ICBA Launches #Get2Yes Site C Campaign
Vancouver, B.C. – As NDP MLAs get set for their swearing in ceremony later today in Victoria, the Independent Contractors and Business Association is renewing its enthusiastic support for the $8.8 billion Site C project.
Against a backdrop of 2,200 pink slips in downtown Vancouver – the slips symbolizing the number of people who went to work on the dam site this morning – the ICBA – financial backers of the BC Liberals – encouraged people to visit Get2Yes.icba.ca and send an email to B.C.’s three party leaders. 
“In their power-sharing deal, John Horgan and Andrew Weaver agreed that Site C should be reviewed and based on ‘current’ supply and demand metrics,” said Chris Gardner, ICBA president. “This stacks the deck against a project that isn’t being built for today, but to help meet B.C.’s electricity needs for the next century, and to offer a clean energy alternative to fossil fuels.”
Communications director Jordan Bateman added B.C. “can’t simply throw away the $4-billion already spent” on the project, adding it was ratified by the people who live closest to the work site in last month’s provincial election.
“The BC Liberal candidate won the Site C riding by 10 to 1 over the NDP.”
He added “Site C has spent more than a decade going through environmental assessments and was signed off by both the federal and provincial governments – all of which was upheld by a unanimous decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal last fall.”
Bateman said the ICBA is planning more #Get2Yes on Site C events in the coming weeks.
Comments
If the only parameter for killing or keeping the Site C dam is current needs, that is the stupidest thing that I have ever heard. Since when do you ever build any infrastructure simply using current need as the sole decision basis. Absolutely ridiculous. The coalition will kill the deal if only to make the Liberals look bad. Fine, but someone needs to tell these idiots that the cost of the bad look is coming from the pockets of the tax payers.
Sounds like they are putting the cart before the horse. They should be saving their money away instead of partying it up first.. Time will tell
$500k of debt, per job, per year. Sounds like a great return on our money…
btw, when Jordan Bateman was part of The Canadian Taxpayers Fed, he advocated for the project be sent to an independent review, such as the BCUC. Now that someone else is paying his way, he has a much different opinion. He just says what he’s paid to say.
I think all politicians are like that, they kiss that hand that holds the money
The only people who support Site C, are those who stand to make a lot of money off the project, at the expense of taxpayers.
We could spend the money on a couple of Natural Gas Generating stations and have enough electricity to last us for the next 50 years or so. And if need be we could build more.
Building these Natural Gas plants would create jobs, and the plants would be up and running within 3 years. Plus each would have approx 300 full time jobs after completion.
These plants would cost less than 1/3 of what the ill fated Site C will cost.
In addition there would be no need to displace people, or flood good farm land.
So, no need for Site C, Never was, Never will be. The new Government needs to get rid of the **deadwood** in Hydro, in the Government, and in Government entities. Only then can we get a clear picture of what is taking place in the Province.
The ICBA had better get used to the new reality. The BS they are pulling off at the moment is yesterdays Liberal tactics.
Please Note: After June 22nd. The Liberals will be the opposition. Hmmmmm
I understand that back in 2009, Andrew Weaver was a supporter of the Site C project.
From today’s Vancouver Province, Chris Gardner, OPINION:
In 2009, Weaver was a passionate defender of Site C. He wanted B.C. Hydro to get back into mega projects. “They should be carving out their niche with the Site C dam” he told the Globe and Mail. “I cannot see what is stopping Site C.”
So, Weaver was a supporter and now he is not!
Palopu, you state: “The only people who support Site C, are those who stand to make a lot of money off the project, at the expense of taxpayers.”
I wonder if he has been offered “more” money to now be on the “no” side of things?
Back in 2009 no one knew who Andrew Weaver was. Not many people know who he is to-day. Fact of the matter is to-day he has the power. Yesterday Christie and the supporters of Site C had the power. Such is the way of politics.
“Today he has the power”.
Yet he understands so little about the “power” advantage BC has with which it can help this province’s and this country’s energy needs moving into the future to replace GHG emitting energy sources.
With so little understanding, his political power will not last long.
Then again, I have to remember that “smarts” is not really the requirement of keeping people in political power anymore.
The dumber the electorate, the better one’s chances of getting elected on policies relying on fake facts.
“The only people who support Site C, are those who stand to make a lot of money off the project, at the expense of taxpayers.”
Total BS!!
Look at how Alberta and BC generate their electricity.
Alberta has its feet in yesterday’s energy source.
BC has had its feet in the same energy source that has powered mills since ancient times, before oil and gas was ever heard of and considered …. hydro power which then meant operating small and large industrial mills with direct water drive to “turn the wheels of industry” located next to rivers.
How quickly we forget.
Yes PG1234 that is the 2nd stupidest thing you’ve ever heard. There’s even one more stupider – electing an NDP green party to rule the province of British Columbia.
As far as the electoric on the coast goes, be advised you cannot fix stupid .
Who it proposing this get2yes, why if it isn’t the Independent Contractors and Business Association. The organization purporting to support industrial construction companies that rely on large private and government infrastructure projects.
I wonder why they are so concerned about something that is already in process?
I wonder why this association would spend all that member contributed fees to a movement that has yet to be initiated?
Makes one think a bit.
hmmmmm
They can call themselves Independent Contractors, however most of the money they earn(especially in the Interior) comes from Government contracts.
They should call themselves the GC&TDRofBC
The Government Contract & Tax Dollar Receivers of BC.
Time for the BC Liberals to pay back all the contractors for their mega dollars support so this is what they invented to do. This project will most likely be way over budget. It will be short term gain for the contractors but long term pain for the taxpayer.
So I was told by a friend who lives in Fort Saint John that 8 out of 10 license plates that are working on site c dam, are from Alberta.
Anyone else care to comment on this.
So here’s a comment:
I didn’t realize that licence plates worked, on Site C or anything for that matter. I thought they were just bolted onto a bumper. So what are the other 2 out of 10 license plates doing? Still just hanging out on a bumper somewhere? ;-)
It ain’t about BC workers . It’s about donations to the bclibcon government . Really interesting article in the PG citizen about christy and gang running wind and wave power companies out of BC . It’s starting to look like some are taking the gloves off . It’s about time !
One of the canceled projects would have put PG workers in high paying jobs for life . Not the life of the project but the life of the workers . Electricians , electrical engineers , etc.
Do you think a BCNDPcon government is going to be any better?
You do not know governments, do you?
Until we build windmills in Canada, that industry is one that continues to send money out of this country. Only a fraction of the potential of windpower is returned to Canada.
Both are renewable energy resources. Hydro can store water for several years of draught. Windmills can’t effectively store energy for long periods yet.
Now, if Canada were to be at the forefront of that research and be able to solve that problem, then you and we would be on to something.
But the probability of Canada making a major breakthrough in that research AND develop it for the world market, is highly unlikely until the majority of Canadians back such investments.
This friend knows this how? He/she has taken a survey?
Unless people buy the vehicle in Alberta and give the home address for a family member in Alberta, or they are even one of the many who left BC to work in the Wood Buffalo area in the oil patch and have a fixed address there, one really does not know from the license plates on the pick up where people live anymore. It is has been a very fluid exchange of workers both ways over the decades.
Just look up the migration statistics.
I know of two Canadian/dual Citizens who commute to work in Alberta and Saskatchewan. One lives in Washington State, the other in Florida. They fly in and drive local rented cars.
As Hart Guy says, license plates are a poor indicator of the origins of workers these days, especially with mega projects which have a multi-year life cycle.
“ICBA is planning more #Get2Yes on Site C events in the coming weeks.”
Why do they not get down to the heart of the matter? Renewable, clean energy to replace fossil fuel generated energy?
Weaver should know better. He should be ashamed of himself.
Here is the energy generation picture of two provinces in the same country of Canada. I remind everyone we are in one country, despite being in two neigbouring provinces with a totally different energy source reality.
——————————————————
British Columbia: source of data = BC Hydro
BC Hydro’s generates 92% of its power from hydro
Alberta: Source of data = Alberta Energy
Coal – 41,378 GWh; 51% of fuel share
Natural Gas – 32,215 GWh; 39% of fuel share
Hydro – 1,745 GWh; 2% of “fuel” share
Wind – 3,816 GWh; 5% of “fuel” share
Biomass – 2,149 GWh; 3% of fuel share
Others – 318 GWh; 0% of fuel share
Total – 81,621GWh;100%
———————————————————-
In a world working on attempts to reduce reliance on carbon based fossil fuels to move to “clean” renewable energy, any child graduating from elementary school can tell you what needs to be done between Alberta and BC without further study.
Why does it take an individual with a PhD supposedly representing the Green Party of BC longer than a minute to figure this out, independent of any further research than an understanding of how electricity is generated in the rest of the country, especially the next door neighbour?
gopg2015, we can’t lose sight of the fact that BC is blessed with many mountain ranges and the rivers and valleys that drain them. This has provided BC with far more availability of large hydro projects. The Rockies that border Alberta are part of the National/Provincial Parks system, basically from the USA/Canadian border north to the Grande Cache area south of Grande Prairie, Alberta. Other than the Rockies, Alberta doesn’t have much in the way of a source of large volumes of water for hydro power projects.
Alberta does have an abundance of Coal and Natural Gas and as expected, they maximized their use of both of these for power generation. I suspect that their transition away from Carbon based fossil fuels will take much longer and be for more contentious than some ie: the Alberta NDP, might think it will be.
Sorry, you are not telling me anything I do not know.
What I am telling you is that the last time I looked, this is one country.
Alberta has found itself with ready, in the ground crude in the original Leduc fields.
The tars sands are a whole different matter. The rest of the world, including the USA, does not want them. Alberta was originally proposing a couple of nuclear plants to power the reducers refineries to get the oil down to crude quality.
We have the hydro capacity. Not only that, we could get more if needed.
The situation was similar in the east with Labrador providing electricity to Quebec. It was a lousy deal for Labrador but it is in place now and the benefits will continue for a long time with better deals.
For the life of me I cannot see why we cannot get a good deal from Alberta.
Shell is virtually out of there now. They are the second largest oil company in the world and they are getting flack from their customers, so they are gone.
The tar sand will not pick up till after the US has exhausted its new found fracked source of oil. Trump or no Trump, not much more oil is going to move to the Bay of Mexico oil refineries from the little that will be produced from the tar sands until they find a greener alternative to power its reducers.
Maybe China will invest in a refinery there that will get crude moving north, south, east or west from Alberta without all the hassle we currently have.
In the meantime, it is sitting in the ground for possible future uses, or else be forgotten forever.
Neither you nor I can foretell the future.
The irony is that maybe for the second time in Canadian history, a Trudeau will piss Alberta off and tell them what they do not want to hear …… this is one country, and we need to work with each other to the best advantage of all.
One country ? ? We started out as one country with free trade within OUR country . Section 121 of the constitution act 1867, but we see how the Provinces have broken the constitution in regards to trade and employment . Until the tenants of our charter is upheld in regards to trade and job mobility we will neve truely be a country .
Comments for this article are closed.