What are alternative facts on Site C dam?

Before we go to the polls in May, it would be nice to know how the dam being built at Site C on the Peace River, with a projected cost of $8 billion, will pay for itself. As the relevant facts suggest Site C might be a white elephant, what are the alternative facts that suggest building it is a good idea?

First, what is the alternative fact to the fact that, worldwide, on average, large hydroelectric projects suffer cost overruns of 90 per cent, but B.C. Hydro has budgeted only eight per cent?

Second, what is the alternative fact to the fact that power demand in B.C. has been flat for the past 10 years and B.C. Hydro is projecting it to be flat for the next four years?

Third, what is the alternative fact to the fact that potential future markets for the power from Site C, such as LNG plants and Alberta, can generate power from natural gas at a fraction of the tariff that would be necessary for Site C to pay for itself, even if the cost comes in on budget?

Finally, what is the alternative fact to the fact that the NDP and the Green Party don’t seem to be too concerned about all this, when we could be spending on Site C an amount equal to as much as 30 per cent of the province’s annual budget if the actual cost overrun turns out to be about 90 per cent, which is typical for such a project? Charles Woodruff Oak Bay