceling it would eat up more with nothing to show for it. The project has passed it’s legal challenges. And, the environmental damage it will cause is tolerable. Agricultural/grazing land lost is about the equivalent of 7 Stanley Parks. Not insignificant, but manageable.

    We don’t regret our choices to invest in hydro back in the 60s, we’ll see the benefits of Site C for decades to come.

    (Response: Huge projects always draw LOTS of criticisms, questioning, protests etc. … any nothing wrong with that. BUT at this stage, with all that’s been spent, all the potential requirements we (and the US) will have for energy in the long-range future … the costs will NEVER go down. Yes, let’s encourage alternatives…but this project will not go to waste … and will bring in BILLIONS for BC over the LONG haul. h.o)

  • 7 Gary.T. // Nov 13, 2017 at 11:48 am

    I have to disagree with you Harvey. By all means, if you want your hydro rates to double or triple to make up for selling this power on the spot markets for a fraction of what it costs to produce, then continue on. The over runs on the construction cost’s will be massive, valuable farmland will be lost, and for what ? Site C was nothing more than Clark’s wet dream of a monument to herself, and it should be cancelled.

  • 8 Harry lawson // Nov 13, 2017 at 11:55 am


    Cristy Clark was no WAC Bennett, John Horgan is no Dave Barrett , both visionaries ahead of their time.

    I say build it , this is about the future of our province. It should not be based on discrediting a previous administration. If there are issues at site c fix them . the future of BC energy and economically should not be a partisan blood sport

    (Response: Agree.. no project this large can be built without problems … but the solution is as you say …fix it …. don’t cancel it and throw away all that is done. ho)

  • 9 OldIslander // Nov 13, 2017 at 12:37 pm

    I definitely agree with your analysis of the Site C dam.

    I have nothing but distrust for the whole process to date, carried out by the former government. We may not understand for many years, the sleaze that has and is occurring. But the legacy of hydro power in this province is amazing. And as the world slowly weans itself off fossil fuels, the demand for power will increase exponentially as the years go by.

    We’ve already spent so much money on this project, that it would be criminal to just throw it all away. If the NDP/Green abomination hopes to survive until the next election, they must permit this dam to proceed. They’ll be dooming their survival too, along with the project, if they kill it.

    (Response: Yes…politically, as well as practically, the project should get the go ahead. The NDP will regret it if they cancel. h.o.)

  • 10 e.a.f. // Nov 13, 2017 at 12:47 pm

    No to site C. We don’t need it and its too expensive.

    Other technologies will be developed over time which reduces the need for dams. In Oct, Scotland produced almost all of its electricity from wind power. Juan Cole’s, Informed Comment has a good post up about wind power in Europe.

    Then there will be the declining population. Yes, declining. The aging baby boomers are dying and in 20 years most of us will be gone. The younger generations, have smaller families, have less money to spend on things like houses and cars and will be living in smaller homes.

    the existing dams can accommodate extra turbines to increase electricity if required.

    Yes, there are going to be a lot of electric cars, etc. but there is also a lot of wind and sun around this province. They will be more local and that is a good thing. Importing power from northern B.C. at the expensive of farm land is not a good thing.

    whether you think climate change is happening or not, we do know some parts of the world can no longer support food production–recent fighting in Africa resulted in 29 dead because farmers and ranchers were at war with each other over who got the last of the water. We need that land in the Peace for future food production. We will have other methods of producing electricity. If we run out of land to produce food, we will have a very big problem.

    B.C. Hydro can not afford to spend at least $9B on a dam and still be purchasing IPP electricity at 10 cents and selling it to us the consumer at 3 cents. At some point B.C. Hydro will need to balance their books and that would mean huge rate increases for us.

    Site C would be great for those wanting to build mines in the north so they have cheap power to run them, but i’m not willing to take on a $9B debt so they can have cheap power. Yes there are those who want to open mines in the north and want Site C to provide them power .

    Now that Christy is gone and no longer available to give passes on paying their electricity bills to a mine owner, most mine owners will understand, if the operation isn’t viable without us subsidizing their operation via no electricity bills, they may reconsider their opening mines here and there and every where.

    We have only to look at Muscratt Falls for out of control dams and the cost. Lets not go down that road.

    Having the province’s source of electricity a long way from where the population is, doesn’t always bode well for future events. Its best to have your source of energy closer at hand. There are parts of B.C. have a great deal of sun light and we ought to be looking at solar power. If Iran can give their citizens subsidies for converting to solar power, you do wonder why B.C. can’t.

    for how successful solar power can be in climate not so different than ours, have a look at Germany. actually that is what Iran did.

  • 11 e.a.f. // Nov 13, 2017 at 12:50 pm

    RossK over at the Gazetteer has a chart up from Norm Farrell’s blog clearly outlining how the demand for electricity has fallen in the last 10 years while our population has grown.

  • 12 DonGar // Nov 13, 2017 at 1:30 pm

    Two posts stirring the hornets nest. What got into you on vacation?

    Yes the dam should proceed. Hopefully they will make an informed decision based on all the facts and not only those that support the no’s cognitive bias.

    (Response: I knew as I wrote this one I’d better DUCK afterwards! But after all…I like to keep it real. And I’m leaving for some more relaxing travel in a couple of weeks … so let’s have some good discussions before I go. h.o.)

  • 13 13.. // Nov 13, 2017 at 2:35 pm

    The only reason I can see Horgan flushing 4 billion dollars and thousands of jobs down the drain would be to deflect blow back from the Kinder Morgan Pipeline. Does Horgan think that political posturing is worth 4 billion dollars? Does he think the public will look at 4 billion wasted dollars and think its okay its sort of like the fast ferry waste?
    You never know maybe he can kill both the pipeline and the dam. Oh yeah dont forget the Highway upgrade that hes put on hold.
    Perhaps in order to keep election promises Horgan and James will see the need to create some positive job creation to pay for the daycare and the renters grant and the fent crisis and the teacher shortage and the earthquake school renos, and the homeless, and the housing price crisis and the shortfall in public sector pension funding and the endless money needed to help first nations and to make tuitions more affordable and to speed up the justice system and to provide more RCMP to Surrey and to fund transit expansion and to eliminate the MSP and too replace the Pattullo bridge and to replace the Deas Island Tunnel.
    I wonder?

  • 14 Hugh // Nov 13, 2017 at 2:56 pm

    The cost of Site C is expected to go up. Let’s say it costs $10 billion.

    That’s $10,000,000,000.

    Or $1 Million x 10,000.

    This is insane.

    BC’s Total Provincial Debt, which includes BC Hydro debt, is now at about $70 billion. It’s been growing at 6% a year.

    That means the debt will double in 12 years. That’s without taking into account the cost of Site C.

    (Response: No, no, no …don’t fret! Have you already forgotten all those billions in revenues Horgan/Weaver and the NDP/Greens promised would be flowing BC’s way as THEY grow BC’s economy with their wise, environmentally-friendly job growth agenda??? h.o)

  • 15 Hawgwash // Nov 13, 2017 at 3:02 pm

    Well, I have in the past suspected HO likes to toss in an Alfred E Newman piece amongst the serious stuff just for entertainment.

    He posted, then went silent, while all his cohorts dressed in their finest 40s smoking jackets, assembled in the den to pull on some fine Scotch; each in turn, reading a comment aloud, whilst the others, in true Statler and Waldorf fashion, erupt in laughter backslapping with gusto.

    The clue to this one is the line;
    “yes, its construction costs are higher than expected (aren’t ALL major projects?)

    I expected the next lines to be;
    Everyone does it.
    It’s the way we’ve always done it.
    Let’s build it, just because we can.

    I can’t begin to articulate my objections so will let the person who has logged more miles on this file than all others combined:

    I particularly like the line addressing the HO HO crowd.

    “It’s here I’ll mention the only formal group campaigning in support seems to be the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, spearheaded by rep Jordan Bateman. Yes, that’s the same Jordan Bateman,former taxpayers champion who worried about the costs of Site C”

    Enjoy the brevity Harvey and make the boys cab it home.

  • 16 r // Nov 13, 2017 at 5:34 pm

    Keeyask/Muskrat/ Bipole 3
    Expect a Moodys debt downgrade ,of BC,if it is completed and expect at least a 50 percent bill increase in dam costs and home hydro bill.?

    IPP-private power ,Currently BCcontracts are over market rates by 500 million a year at least.?

  • 17 Island Lookout // Nov 13, 2017 at 5:47 pm


    Your comments are absolutely right.
    BC needs this project…badly.

    If the NDP wishes to stay in power then Horgan has to be BRAVE. He has to get with the program and get that project done. Quickly.


    BUT he first must face down his bitchy, whiney political “allies”, the anti-development clowns, and various American-funded seditious local environmental groups. These people are NOT his friends. They’re much less than that.

    You’re also right about WAC and the noisy political opponents, he had to listen to, or not, including my late father.

    An example: I clearly remember back in the 1950s when dad and I would go shopping.

    When the clerk asked him to shell out for the sales tax, dad would complain that he’d never met anyone who’d ever voted Socred. The poor clerk didn’t know what to say.

    Inspite of all that WAC went on to achieve political immortality as the KEY builder of this province in modern times unlike his long forgotten opponents and enemies.


    Site C would be the third dam built on the Peace River. The other two, including the WAC Bennett dam, are several miles upstream. This means that Site C’s reservoir would be a sort of gathering place for water “not used” by the other two dams. And, therefore, would be that much more useful and efficient in the production of electricity over the next hundreds of years.

    Some dam opponents are calling for alternatives: solar panels and giant bird-killing windmills.

    Where pray-tell would these edifices be set up?

    Remember that most of BC’s real estate goes straight up and straight down. They’re MOUNTAINS!

    So, the largest patch of vacant, “flat”, real estate is in the giant Peace Basin. But it is also an agricultural area opened up in part by WAC after construction of the PGE (BC Rail) into the region.

    So, how much of that arable land would have to be covered up by poisonous panels and killer windmills? A lot is my guess.

    ALSO, would those devices provide year round electricity EQUAL to that provided by Site C?

    No, is the answer.

    The problem with too many politicians today is that they are intellectually and linguistically crippled by political correctness, and suck up to left-wing groups’ fickle demands. No original ideas at all.


    Currently I’m reading “WAC Bennett and the Rise of British Coumbia” written by former BC MLA David Mitchell.

    Here is what transpired in Victoria in the hot summer of 1952, the day WAC and his cabinet were sworn in.

    Bennett was headquarted in the Empress Hotel and appointed his friend Ron Worley to be his executive assistant.

    Bennett: “You’re my executive assistant.”

    Worley: “I’m honoured, but I’ve never been an executive assistant.”

    Bennett: “That’s fine, Ronald, my boy, I’ve never been a premier!”

    After the ceremony Bennett told the gathering: “I want to make it clear that our government will not be a government of the right or of the left. A Social Credit government will be a middle-of-the-road government.”

    Later the new cabinet met back at the hotel.

    Martinis, scotch and so on were ordered. Then teetotler Bennett chimed in: “Anybody can drink what they like tonight as long as it’s tea, coffee, or Ovaltine.” Mitchell goes on to write: “They all complied, becoming the first government ever to be sworn in on Ovaltine.”

    WAC Bennett was a British Columbia miracle. He brought the province from oblivion to what it has become.

    Trouble now is some incredibly stupid descendants desire to tear down this legacy. And we pay any attention to these losers AT ALL?

    Are we nuts?


    Premier Horgan, achieve some measure of foresight, greatness, political dignity and class, shortly, so you can be in the same league as WAC Bennett. No one else is or has been so far.

    Mr. Horgan, Build that dam!

    (Response: At the risk of dating myself, one of the pics I have hanging on the wall of my den is me with WAC at the Press Gallery in Victoria. There’s good reason the people of BC re-elected him seven times: he had a vision, and clearly the population agreed … and felt they benefitted from it. Of course, like ALL politicians who stay in office a very long time, he and his policies slipped out of favour eventually … and Dave Barrett/NDP were the new choice. Also have a pic on my wall of him campaigning! But Horgan/NDP would be wise to realize the majority of British Columbians WANT to see development .. and a vision that doesn’t just say NO to every resource project. h.O)

  • 18 Hugh // Nov 14, 2017 at 12:55 am

    Let’s spend $9 or $10 billion on a dam the power from which is not actually needed, and would be sold at a loss. Brilliant.

    “Under BC Hydro’s forecast demand, the analysis found, cumulative losses (from Site C) would be nearing $2.7 billion by 2036.”

    (Response: There have been MANY evaluations of Site C: those pro and con the project can quote those that support their bias. Certainly makes the government’s decision a lot more difficult , but I believe they should take an optimistic view about BC’s future, economic growth and energy needs … and windmills and solar just won’t cut it. h.o.)

  • 19 Chuckstraight // Nov 14, 2017 at 8:07 am

    My view= Cancel Site C

  • 20 e // Nov 14, 2017 at 8:41 am

    Zero growth,now negative as of last quarter,for 11 years and to blow 12 billion dollars and sell power at a potential loss after?The only thing growing is the debt.?
    Why is it you never see an annual demand graph from BCHydro Hmmm…?You may not sell to Alberta -they installed a gas turbine ,like the politically neutered burrard thermal.?
    Look and see Keeyask/Muskrat/Bipole3.


  • 21 Hawgwash // Nov 14, 2017 at 9:39 am

    Island Lookout.
    BC in the 50s and 60s could have been built and flourished under a deaf, blind, mute. Bennett Sr. was just in possession of the autopilot.

    (Response: Funny how people never give credit for achievements to politicians/parties in power that they don’t like, but will blame them when any downturn occurs; and then give LOTS of credit for ANY gains when their favored politicians/party takes over. LOL! h.o.)

  • 22 Gene The Bean // Nov 14, 2017 at 10:03 am

    Harvey, when you mentioned “economic growth” do you mean “BC Liberal economic growth” or real ‘economic growth’?

    BC Liberal economic growth is doing things like building the North West Transmission Line to the tune of $800 million (25% over budget) to support a few high profile multi-nationals that are the BC Liberals biggest benefactors ….?

    Or suddenly rushing into Site C (at a $10 billion taxpayer cost) to then HAVE TO offer essentially FREE electricity to the fairy tale LNG industry so a certain premier doesn’t ‘look bad’?

    Or the almost $500 million yearly loss from the IPP SCAM so that BC Liberal insiders and Gordo’s friends could all become even richer than they were?

    This is not the 1960’s anymore where you need HUGE amounts of available electricity. Everything that is made is made energy efficient and next years model will be even more so. Every single process in retail, commercial and manufacturing is reducing, and is some areas significantly reducing, electrical costs. LED lighting is 1/6 the cost of incandescent/halogen formerly usually used in retail.

    Nano technology will make the cost of producing electricity from solar significantly cheaper than what it is today. In our lifetimes we will see integrated roof tiles that will supplement your household electrical usage and it will only be slightly more expensive than what a normal roof would cost. Once that industry goes crazy, it’ll be even cheaper than a conventional roof.

    Dubai is currently building truly gigantic solar and farms … and they have enough natural gas right under their feet to last them 5000 years.

    Site C was Christy’s Folly to try and resurrect her LNG Trillion Dollar Promise.

    BC has more than enough electrical capacity right now. To spur any REAL economic growth, any money should be spent on transmission and distribution solutions to enhance/encourage manufacturing and industrial growth. That is a far better investment.

    All that being said, I reluctantly agree that Site C should continue. Maybe we can get lucky…..

    Maybe, just maybe, another multi-billion dollar BC Liberal corporatist scam will actually work out.

    And …. maybe not. But you cant be any worse off than ‘dead broke’ and we are almost there now with how much of Provincial debt has grown the last 16 years and how many ‘tens of billion$’ have been additionally squandered and wasted by the Liberals within ICBC and BC Hydro.

    But rest easy Sheeple, you can always say “what about Glen Clarks deck” ($2500) or what about “fast ferries” ($450 million) when you try to explain to your grandkids why BC is broke and ill-gotten Chinese money now owns and rules our Province….

    Simple math – some of you should try it ….

    (Response: The Libs are gonzo from office: I’m talking about NDP/Green promises of growth and prosperity (have we already forgotten the last election?) that will produce thousands of jobs and bring in the billions we need to pay for all their post-election plans. Surely, with all that NEW economic development and progress, they will need more electric power to meet the needs over the next five, ten, twenty, thirty years and more … and Site C would fit right in! Along with, of course, greater development of solar and wind power too. h.o)

  • 23 BMCQ // Nov 14, 2017 at 12:41 pm

    There are many problems surrounding the Site “C” Dam Project.

    Many of those problems come from Politicians Pro or Con along with many in the General Public that are coming to ill informed opinions simply by following their Ideology.

    Then of course we have various Special interests that are either Pro or Con the Construction and completion of the Site “C” Project.

    Who to believe?

    I do know that contrary to how opponents would like to convince you that Wind, Tide, Solar, Dilithium Crystals and the rest being able to provide Electricity and Power Up a Province like B.C. anytime before at least 30 -40 years is just simply not factual.

    The Technology is just not able to provide what the Province and it’s Population along with new Tech like Electric Automobiles and the rest that will rely upon Re chargeable Batteries and other Electricity will require.

    We are being told almost every day that the Population of B.C. which is now about 4.8 Million People will be almost 6 Million in 10 years and by 2050 we could see over 10 Million People residing in B.C.

    Do you think they might require some Electricity?

    Or will we expand our power Sources by ramping up Coal and oil Burning Facilities?

    If estimates are accurate it is estimated that demand for Crude will actually increase over the next 25 years and natural Gas will in fact see an increase in demand World Wide by over 40% in that same time frame.

    Hey, we had better talk to Mr. Horgan about that potential, think of the potential for easy to access and transport Alberta and B.C. Oil and LNG!!

    I am a Free Enterprise Supporter and I supported the B.C. Liberal Government during the last Election but I was not a Fan and had no respect for CC and the very Poor Campaign she ran.

    Horgan and his Minions did not win the Campaign, they simply sat back and watched Christy Clark Snatch Election Defeat from the Jaws of Election Victory.

    I do not understand why some regardless of Government Projects across Canada manage to have Fixed plus a reasonable Contingency component to their Agreement and some are allowed to run far over Budget and far over time to complete.

    To close down Site “C” now it would more than likely cost up to $ 6 Billion including Remediation.

    To complete it may take up to what $ 9 Billion.

    We can and will in fact sell Power to Alberta and perhaps California, and we will be guaranteed Clean Power/Electricity for B.C. for Generations to come.

    I also believe that Premier Horgan should immediately hold meetings with PM Justin and demand Infrastructure Money we have been promised. Ottawa provided 100% Funding for the Champlain Bridge and the P.E.I. Bridge was Funded mostly by the Federal Government.

    Horgan should also take the ridiculous Broadway Line and Tunnel to Nowhere Funds and direct it into Site “C”.

    We then must demand more from Ottawa between now and the next Federal Election. B.C. and Alberta are treated very unfairly when it comes to the allocation of Federal Infrastructure Funding.

    We need to demand more from Ottawa to build new Infrastructure for a New Deas Crossing/Tunnel, Pattullo Bridge, Sky Train at Grade Technology from King George Hwy and Hwy 99 between the North South Lanes to intersect with the Canada Line in Richmond, and we need to be very vocal about it pointing out how B.C. has not been treated fairly.

    We also need to complete the Site “C” Dam Project Warts and All.

    As to those that Whine about more for Health Care and Education?

    Health Care is already about 45% of the Budget and Health Care is about 15%, that adds up to about 60%, how much do they want? We need and require more Efficiencies from both of those.

    We need to make things easier and less expensive and save Commuter/Travel Times for those that go to work each and every day to provide for the rest of the People in B.C.

    Having said all of that we (the Great Unwashed) need more Transparency and Accountability from A:: Government Ministries and all of what we once called Crown Corporations.

    part of this mess was created by a lack of Transparency from B.C. hydro and the Citizens of B.C. deserve better.

    I did not vote for John Horgan and his party, I am horrified they stumbled to Election Victory due to the mistakes made by Christy Clark but still want the Horgan Government to succeed because it is best for the People of my Province, B.C..

    I can only hope and wish that Mr. Horgan will Govern for ALL of the People of B.C. not just Special Interest Groups

    We desperately need Infrastructure Projects like LNG which will sooner than you think pay off for us, we need other Oil and Gas, and we need Site “C” for our Future Generations. We need the Deas Crossing, and we need Pattullo, we owe it to our present commuters/Tax Payers, and we owe it to our Children and Grand Children.

    ( topic. h.o)

    I honestly believe that John Horgan is a man of good character, it is now time for him to prove he cannot be controlled or manipulated by Special Interests!

  • 24 Gordon Stewart // Nov 14, 2017 at 1:11 pm

    Instead of arguing and counter arguing the pros and cons of stopping/keeping site C, I suggest reading the latest article by Laila Yule, Nov 13th, to realize the dam is technically unstable and should never be built, also Norm Farrell’s many revealing articles of the frailty of both site C and BC Hydro, also the late great Raif , all of whom shed a light on the stupidity of the whole product. I’m afraid Horgan will suffer the consequences, whatever the Cabinet decides.

  • 25 Hawgwash // Nov 14, 2017 at 1:14 pm

    Harvey, there was no criticism of or discredit to WAC Bennett in my post 21; your hide is thinning.

    I was simply pointing out that BC would have flourished regardless of who was “in power.”

    Post WWII, our resources; forestry (including logging, pulp mills, lumber) fishing and mining were in demand by everyone. HR MacMillan, the Woodward Family, CPR, Union Steamships, BC Packers and a ton of small family business’s in central, eastern and northern BC get more “credit” for growth than a grinning Cheshire Cat who set fire to a barge with a flaming arrow.

    He was told to build dams by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and President Dwight Eisenhower. They backed BC into a corner. We got stuck with 2/3 the build cost and reaped ½ the benefits. When renegotiation time rolled around the US threatened to pollute the Upper Fraser Valley with a NG plant in Sumas, if they didn’t get their way.

    No, Harvey, the biggest single contribution WAC made to the BC economy was creating eternal work for Len Norris.

    (Response: Love the Len nostalgia! He was great. I stand by my view … it may not apply to you, but then, you are in a distinct minority. My own observation over many decades exactly fits the scenario I described. h.o.)

  • 26 Island Lookout // Nov 14, 2017 at 2:56 pm


    You are dead wrong on that one. Will be for all time.

    WAC Bennett was the ONLY politician who had the guts to do what had to be done to get things rolling in BC’s moribund post-war economy.

    His row was not an easy one to hoe.

    Throughout his term in office he was viewed by BC’s business elite as a sub-par kind of person, not ever one of THEM.

    Perhaps that could have been in retalition for his decision to undermine the Tory/Liberal Coalition of the early 1950s.

    He stuck a fork in that band of corrupt downtown Vancouver/Victoria pols and in 1952 voters elected the first Social Credit government.

    As for the labour unions, well their leaders went nuts over the Socreds’ various government initiatives, including nationalizing BC Electric (now BC Hydro) and starting up the BC Ferry Corporation (1959).

    They saw this capitalist-simp doing Socialist things!

    How could that be?

    That activity flew in the face of everything left-wing in BC and made the CCF/NDP irrelevant for years, and still are in the main.

    WAC was a BC-Firster. In fact he changed the name of the Transcanada Highway in BC to the BC 1 Highway! It was meant as a snub to the feds with whom he had frequent battles.

    We need another Wacky Bennett, badly.

    The current MINORITY government is filled with hand-wringing community resource types and besotted enviromentalists who hate capitalism and have bought into Socialism hook, line and sinker.

    WAC was a Socialist if necessary but not necessarily a Socialist. Mainly he was a centre-left pol in the beginning years.

    BTW another definition of Socialism is that it is a religion without a god.

    Hence the term Godless Socialists.

  • 27 e.a.f. // Nov 14, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    Laila Yuile has an interesting post up regarding shutting down Site C. there is quite a bit of information provided there regarding the north slope and its unstable conditions. that one its own makes me concerned about the future, not only the cost of perhaps trying to stabilize it, if possible but what happens if we have a decent sized earth quake. her suggestion regarding the Burrard Thermal plant is great. I certainly would put a power source closer to the lower mainland. As of now, all our sources are some distance away. In case of a massive fire season or earthquake, it might be better to have something closer to home. and when it comes to clean air the plant is one of the best in north America

  • 28 noneck // Nov 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    Just curious – how many posters on this blog drive full electric or electric-assisted vehicles? I’m hazarding a guess… maybe 1 in 10 of us?

    And no, retirees, I’m not accepting the go karts driven by the elderly. Those can be powered by Coleman solar panels bought at Canadian Tire.

    I’m wondering if BC will truly embrace the electric car anytime soon. I think our unique geography will limit their effectiveness as a viable mode of transportation.

  • 29 13.. // Nov 14, 2017 at 8:05 pm

    Many of the worlds automakers are predicting or have already implemented business plans that outline when they will STOP building gasoline powered cars.

    As for the endless cries to read Norm and Laila , I think the Fraser Institute and other right wing orgs are more my cup of green tea. Ive read both of those individuals and they are so obviously (how can I put it) bound by their own ideology that I trust neither of them.

  • 30 13.. // Nov 14, 2017 at 8:11 pm

    PS I forgot that on the pro CKNDP this am the tech wizard profiled Musks so to be delivered electric semi truck. I look forward to cruising the boulevard in a ELECTRIC Peterbuilt. I cant imagine the batteries that a fully loaded super b train ( 63,500KGS gross weight) truck will require and the power to keep fleets of that type of semi on the road

  • 31 SG // Nov 14, 2017 at 9:06 pm

    I not convinced that site C is needed. Both of the last two times I toured the WAC Bennett dam, the guide made a point of mentioning the the dam only generates 75% of its total capacity because it produces more energy than is presently needed. And it was mentioned the other BC Hydro facilities only produce around 75% of their total capacities, yet BC Hydro still produces a huge surplus of electricity to sell on the open market… if BC Hydro has a huge surplus of energy to sell on the open market despite their energy generating capacity being throttled back, why do we need site C ?

  • 32 G. Barry Stewart // Nov 14, 2017 at 9:21 pm

    I can imagine the BC Hydro forecasters in 2004, saying, “Our current population is 4,155,017. We predict the population will grow by 662,143 by the year 2017 — a 16% increase. Where is the energy going to come from, to meet a 16% growth in demand?”

    Well, the population may have grown by 16% — but the demand for electricity hasn’t, as shown by Norm Farrell’s tracking of BC Hydro stats from 2004 to 2017. During that same time, BC saw a huge growth in IPPs, openly encouraged by the Campbell and Clark government… yet the broad figures show that Hydro didn’t need the help. They could make enough power on their own.

    Meanwhile, power-hungry manufacturing industries have declined and Hydro rates have gone up by 68% since 2009. It’s amazing, how efficient we can become, when faced with a rate increase that far outstrips the rate of inflation and wage increases. As a result, BC has absorbed 662,143 extra power users but hasn’t had to create any more energy for them.

    BC Hydro is forced by BC Liberal long-term contract, to pay roughly $100 per unit for unneeded IPP power. They then sell it on the wholesale market for about $30 per unit. Last year, this ridiculous plan cost Hydro about $800 million. Site C power is destined to be in the same losing ballpark.

    Underpinning the whole Site C (and IPP) debate is Gordon Campbell’s dream that BC would be self-sufficient in power production. When the wholesale market from Alberta and the USA is providing power at $30 per unit, we’d be foolish not to tap that source. Sure: we don’t want to be held over a barrel — but that’s what’s already happening with the IPP program.

    Summation: BC Hydro and the BC Liberals never had a business case for Site C. Efficiencies are what we should be going after, as lower demand means less need for new infrastructure. To meet future needs, buy wholesale power as needed, while embracing new technology that can be built closer to metro areas and can be built in stages, as need arises.

    Dump Site C, like we would an old car or old boat, that is bound to be a money-loser if we keep it.

    BMCQ says: “I can only hope and wish that Mr. Horgan will Govern for ALL of the People of B.C. not just Special Interest Groups.” I would agree with that, if he includes the heavy construction industry as a special interest group.

  • 33 e.a.f. // Nov 14, 2017 at 9:26 pm

    ah, 13, I don’t know about electric semis and it is a reality check. can’t imagine a semi or big dump or logging trucks being run on batteries, but who knows what the future will bring. there are some very interesting electric run trains in Norway or some such country.

    as to Norm Farrell, he is using B.C. hydro and government figures, so if he’s wrong so is the government.

    Noneck, 28, you did make me laugh, yes how many drive electric cars. what do individuals do to protect the enviornment but that is another subject.

  • 34 G. Barry Stewart // Nov 14, 2017 at 10:08 pm

    13 at 29,

    You might prefer the lean of the Fraser Institute, compared to Norm or Laila — but the FI is incredibly light on its coverage of Site C. Here’s the ONE article I could find. Perhaps their search tool is broken.

    For big business analysts, you (or at least I) would expect they’d have the charts and $-signs flowing in multiple articles, showing the business case for Site C.


    It makes me wonder if they’re against it but don’t want to go out on that limb. Far better to show how the kids in Dog Creek Elementary are doing, compared to St. George’s.

  • 35 G. Barry Stewart // Nov 14, 2017 at 10:15 pm

    I took a Nissan Leaf (all electric car) for a test drive last week, considering it for a short-distance runabout, paired with a fuel car as our travelling car. I was impressed!

    It needs more study before I bite but the salesman said one of the employees drives one from Abbotsford to Chilliwack 5x a week and only plugs in at home. Weekly cost: $10.00. Even for a 4-banger, that would easily be $50 in gasoline.

    (Response: My last car rental in Florida was a Ford Hybrid. TERRIFIC gas mileage: averaged 32 mpg in city driving and as high as 47 mpg on highways. And so quiet on starting, didn’t know it was running, except for message on dash Ready to Drive. Only downside… smaller trunk space, due to large batteries. And I understand the purchase price is several thousand higher…so don’t believe its ready for all . h.o.)

  • 36 DBW // Nov 14, 2017 at 10:31 pm

    Just wondering.

    If we had all this information from the BCUC before one shovel load of dirt had been moved, would people still want the project to go ahead?

    Are some people basing their opinion on the fact that we have already spent $4B and don’t like to think that it will be wasted even if the project will still cost billions more and may not be worth the expense?

    Have we reached Christy Clark’s point of no turning back?

  • 37 Sid Evans // Nov 14, 2017 at 10:59 pm

    Wow Harvey where do I start… so because my grandparents my parents and i benefited from WACs Energy plan I’m supposed to keep that in mind while I consider the merits of Site C… what an insulting and condescending way to open up your argument for the completion of Site C… then A couple of paragraphs later you gloss over the most disturbing facts regarding Site C admitting that its development was mishandled and that it’s construction costs were higher than expected and that’s all that you write on that topic two sentences you don’t seem too eager to discuss cost overruns that will amount to billions of dollars over budget but hey aren’t all major projects… huh wait what.. Harvey the reality is BC Hydro is tied up in IPP contracts to the tune of $60 billion if Site C were to be completed we can add another $10 billion to BC Hydro debt meaning it’ll be well over 60 years before Site C starts returning any money back to the citizens of BC… hydro rates will be going up not down
    Now Horgan inherits Christys billion-dollar debacle the fact that she was trying to get it to the point of no return in such a hurry before the election says all you need to know about Christy desire for Site C and it has nothing to do with getting nice low Hydro rates for BC citizens… Cancel it now mr. Horgan it’s the right thing to do it’s the smart thing to do

    (Response: Quick! Turn off your computer; shut your lights, don’t watch tv. Don’t want to ruin your day … but every day YOU (not just your parents and grandparents) are ENJOYING the BENEFITS of WAC’s power development. And your own grandchildren and their kids will benefit (as you have)from having adequate power to fuel our economy well into the future …and keep their computers, tvs etc humming along as well. h.o.)

  • 38 BMCQ // Nov 15, 2017 at 7:46 am

    Barry – 32

    When I say “Special Interests” I include ANY Group, Political Activists, Enviro’s, Corporate, or any others including First Nations.

    That includes the Heavy Construction Industry.

    I meant it when I said I want the Horgan Government to be successful.

    One last thing for me on this.

    IMHO there was not enough Transparency on the Site “C” Project right from the beginning.

    No need for me to go into what I am describing as most regulars here are more familiar with the problems than I am.

    The Liberal Government made a mistake by not including a BCUC Report/Analysis.

    We in B.C. will experience a significant in Population Growth over the next 30 years and along with that demand for Electricity will be ever increasing.

    Are we willing to gamble that Wind, Solar in a place where it Rains 8 months of the year, Tide, and the rest will be adequate and technologically reliable enough to Power Up B.C. and it’s future demands?

    Who is going to take the Blame if we do not go ahead with Site “C” and we find ourselves in weekly Brown Outs 20 or 30 years from now?

    I believe the biggest problem and most important part of this debate is the fact that the vast majority of opinions and research are affected greatly by Peoples Politics and that is a very sad thing.

    “Who needs Facts when one has their Ideology”!!

  • 39 r // Nov 15, 2017 at 8:32 am

    Ask BCHydro if they turn off,are forced to,,bypass,their power to buy IPP power.?You might not like the answer.

  • 40 D.M. Johnston // Nov 15, 2017 at 8:45 am

    Here is something else to ponder with site C.

    Hydro electric dams emit a billion tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, study finds.

    From the Guardian

    With global warming, the defrosting northern tundra is emitting vast amounts of methane gas and methane is a big driver of global warming.

    One wonders if Site C one dam too many?

  • 41 Gene The Bean // Nov 15, 2017 at 10:10 am

    BC Hydro most always look to the future and forecast electrical needs to insure they are met – that is one of the primary mandates.

    The BC Liberals decided that they knew the electrical generation-transmission-distribution business better than a building full of life-long BC Hydro engineers. Gordo also said in a heavily reported cabinet meeting that “BC Hydro prices are way to cheap and they must be increased” – Huh? Cheap and reliable power for generations – NO WAY says Gordo!

    Psssst: There is also a way to make our friends and insiders hundreds of million$ of GUARANTEED money – and POOF – the IPP SCAM was born.

    Our generational storage capacity is the envy of the world. If the BC Liberals would have left BCH alone, we wouldn’t have had just ‘the third lowest rates in North America’ – we would probably have the ‘third lowest rates in the entire world’ and set our grandchildren up to prosper forever …. but Nooooooo ……

    The selfish morally bankrupt conservative mindset won out – thanks to the selfish morally bankrupt BC Liberal supporters. So, next time you open your Hydro bill – just remember those choices…..

    BCH will run their existing facilities at 75% for at least another 15 years if Site C is NOT built. If Site C is built, BCH will be running the system that way for the next forty years – barring some extraordinary calamity.

    Another tidbit that shows that absolute incompetence of the BC Liberals and their lust for screwing over the 99% – Burrard Thermal.

    What major city that relies on power from remote generating sites criss-crossing multiple mountain ranges hundreds and hundreds of KM away wouldnt want a back-up generating station right next door in case of emergency. Ice storm, earthquake, terrorist attack ….. The lower mainland was protected, not any more. Ask yourselves why?

    Seriously, ask yourself who would do that and what the motivation was.

    Then have a long look in the mirror……. and ask yourself how you may have contributed to the mess we are in NOW – one that we couldn’t even have imagined just 25 years ago.

    Screwed – blued – tattooed by conservatism.

  • 42 Island Lookout // Nov 15, 2017 at 11:30 am



    Looking at large scale infrastructure developments that have made BC what it is today one must consider the long view.

    You can’t do anything else but…

    Why? Because it has to do with amortizations of costs.

    The Site C dam will be expensive one way or the other. But 500 years from now our descendants will be than thanking us.

    If this dam were built 10 years from now what would it cost?

    When it comes to building big things by government inflation is always a major factor: inflation AND time. Time cannot be retrieved. but inflation can be contained if delays are kept to a minimum. Inflation and time: remember those.

    Looking at Site C how much land would be flooded as compared to, say, filling it up with windmills and solar panels to achieve similar power outputs?

    And the effects on the local environment: is a basin of war that is replenished by nature a better thing that killer structures using up valuable farm land as mentioned above or not?

    These obnoxious dam opponents sound much like the naysayers that plagued the Bennett regime. They became BC’s historic losers.

    Bennett created a society that gave folks a chance to be winners. And there are many still.

    Why don’t all of you grab a copy of David Mitchell’s book”WAC Bennett and the Rise of British Columbia” as I’ve also noted on this Web earlier.

    Here is an excerpt from Chapter Eight.

    Bennett, who got around in a chauffeur-driven car when he toured BC, is looking at a stunning view of the Peace River valley near Fort St. John back in the 1950s, from a highway his government has just finished paving.

    Along comes a long-time area trapper and the conversation goes thusly:

    Trapper: “Mister, what are you staring at?”

    Bennett: “Look down there. What do you see?”

    Trapper: “I see a small winding, muddy river.”

    Bennett: “Well my friend, I see dams. And I see power. And I see development. I see roads, highways, bridges and growing communities. I see cities…schools, hospitals and universities…beautiful homes with housewives baking bread…”

    Trapper (interrupting): “Mister, I don’t know who you are or where you come from, but we’ve had some pretty crazy people up in these parts in my time, and as far as I’m concerned, you’re the craziest of them all!”

    Was Christy Clark another “craziest of them all” people, too?

    We have too many trappers here and not enough visionaries.

  • 43 Ray // Nov 15, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    Harvey, it would be an idea to back up your message to us with real facts that support your argument. I don’t read any here? It’s easy to say what should be done, but what about supporting your ideas with research and facts?? I never read the Post media articles anymore due to the slanted views expressed in those papers including some well-known “journalists”. I would have hoped that your ideas here would be supported by meaningful facts and research. Gee, how many times did I say facts and ideas? I read your blog because you usually tell a REAL story. Unfortunately I find this entry somewhat lacking!

    (Response: Sorry if it disappoints you that I don’t intend to spend my retirement days doing economic research on all the economic benefits BC has derived over the past 40 years from Hydro dams envisioned and brought to fruition by WAC Bennett. My view is clearly an opinion…like others on this blog …and a political evaluation…arrived at by just looking around me, driving around BC for decades and seeing how Hydro development has blessed BC’s quality of life. As for Site C, there have been dozens of studies and evaluations … pro and con… look them up yourself and I’m sure you can find lots to fit your own perspective and ignore those that don’t. But I will predict 20 to 30 years from now …get back to me then if I’m wrong … British Columbians will again be thankful for and benefit economically from a decision to go ahead. h,o.)

  • 44 BMCQ // Nov 15, 2017 at 1:20 pm

    DBW – 36

    What is it they say about “Hindsight”?

    All valid questions.

  • 45 Hawgwash // Nov 15, 2017 at 5:30 pm

    I have to retract my earlier comments that this has all been some kind of joke played for the entertainment of the blog owner. At one point, I even considered the man might have ingested some bad Irma water on his last trip to Florida.

    I was wrong, on both counts and with some help I have been set straight. Or, I should say set right, as I have always been straight.

    After reading the responses to Sid at 37 and Ray at 43, I knew there was something really amiss. Indeed, something seriously amiss.

    Well, it turns out there is a FOX in the HO house.

    I contacted Ann Coulter and it said there had been a blogjack; the “O” is really O’Reilly.

    So, Harvey, while you are waiting to see if the ransom works and you get your blog back, here is a piece on Site C you might like to read. After all, we know how you like to be fully informed and strive to keep it real:

    Or, since you say you are loath to “spend my retirement days doing economic research,” let me put it in the old nut shell, with a line from the article;
    “as one ratings agency warned that deteriorating finances at the provincially owned utility, BC Hydro, could result in a taxpayer-financed bailout.”

    Hope the real blog is back soon.

  • 46 13.. // Nov 15, 2017 at 6:11 pm

    The facts? The fact is that Horgan is between a rock (enviro haters) and a hard place. Billions of dollars wasted or spent. Decision will be handed down as a Christmas present to all of us. Some will be happy and some will be sad. I propose that the crowd that wants to see a damned dam will be elated if they get the Christmas present they want and the forces of no will be sad.
    How sad will they be? Will they turn on the hapless Horgan and burn their NDP membership cards? If the decision goes the other way the build it side will also be sad, sad that 4 billion (or more) dollars were wasted.
    I think that Horgan might take the easy way out. I think he will ( remember he was in favor once upon a time) give the project a very hesitant thumbs up. This way if the world stops turning on its axis its was Christy Clarks fault. On the other hand if life goes on and hell doesnt freeze over he can bask in the glory of being the first NDP premier ( in BC ) to have done something noteworthy. ( Notley winning in Alberta aside)

  • 47 Harry lawson // Nov 15, 2017 at 6:52 pm


    Many interesting comments, I always learn lots. When California had their brown outs in the in the 2000’s we had stable power that was because of our power grid . And yes we were able to sell California enough power to be sued over lol

    (Response: I have no doubt we will have MANY opportunities to sell them more power over the next 50 years. Let’s just hope we get better lawyers drawing up the contract to protect our interests. h.o.)

  • 48 !? // Nov 15, 2017 at 7:56 pm

    The Billion dollar question with only one right answer – by Laila Yuile

    tl;dr – the dam will never be able to HOLD its water.

  • 49 Island Lookout // Nov 15, 2017 at 9:55 pm

    #48 !?


    So, I conclude that Laila is a skeptic on Site C. I am not impressed with her ten thousand reasons why Site C should not go forward. She is a protester, period. Her problem. Don’t make it ours.

    Remember there are two major hydro dams upstream from Site C and they seem to be OK, geologically-speaking. Isn’t the soil stability the same up and down that river?

    Back in 1993 there were rumours that the WAC Bennett Dam (it was opened by Wacky in 1967 and cost $750-million to build) had some issues with its ability to hold water after an earthquake or something else. Turned out to be fake news. Good to go, with its 1960s technology!

    ALSO I’ve never heard any bitching and complaining about the other dam downstream, the Peace Canyon Dam. I guess it’s OK, too.

    I’m sure that there are enough soil stabilization boffins are out there who can fix this problem, if in fact it’s a problem, without it costing an arm and a leg. Check it out.

    I listened to a Victoria radio program this afternoon which reported that Canada will need another FIVE Site C-sized dams over the next decades.


    To conform to the Paris Climate Treaty terms, is why, to provide power to replace hydrocarbons.

    I guess all the overly-anxious Millennials and environmentalists will be going nuts over that, eh?


    I’m still reading David Mitchell’s book on WAC’s life and legacy.

    Here is what Bennett told a 1957 business lunch in Victoria about the importance of northern BC development for our overall provincial present and future:

    “The modern north is a land of people…communities…agricultural riches…great storehouses of minerals…forest stands…urainium…coal…oil…natural gas…hydro-electric power…This is a land of the future…No longer will our economy rest upon the development of a few basic industries in the southernmost sections of our land…”

    On his way to making that dam decision, to worry over never-able-to-please lattee trolls and NDP “core” supporters is a great way to consign BC into an economic wobbly future.

    Wacky was right, of course he was. He researched all his ideas, talked to the people and used his considerable power to make his dreams for BC to come true.

    So, don’t pay attention to Laila and Co. What is the POINT? She has nothing to useful to contribute, zip.

    The premier has but ONE chance to escape political oblivion: announce the dam will be completed and hang the cost.

    Why? Because our economy will be able to pay for it through economic activities, providing he also lowers all taxes to stimulate more business opportunities.

    AND, the dam’s costs could be amortized over any length of time his government chooses.

    So pay for it over the next 200 years and float a bond or preferred share issue that will be subject to changes in interest rates. That will be an investment for sure.

    Getting back to alternatives to the dam: there aren’t any. We will need the juice.

    Also where would all those alternative killer propellers go and the crappy Chinese-made solar panels?

    Remember it’s cloudy for most of the year in most of the province.

    And about 90 per cent of our real estate is jagged mountains and coasts only some of which feature narrow ribbons of land and beaches occupied in part by bothersome sidewalk cafe addicts, ageing hippies, and others with no vision.

    And one more thing, Premier, read “WAC Bennett, And The Rise Of British Columbia” a book I’m reading.

    It’ll be a good tonic for you, will put steel in your spine, and starch in your collar in time for your upcoming battle with Dr. Weaver and your despotic gang of party ne’er-do-wells.

  • 50 BMCQ // Nov 16, 2017 at 7:08 am

    Island Lookout – 49

    Take a Bow!

    What you have Posted at 49 makes a lot of Common Sense and I agree the Mitchell Book on W.A.C. is something we should all read.

    Personally I never did warm up to Mitchell as I found him to be somewhat Elitist but the Book is well researched and well written.

    I still struggle with the whole process of how Site “C” was presented and how the BCUC was bypassed in the original Study and Planning but I believe it should proceed.

    Having said that ALL Future Mega Projects and other smaller Government Project Contracts need to be Fixed and Firm with Minor Contingencies included in the Contract Agreement for Overruns.

    I am not sure of that number but in my opinion the Overruns should not exceed 5%.

    I find it very unsettling how it seems that at every turn in the road a different Group comes out and either supports the project of another demands the end of Site “C”.

    Before you vilify Mr. Palmer please read the attached VAn Sun piece and consider the Credentials and Political Backgrounds of the Individuals on the Panel of this Study.

  • 51 DBW // Nov 16, 2017 at 7:57 am


    “So, I conclude that Laila is a skeptic on Site C. I am not impressed with her ten thousand reasons why Site C should not go forward. She is a protester, period. Her problem. Don’t make it ours….

    Wacky was right, of course he was. He researched all his ideas, talked to the people and used his considerable power to make his dreams for BC to come true.

    So, don’t pay attention to Laila and Co. What is the POINT? She has nothing to useful to contribute, zip.”


    We are going to write off a person who has spent two years researching this topic as a mere protester who can offer zip, but we are expected to listen to Island Lookout because he is reading a 34 year old book about a politician (as great as he may have been) from the 5os and 60s.

    Columbus was a visionary. J.A. Macdonald was a visionary. Martin Luther was a visionary. For their time periods.

    But times change.

    And even look at Island Lookout’s praise of Bennett as a man who researched all his ideas.


    Kind of like Laila and perhaps Bennett (if he were alive today) would have come up with the same conclusion as Laila did and the dam never would have been started in the first place.

    As it is we are stuck with wasting $4B by stopping it now or wasting more by plowing ahead with our fingers crossed that there is some future benefit.

  • 52 ellbee // Nov 16, 2017 at 10:04 am

    So sad. NOT A WORD about the BCUC report. Lightly glosses over the cost over runs using “they all do” excuse. Not a WORD about why the project is so far behind schedule namely that the engineering of this project is suspect, wrong location, soil stability issues. You know, minor stuff. Conveniently forgetting that the taxpayer is on the hook for an amount to be determined as well as per job subsidization by the taxpayer to the tune of $35k/job. You should spend less time in the US Harvey, the air down there is so full of stupid it’s affecting your judgement.

  • 53 RIsaak // Nov 16, 2017 at 10:19 am

    Stop it, for economic reasons alone. The Mica creek facility holds enough water to produce 45% of site C’s power with less investment and far less environmental impact. Columbia river treaty is almost up, we can and should extract more from this river than the original treaty obtained. Efficiencies and technological advances have caused usage to virtually flatline, reference any of the plethora of Hydro usage information to corroborate this reality.

    Tossing more bad investment capital at a very bad project will never cause the original mistakes to magically improve, what is the story about, doing the same thing time & again while expecting magically better results is?

    Forget Wacky & co. the world has changed, BC has changed, market forces have changed, technology has progressed, sadly many here seem stuck in 50 year old dogmas.

    Jobs lost at Site C can be replaced with new employment mitigating fire fuel sources, building Trudeau’s infrastructure PPP projects, and the plethora of other employment opportunities which arise from living in one of the most desirable regions on this spinning orb.

    No amount of wringing of hands can change the fact, Site C was a rotten idea, put forward by a bought and paid for government which chose to ignore almost all logical arguments in their quest for a legacy project which would satisfy their campaign contributors!

  • 54 Hawgwash // Nov 16, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    Island Lookout, or is it Kootenay Bill?

    Since we are Keeping it Real, here is another great history book for you;

  • 55 Hawgwash // Nov 16, 2017 at 3:05 pm

    DBW, take a bigger bow.
    Two even.

    Island lookout, why not go over to Laila’s place and challenge her there.

    I’d love to see her mop the floor.
    Might as well take your new cheerleader with you as well. She could take care of both of you and do a batch off muffins at the same time.

    C’mon Harvey, you are being challenged by some good people here and you’ve quit responding.

    (Response: My piece and the comments I have posted explain pretty well my views: now enjoying reading others’ debate the topic…. I’m responding only to those that raise what I consider a particular interesting point. And …. with three dozen comments already on this topic alone (in addition to continuing comments on other topics)…. sorry if it disappoints you, but I do have a life away from the blog. ho.)

  • 56 Gene The Bean // Nov 16, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    Hawg #54

    Thanks for the link.

    I bought the book. Christy Clark – Behind the Smile.

    350 blank pages …….?

  • 57 BMCQ // Nov 16, 2017 at 6:29 pm

    “A Batch of Muffins”?


  • 58 Hawgwash // Nov 16, 2017 at 7:35 pm

    Island Lookout;
    Never mind 60 year old tales.
    Here is history in the making.

  • 59 Island Lookout // Nov 16, 2017 at 9:08 pm

    #50 BMCQ

    Thanks for kind words. Appreciated.

    #51 DBW

    For a person to spend two years researching WHY Site C should not be built, shows that she should have been doing something else. She wasted her time.


    Wanna talk about the visionaries you mentioned? OK, read on.

    –Columbus: “discovered” (looks like the Chinese likely beat him to the punch years earlier) the Carribean becoming the advanced guard of later unspeakably cruel and rapacious (on the natives) Spanish conquests.

    –J.A. MacDonald–Canada’s first PM and a visionairy for sure. While often in an alcoholic haze his government granted a lot of public money and land to complete Canada’s first Transcontinental railway the CPR.

    That project was ESSENTIAL for our sovereignty and just about everything else we still hold dear. Good job there PM! (similarly the Site C dam must ALSO be built).

    –Martin Luther, the angry Catholic monk in the 1500s in the Holy Roman Empire (later Germany). His heretical 95 Theses pinned to the door of the Worms church, near Darmstadt, in 1517 begat a horrific several decades of Catholic/Protestant wars often called the Protestant Reformation. It was a necessary event because it resulted in the advent of the Age of Enlightenment.

    –WAC Bennett, visionary. I must refer back to the book about him that I am reading (just because this book’s 34 years old doesn’t diminish Bennett’s extraordinary vision and works). Bennett is OUR visionary, and don’t you forget it!


    I now refer to P-271 and Bennett’s bold move to create a government-controlled ferry fleet on the west coast to complete BC’s highways networks.

    In 1958, after a strike at Canadian Pacific Steamships and Black Ball Ferries that Bennett ended, the government bought out Black Ball for $7 million. This became the beginnings of the BC Ferry Corporation.

    Months later highways minister Flyin’ Phil Gaglardi set about overseeing the design and construction of the first two BC Ferries vessels, the Tsawwassen and Sidney.


    HOWEVER, before that Bennett had to deal with the usual naysayer suspects.

    As author David Mitchell wrote:

    “…economists, planners and academics almost all said that Bennett’s plans…could not succeed because of a LACK OF DEMAND for the service…Bennett, on the other hand, possessed an intuitive spirit not an analytical mind…whereas academics and bureaucrats praise carefully tested methods and long-range planning, Bennett ably demonstrated that successful policy can be formulated as an on-the-spot response to unexpected circumstances.”

    Mitchell also noted that years later Ian Sinclair, the head of the CPR, commented aboard a ferry: “We sure missed the boat on this one.” Damned tootin’.


    Will this NDP government also MISS THIS DAM “BOAT”?

    I think Vaughn Palmer’s article indicates the project will proceed. IT HAS TO.

    And the premier can make hay out of such a decision and win as many elections from now on as he wishes.

    Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth there, Johnny boy.

    #55 Laila mopping the floor with me? Are you crackers or something?

    As I mentioned earlier she was wasting her time.

    What will be her comments if the dam proceeds?

    It doesn’t really matter, does it?

  • 60 Hawgwash // Nov 17, 2017 at 8:06 am

    Island 59;
    “#55 Laila mopping the floor with me? Are you crackers or something? As I mentioned earlier she was wasting her time. What will be her comments if the dam proceeds?

    If, if, if…what IF the Surrey Six killers are acquitted? Decisions are made all the time. That doesn’t mean they are the right decisions.

    I don’t have to answer for her but her comments will likely not change and in time, I venture, her comments will be “told you so.” Especially IF there is a breach and IF lives are lost downstream.

    (Edited…keep the insults out of the discussion. h.o)

  • 61 r // Nov 17, 2017 at 8:14 am

    ASK- Is BCHydro power being forced to turn off generators to buy IPP power.?

  • 62 Gene The Bean // Nov 17, 2017 at 8:27 am

    Harvey, I can totally see how you may lose interest in these topics as they go through a couple of spin cycles of comments……

    Listening to an ‘elderly uncle’ spin slanted stories from 50 years ago to support some failing opinions today is not exactly compelling.

    These last two posts have been very good topics, thanks.

    I see the MSM is quietly trying to limit the news from ICBC that the BC Liberals “miscalculated” the debt to the tune of 800+ million dollar$ – that may be an interesting next topic ….

  • 63 DBW // Nov 17, 2017 at 8:41 am

    Island Lookout @59


    (Edited…let’s keep name calling out of the discussion. h.o.))

    “For a person to spend two years researching WHY Site C should not be built, shows that she should have been doing something else. She wasted her time.”

    What does that even mean?

    “What will be her comments if the dam proceeds?

    It doesn’t really matter, does it?”

    What does that even mean?

    Thanks for the unnecessary history lesson by the way. I grabbed three names from my head. There are hundreds I could have used.

    We are not building a highway in the north because John A built a railway.

    We are not travelling in space because Columbus sailed across the Atlantic.

    We are not changing some of our cultural/religious tenets because Martin Luther was angry at 16th century Catholicism.

    We are doing those things because the time is right, or the need is there, or the opportunity is upon us. It’s the right thing to do after careful consideration of the facts.

    You said the Vaughn Palmer article indicates the project will go ahead. And you may be right. I’m still not certain of the way forward. But here was my takeaway from the article.

    “Hence the bottom line argument, repeated twice Wednesday: “Site C is already past the point of no return.” Which is where former Premier Christy Clark promised to get it almost two years ago.

    Mindful of the unintended echo of the departed ex-premier, Quail and Peppard went out of their way to emphasize that the project — dubbed “Christy Clark’s mistake” — should never have got this far.”

    And that is where we are. My guess is that WAC Bennett – your hero – would not have gotten us this far. He would not have put us in this horrible situation where we are going forward not based on facts or need but on getting the best return on wasted money.

    As for suggesting that someone is wasting their time doing research. At the end of the day, regardless of the outcome, Laila can say she tried. Even if the project turns out to be somewhat successful, we can still thank Laila for pushing for a better review process.

    And if it turns out to be a disaster, Island Lookout, what will you say?

  • 64 Keith // Nov 17, 2017 at 9:24 am

    Hawgwash # 58.

    ‘Nuff said.

    And because the shills for the fossil fuel industry and another Liberal white elephant says that wind power is inefficient, it doesn’t mean it is.

    Danish wind power.

    Spanish wind power.

    Indian wind power

  • 65 Gene The Bean // Nov 17, 2017 at 4:26 pm

    Answer – BC Hydro curtails generation, sometimes significantly, from April to July as that is the only times that IPP’s run at anything near peak capacity.

    We are OBLIGATED to buy THEIR private power at costs that approach 6X the market rate. This costs BC Hydro almost $500 million dollars a year. But fret not, the contracts were only for 20-25 years…….

    During freshet time, there are significant excesses within the entire Pacific Northwest power grid and power is at the cheapest price all year.

    BC Hydro has come dangerously close to “spilling’ (or wasting) water as they cannot generate for our benefits, as they are contractually obligated to buy from consortiums of former BC Liberal member, insiders and supporters that were rapidly put together to take advantage of this scam.

    BC Hydro was forced to do this and it cost a CEO and many senior executives their jobs as they tried to stand up for what is right. They were all quickly replaced by more BC Liberal insiders and we now have a once formidable world player on the electrical scene reduced to a massively indebted flabby Holstein with IPP’s firmly attached to the teats.

    This one BC Liberal scam, led by Gordon Campbell, crippled BC Hydro forever.

    From a monetary perspective, it makes BC Rail, Vanc Convention centre, BC Place roof, HST and all the lies about budget surpluses/deficits look a like the float from a kids lemonade stand.

    Yet, no one really talks about it…..?

    Putting the Shhhhh in Sheeple……

  • 66 Island Lookout // Nov 17, 2017 at 5:22 pm

    #63 DBW


    Yes, Quail and Peppard have uttered solid conclusions.

    So, that old aviation dictum PNR (point of no return) has apparently been knocking on Site C’s door.

    Regardless, I say that someone in this NDP government has to take what’s landed on its plate; and if it gives the go ahead, the engineering boffins may have some rejigging to do to complete a project that will work for BC and make us all proud. I think that can be done.

    You’re very right that Wacky Bennett would not have let such a project go that far without more diligent pencil sharpening.

    That’s where the Liberals fell flat. They made a royal mess.

    But they had the right idea overall, I think.

    I believe canning Site C is a bad idea, because every griping special interest group will scream “victory” and any other major project would be subject to who knows what kinds of impossible-to-fulfill demands.

    Protest groups are NOT allies of the NDP.

    Theirs’ is a world of environmental fantasy.

    They purposely avoid connections between turning on their lights at home to where all that juice comes from.

    These folks are also NOT our friends.

    They make uncompromising “environmental” demands (whatever that may mean) and expect our obeisance in return. Nothing less. To them I say: screw off.

    Therefore at some point our government must show actual leadership based on our long-range common good in its deliberations.

    Premier Horgan, keep beavering away at this OK?

    The visionaries you mentioned previously, DBW: Columbus, Luther, Macdonald were imperfect souls to be sure, but they DID leave indelible imprints on the rest of us.

    It is our job not their’s and other visionaries that we should take these imperfect outcomes and MAKE something positive out of them.
    Site C falls into this same realm.

    Here’s your quote from your piece which kind of says it all!

    “…We are doing those things because the time is right, or the need is there, or the opportunity is upon us. It’s the right thing to do after careful consideration of the facts…”

    That’s right and that’s why this dam can be successful.

    #58 HAWGWASH

    The Desmog group is funded by well-known American environmental group the Dogwood foundation.

    It is an arm of Big American Environmental. I give it no credence because its stated objective is to NOT be journalistically objective. If the CBC takes this outfit seriously I say ban the CBC!

    Desmog is a PROPAGANDA weapon.
    I get worried when this American imperialist group messes with our sovereignty.

    I’m amazed that you can’t see this. Amazed.

    #60 HAWGWASH

    Right keep things decent here, alright?

    It would be terrible if this project, upon completion, breached and caused injuries or worse.

    But engineers should be able to figure out the geology of the area. Two dams have already been built upstream. Are soil conditions any different at Site C? I don’t know.

    There’s more to come, I expect.

  • 67 G. Barry Stewart // Nov 17, 2017 at 8:51 pm

    Lookout at 66, you accuse DeSmog of being an American Imperialist group.

    Here’s what they say about their funding.

    “DeSmog Canada subscribes to the following standards of donor transparency, based on those adopted by the Institute for Nonprofit News.

    We are committed to transparency in every aspect of funding our organization.

    Accepting financial support does not mean we endorse donors or their products, services or opinions.

    We accept gifts, grants and sponsorships from individuals, organizations and foundations to help with our general operations, coverage of specific topics, and special projects. Our news judgments are made independently — not based on or influenced by donors. We do not give supporters the rights to assign, review or edit content.

    We will make public most donors who give $5,000 or more per year. Some individuals may request anonymity due to privacy concerns, but anonymous donations of more than $5,000 shall not comprise more than 15 per cent of our total budget in any given year.

    As a nonprofit, we will avoid accepting donations from anonymous sources, and we will not accept donations from government entities, political parties, elected officials or candidates actively seeking public office. We will not accept donations from sources who, deemed by our board of directors, present a conflict of interest with our work or compromise our independence.”

    End of quote. So: if they are over $5,000 but anonymous, their influence is kept at a minimum. If they’re known but over $5,000, the names are available. A much healthier statement than that found at the Fraser Institute, no?

    F.I. “We rely entirely on voluntary donations from concerned individuals, foundations, and other organizations.”

    Further: unlike the F.I’s articles, you can actually leave a comment on the DeSmog articles.

  • 68 r // Nov 17, 2017 at 9:24 pm

    Just watch NDP will vote for more -24 fast ferries, re SITE C , that will sink them the next election if Greens dont do it first.

    scorpion on the back of an alligtor crossing river.?

  • 69 13.. // Nov 17, 2017 at 9:32 pm

    If or I meant to say when Premier Horgan decides that to build a dam is better than to waste a laila sized bucket of money , how will he be treated by his loyal followers?
    As Liberal supporters if he gives it the go ahead most will be happy with his wise choice. Isnt that going to be a hoot. A bunch of conservatives giving John an atta boy. Im going to be his pal so Ill call him John when he builds the dam.
    Andy says that he wont bring down the government over site c going ahead.Kinda gives John the “green” light to build.
    This is johns big chance to show that he realizes that private sector unions deserve at least a taste of NDP largess.
    John might even stand in a gravel pit with a hard hat on when he makes the announcement.

  • 70 G. Barry Stewart // Nov 17, 2017 at 10:52 pm’s major contributors in 2015-16:

  • 71 e.a.f. // Nov 18, 2017 at 12:51 am

    so its the weekend and we’ve all had a lot to say about Site C, will it or will it not be built. Is it a good or bad thing if it is? read all the responses, haven’t changed my mind. Still don’t think it ought to be built, we don’t need it and its too expensive. all the B. C. Hydro debt will have to be paid for and that means we could be like some of those electrical customers in Ontario who were moving out of their homes in the winter because they couldn’t afford the heating bills.

  • 72 Island Lookout // Nov 18, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    #s 67, 70

    Desmog still does not impress me.

    In reading its long disclaimer one gullible person may wonder if this outfit was organized with the deft hand of the Blessed Virgin.

    I’d think not.

    The Dogwood and Tides groups have “contributed” to political campaigns in Canada and elsewhere and may have been able to help turn the “tide” on the outcome of the last federal election in 2015 which saw the demise of the Harper government.

    I don’t think there is a need for such orgs in the first place. They are copy-cats of similar US-based groups which are mainly Democrat Party supporters.

    Don’t donate, you’re wasting your money. Such special interests which gather the public’s money to try and influence political outcomes have no place in democratic countries.

    For them to infer that they’re speaking for the “little” people is a fraud.

    They are trying to attain whatever their agendas might be using other people’s money, and given that suckers are born every minute, loosening those said purse strings is a cinch, especially when a cute chick fronts the group’s website.

  • 73 Island Lookout // Nov 18, 2017 at 2:29 pm





    In protracted negotiations over using the Columbia River to provide power to the US and BC, THAT ICONIC PHRASE mentioned above was the thrust of WAC Bennett’s idea of how to pay for huge water storage dams that were needed on the Canadian side of the river. Those dams would provide unlimited revenues to the province once built (and they are).

    Payment for their construction would not come out of our public revenues, he said, it would come from “downstream” benefits paid by the Americans. Which HAPPENED after the deal was signed.

    The deal amongst BC, Ottawa and the US concluded in 1964 with the signing of the Columbia River Treaty on September 16 at the Peace Arch border crossing near Vancouver.

    As Prime Minister Lester Pearson noted later:

    “While I was the head of the Canadian government, and Mr. Johnson (LBJ) was head of the American government, in British Columbia Mr. Bennett was the head of all he surveyed.”


    Now on to the other element to this story, the Peace River’s hydro development as part of Bennett’s “two rivers” policy.

    Earlier in the 1960s Swedish industrialist Axel Wenner Gren visited BC; he had developmental stars in his eyes.

    He talked to Bennett about opening up the Rocky Mountain Trench (where the Columbia flows through to the north) all the way into the Peace River Valley to for the purpose of exploiting “unlimited” resources all along the way.

    Although that idea remained only a dream it opened Bennett’s eyes to the Peace River’s potential for hydro electric exploitation (Wenner Gren discovered that potential).


    Thus Bennett’s two rivers idea was created to improve our lives and give us a strong industrial base for future generations employing huge electricity resources.

    To get there Bennett had many hoops to jump through to get both projects going.

    First, regarding the Peace, he nationalized the private BC Electric and the Peace River Power Development Companies creating the BC Hydro and Power Authority by 1962.

    Why? He had to to quash naysayers who charged that Bennett was nuts because there would NEVER BE ENOUGH DEMAND FOR THE ELECTRICTY ON THE PEACE AND THE COLUMBIA!

    The BC Elecric company also opposed Peace River hydro developments seeing no markets for the juice. BC’s population then was a little more than one million.

    The fallout from the accompanying expropriating legislation was huge.

    In fact many foreign money markets avoided handing BC any more money. Too much of an investment risk!

    Markets were persuaded by some monied locals that BC was being run by a mad-man.

    But to Bennett’s great fortune, he was bailed out at the last minute by the right-thinking president of the Bank of Nova Scotia in a late night phone call Bennett received.

    Bank president William Nicks to Bennett:

    “I know what they are trying to do with you…and I don’t agree with them. I have $40 million…lying unused in New York. If you want it you can have it tomorrow morning.”

    Bennett grabbed it, then broke the creditors’ strangleholds on BC finances and immediately floated another bond issue (his largest yet at $45 million) and continued with his “journey” to conclude his two rivers policy.

    The Peace River Dam was opened in 1967 by Bennett. It dams up Lake Williston, the largest body of fresh water in BC.


    To dam or no to dam the river for a third time.

    Premier Horgan’s political future rests on this issue. One way or another.

    Reading this book which I’ve been researching and telling you all about:
    “WAC Bennett And The Rise Of British Columbia” by David Mitchell, provides an object lesson for the potentially Halting- Horgan:

    -Listen to the nervous nellies and you’re toast.

    -So, do you have enough brass to punch this one through? Do you have that confidence?

    Over to you, Premier.

    WAC must be out there somewhere, in spirit, giving I hope some ethereal guidance.

    Take it.

    (Response: A lot of people express opinions on here … and many, like yourself, add tremendously to the conversation with historical input and/or analysis and statistics, almost all without insults etc. I think this particular blog piece has demonstrated how invaluable a contribution the blogosphere makes in our democracy. And your info has also been TERRIFICLY interesting. Thanks much, John. 🙂 h.o)

  • 74 Hawgwash // Nov 18, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    So, the next blog I’m going to cut and paste Monty Python’s History of the World and see if it gets past the “Off Topic” police.

    Island Look Out;
    Your holier self is showing when you say; “#60 HAWGWASH
    Right keep things decent here, alright?” for you know not what was said or vaporized.

    Actually it was the same sentence used by your sis-boom-bah-take-a-bow section a few months ago about hiding behind others. I changed the name from Lew to HO.

    Now this whole thing is getting rather boring but, about those 2200 workers;

    This is a list of 792 alleged Site C workers by riding. Are the other 1,500 or so temporary foreign workers? Or non-existent phantoms?

    And, lastly, Harvey, Look Out McQue…there is a bridge you might be interested in, if you are inclined to not worry about sunk costs.

  • 75 BMCQ // Nov 18, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    Island Lookout – 73

    I have just arrived home after a day of what was mostly routine errands only to realize that we need to go back out again later putting up with more traffic, darkness, and more than likely Rain.

    I then thought I would open The Harvey Blog to see what Gems I might come across.

    You just made my Day!

    Take a Bow! Again!

    Even the most Jaded, Morally Bankrupt, Bitter, Negative, and Woebegone Participant to this Blog must crack at least a little Smile after reading your latest!

  • 76 13.. // Nov 18, 2017 at 8:54 pm

    @BMCQ #75

    I laughed so hard I cried. Islandlookout keep up the good work.

  • 77 Island Lookout // Nov 18, 2017 at 9:47 pm

    #74 HAWGWASH

    Have a really good rest of the weekend, and get some snow tires!

    BTW perfection exists nowhere but in the addled mind of the last socialist on Earth, after he has at first “dealt” with all of the rest of them, those whose versions of Utopia didn’t match his.

    #75 BMCQ

    Many thanks.

    And drive carefully. It’s iffy out there on the road sometimes.

  • 78 DBW // Nov 18, 2017 at 9:47 pm

    (Edited…off topic. If you want to debate the definition/acceptability of referring to specific writers in a personal critical/disparaging fashion … totally off topic … try another blog. h.o)

    Keeping on topic. I still believe that the dam never should have been started in the first place and I think the BCUC review makes that pretty clear.

    However, given where we are in the process, I can certainly see why Horgan may want to continue with it. I just hope whatever he decides is done for economic and environmental reasons rather than political ones.

  • 79 Hawgwash // Nov 19, 2017 at 8:40 am

    Harvey, your response to #78 is really all you needed to say in the beginning. A good short expression of your belief and the same 78 comments would have resulted.

    No matter the brand or color, the lipstick on the pig will ultimately be a political decision.

    If the NDP completes Site C, it will be their version of the famous clone speech; a total vindication of Ms. Clark and the Liberal reign of terror.

  • 80 Sid Evans // Nov 19, 2017 at 9:37 am

    Harvey you have me very confused first of all I am a fan and I’ve always been proud of WACs contribution and legacy to this province what I’m mad as hell about is that SOB gorden Campbell and Christy Clark came along and destroyed WACs amazing legacy so that they could bankrupt our crown jewel BC Hydro and those damn IPP contracts there is seriously something wrong when that was allowed to go on unchallenged who is looking out for the tax paying citizens of BC certainly not the Atty. Gen. Or the RCMP what the Liberal party has been allowed to get away with over the last 16 years is disgusting I voted for Gordon Campbell back in the beginning now that vote makes me want to vomit just like Christy Clark lying smiling face does so as I gratefully turn on my lights use my computer and heat my apartment with incredible thanks to WAC Bennett that I’ve been able to afford to do so as a quadriplegic on disability pension I am sure not looking forward to massive rate increases thanks to what Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark stole from WAC and the rest of us… Why these two and a handful of others are not being criminally investigated confuses and frustrates me to no end just like the BC rail bs so when I see the same characters involved in the contracts of Site C excuse me for being a little cynical when I see Christy Clark and the rest of that liberal Cabal going on about balanced budgets pretending to be ethical ones and yet the level of corruption they fleeced on all of us is staggering right up to Christy Clark doing everything in her power to get Site C pass the point where we get screwed even deeper and if you can’t see that Harvey as you drive around in your car while forming your opinion kind of leaves me speechless…
    Ps. I loved BC TV news hour and was damn proud of the work that you and your BC TV News hour team produced on a nightly basis was saddened by its demise in the way it was done who knew that that would be the beginning of the end of true journalism in this province i weep at the current sad state for what passes as political journalism today you guys kicked ass Harvey it’s unfortunate we don’t see eye to eye doesn’t mean any respect is lost keep on keeping on Harvey and smile as you are doing it life’s too short and healthy debate makes for strong society I believe take care
    R.I.P. Raif

    (Response: Thanks. I realize .. and hope … that alternative forms of clean energy will one day supply the power we need: but we’re not there …or even close … yet and won’t be for several decades. BUT BC will and should continue to grow in population, economically and industrially and, despite what those who hate/oppose EVERY resource or industrial development, this will require massive additional amounts of power. Site C may not have been well-planned etc. …but let’s keep it real: it’s well under way; billions have already been spent; cancelling would cost billions more; and its power WILL be used both within BC and even exported (for billions) over its life term … so I just don’t believe cancelling it would be wise… but an emotional, politically motivated mistake. h.o.)

  • 81 Gene The Bean // Nov 19, 2017 at 10:12 am

    Hawg, ever wonder why those on ‘one side of the aisle’ can get their points across succinctly and those on ‘the other side of the aisle’ blabber on with posts 10X as long?

    For some it is ‘important to say something’. For others it is about ‘saying something important’.

    Two new polls out – almost two thirds of those polled reluctantly agree that Site C should continue. Sunken costs biggest reason. The BC Liberals flim-flam works again.

    Speaking of sleazy politicians…. Dianne Watts is holding an “info session” close to my casa – I have some very interesting questions to ask…..

    …. and ….. it is in a public place ….. Hmmmm … that should be fun!

  • 82 13.. // Nov 19, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    You cant trust the polls GTB. They have not been reliable for some time. Hell even the polls where we cast a ballot dont always turn out as they should.

  • 83 Eldon // Nov 19, 2017 at 6:59 pm

    We didn’t need Site C and our Hydro bills are about to go through the roof. BUT what’s done is done. Canceling now would be wasteful madness. We are paying for it now regardless, may as well finish the job.

    (Response: Agreed. We don’t need it NOW, but I have no doubt that the power it generates once completed WILL be used, WILL assist our energy exports and WILL be appreciated by future generations. h.o.)

  • 84 e.a.f. // Nov 19, 2017 at 9:45 pm

    Gene the bean, 81 why some are succinct and others blabber, well its like this, many of us are baby boomers and even aging baby boomers. half of us were at U.B.C. in the Arts faculty and the other half in the Science faculty. The very succinct went to SFU or versions there of.

    looking forward to Harvey’s next post.

  • 85 G. Barry Stewart // Nov 20, 2017 at 9:19 am

    Island Lookout at #72: “Don’t donate, you’re wasting your money. Such special interests which gather the public’s money to try and influence political outcomes have no place in democratic countries.”

    I’ll assume that the Fraser Institute would also be on your hit list? Perhaps you’re against unions as well?

    Citizens freely banding together their funds, knowledge and time, to affect political outcomes, is a cornerstone of democracy.


  • 86 G. Barry Stewart // Nov 20, 2017 at 9:33 am

    I know the majority of readers here like to stay in-tune with regional issues — and global issues that will affect how we live in BC.

    To that end, on the energy file, I like my weekly e-mail feeds from Canada’s Clean Energy Review. Each week, they cover ground-breaking news in the clean energy field.

    You can drop by — or sign up for the e-mail feed.

    Every publication has a slant or mission. These folks clearly spell theirs out. Their list of donor-partners includes the Real Estate Foundation of BC. and Genus Capital Management. No Tides or Dogwood.

  • 87 BMCQ // Nov 21, 2017 at 6:53 am

    DBW – 78

    No matter which way Premier Horgan decides to go we will probably never get the reasons behind the decision.

    It is only My Opinion but I do not believe Mr. Horgan is any different than ANY other Politicians, he will base much of his decision on how he and his Handlers/Brain Trust like Geoff Meggs think the decision will play out with their Base and the other Special Interests that might support him in an upcoming Election.

    I believe the Dam will finally proceed and I believe that a Final Big Push coming from Major Construction Unions may have a lot to do with that “Go Ahead” Decision.

    I agree with you and others that the bypass of BCUC and the rest was a big mistake and the Clark Liberal Government did not look good on this File.

    Having said all of that I believe we WILL require the Power and we will require that Power sooner than later.

    We can revisit this 20 years from now, I am quite sure Harvey will STILL be providing us the opportunity to Argue, Discuss, and Debate our differing opinions on any number of subjects.

  • 88 r // Nov 24, 2017 at 8:45 pm