NDP ‘activists’ vow to keep up fight against dam
Bid by ‘progressive political and social activists’ to have party council reopen dam debate defeated
Several prominent NDP members urged their party’s provincial council to reopen the debate on the Site C dam as delegates met this weekend in New Westminster.
In a letter addressed to the NDP governing body, the group of “progressive political and social activists who ... worked hard to oust Christy Clark & Co. from power” demand a reconsideration and reversal of the government’s decision to proceed with the Site C hydroelectric.
“We believe the NDP cabinet was misled in its ill-considered decision,” reads the letter, which was signed by Jef Keighly, vicepresident of the Surrey South NDP constituency association, and more than a dozen other NDP members and supporters from across the province. The 10-page letter builds on the work done at an anti-Site C meeting held last weekend in Victoria, which was attended by about 400 activists.
According to Keighly, the resolution was presented to the council, leading to a “pretty spirited debate”, but was “overwhelmingly defeated.”
“There were people who were saying no because they were concerned about the jobs, or people saying no because they felt obligated to support the government in power even though they expressed their angst and regret.”
Keighly said he believes many people have left the NDP over the Site C decision, and while he didn’t want to sow dissent within the ranks, he felt a responsibility to speak out.
“I’m not prepared to sit back and say ‘oh well.’ We can’t allow this elephant in the room to pass unchallenged,” he said.
Along with the recommendation to add a discussion of Site C to the provincial council agenda, which includes topics like the provincial budget and proportional representation, the letter questioned the government’s claim that it received “unambiguous advice” that the $3 billion to $4 billion already spent on Site C would need to be recovered from B.C. Hydro customers almost immediately.
“Who provided that advice and what interest do they have in doing so?” asks the letter. “Was the advice based on fact, fiction or was it politically motivated, and if it was politically motivated, in whose interests was it motivated?”
It also asks for the documents that helped the government reach its decision to proceed with Site C to be released to the public.
The letter goes on to deal with First Nations opposition, the loss of “irreplaceable agricultural lands” and the anticipated takeover of Site C construction company Aecon by the state-owned China Communications Construction Company, or CCCC.
“To allow China’s state-owned CCCC, through control of Aecon, to establish itself at our expense is foolish, and a powerful reason to say No Damn Site C!” reads the letter.
The letter is signed “in solidarity and with best wishes for a productive provincial council discussion.”
“The outcome is the outcome,” Keighly said after the vote, though he clearly expressed his disappointment with the decision. “I think it’s a serious mistake on the part of the government and I think it’s a serious mistake on the part of the party.”
Either way, he vowed to continue to fight.
“The struggle does continue,” he said. “This was but one of the opportunities to raise the issues that we’ve talked about and there are people all around the province who are going to continue to raise this issue.”
“We have no intention of saying that’s it. We’ll be getting more information out to the constituencies. There’s no reason we should be rushing headlong into a project that was dreamed up 70 years ago.”
The provincial council is the B.C. NDP’s governing body between conventions, meeting four times a year. Voting delegates are elected by constituency associations.
To allow China’s state-owned CCCC, through control of Aecon, to establish itself at our expense is foolish, and a powerful reason to say No Damn Site C!