Listen to this highly informative 8 min radio interview from CBC’s Daybreak North show – featuring Andrea Morison of the Peace Valley Environment Association discussing the proposed Site C Dam and its connection to the planned Liquid Natural Gas boom on BC’s coast. (Feb. 14, 2012)
Listen here
Read this story from the Similkameen Spotlighton Fortis BC ‘s concept for a dam on the Similkameen River, near Princeton BC. The river has been the subject of dam proposals in the past – on the US side of the border – and this plan by Fortis was first raised in 2008. (Feb. 14, 2012)
FortisBC is still looking into putting a dam on the Similkameen River.
The potential project has been discussed since 2008 when a group of stakeholders in the U.S. and Canada began looking into its feasibility.
The location being considered by FortisBC in around five kilometres south of Princeton near the Copper Mountain Mine.
One option is a 180-metre (590-foot) high dam, but Fortis hasn’t decided exactly how tall the structure will be.
If a 180-metre dam was built, it would be three times higher than BC Hydro’s controversial proposed Site C dam near Fort St. John.
It would be nearly the same height as the W.A.C. Bennett Dam in Northeast B.C., which holds the province’s largest reservoir.
It’s too early to tell if the dam is going to be built, said FortisBC spokeswoman Lisa Corcoran.
FortisBC isn’t sure how long the process will be, but it will likely take years to decide if the dam will be built, she said.
Read more: http://www.similkameenspotlight.com/news/139331358.html
Read this report from The Vancouver Sun on the announcement of the joint federal and provincial panel review of the proposed Site C Dam in Northeast BC. (Feb 14, 2012)
The federal and provincial environment ministers announced Monday that they intend to conduct a joint environmental assessment of BC Hydro’s proposed Site C dam on the Peace River.
The joint assessment is aimed at eliminating duplication and speeding up the review process, B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake said in an interview.
“We believe in the one project-one process approach. We don’t want to see a duplication by federal and provincial agencies on one project,” Lake said.
He said the joint approach will cost less and reduce the amount of time involved.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been critical of lengthy reviews for energy projects, specifically over Enbridge’s North Gateway pipeline proposal, which is currently before a review panel.
Lake said the joint assessment process will be conducted parallel to consultations with first nations. The joint assessment process is new but the Site C project is not the first one on which the two agencies have combined their review processes. Joint environmental assessments are already underway for two B.C. mining projects, the Ajax copper-gold mine proposal near Kamloops and the Raven coal mine proposal near Campbell River, Lake said.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Province+announce+joint+environmental+review+Site/6147129/story.html
Read this story from Fort St. John’s EnergeticCity.ca on BC Premier Christy Clark’s recent comments that the controversial proposed Site C Dam is essential to building liquid natural gas plants on BC’s west coast. (Feb 10, 2012)
Site C and B.C.’s proposed LNG development go hand in hand, according to Premier Christy Clark. In an interview with Moose FM/energeticcity.ca, Clark explained that the newly approved licence for Shell to export liquefied natural gas out of Kitimat will use 100 per cent of the power Site C would create.
“We cannot create this new industry in British Columbia, by adding value to natural gas, without the power that would come from Site C. It’s an essential part of the plan in the long-term, to make sure that we’re putting British Columbians to work.”
She adds the province’s power needs are going to grow substantially, so “we’re going to need the power from Site C and we’re also going to need the power from lots of independent power producers from across the province: wind energy, run of river, you name it.” In saying so, she also criticized B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix for supporting LNG development and not supporting Site C, saying he “can’t have it both ways.”
Clark says she is completely comfortable with the science behind fracking, and its possible associated health risks, and believes Northeast B.C. has the safest shale gas industry in the world. As she says, it can always get better, and the province has been pushing new practices, like publishing ingredients used in hydraulic fracturing on an online database.
“That will do two things: first, it will push companies to be even cleaner and greener all the time… I think it will drive innovation because we’re open about it; but second, I think it builds confidence in what we do.”
She points to instances where fracking has been done very badly elsewhere, like the U.S., and wants people to see what’s been done in B.C. to set an example. The hope is that oil and gas companies will take it upon themselves to get the word out about how safe practices are in the province.
“We set the highest bar anywhere in the world for fracking, and people need to see what we’re doing and need to understand it so they can too.”
Read more: http://energeticcity.ca/article/news/2012/02/09/site-c-essential-lng-development-clark
I have good news for our premier.
If what I’m about to say is wrong, you have nothing to worry about. You see, Premier, I have this radical notion that the mood of the voter has changed – you evidently don’t, making it obvious (sorry to talk as if you are a slow learner) that if you just paddle along, down the happy old stream, why the voters, so afraid of the bad old NDP, will put you right back in government in 2013.
In fact, if I’m wrong and you’re right, may I respectfully suggest that some tactics are natural:
1. Keep right on charging us the HST. No matter that if you could start it in an instance you could stop immediately. I’m sure that the voter knows that you’re really trying hard on this matter.
2. Ignore the Fish Farm issue – most of the jurisdiction is now with the Feds so just wash your hands of the whole mess. Some might suggest that you should now speak up for BC and urge the Feds to get rid of this monstrous rape of our precious wild salmon resources, but I’ll betcha most people will overlook the fact that you don’t want to piss off the feds just when you’re trying to make a deal on that pesky HST.
Even though I and others will, tiresomely remind voters that it was under your stewardship that this horrific mess came about you can depend upon the fact that the voters will still have faulty memories.
3. On the question of those private power plants you should assume that I’m wrong to say that voters are pissed over losing all those rivers to foreign companies to make power BC Hydro must pay for yet doesn’t need. I’m obviously a bad British Columbian who doesn’t realize voters don’t care about BC Hydro going broke, and trust in your bosom buddies at the Fraser Institute who say it would be a great blessing if all crown corporations and agencies went into private hands. (By the way, Madame Premier, did you know that a fairly recent “Fellow” of the Fraser Institute believes in “consensual slavery”? If, for example, a young single Mom can’t feed, clothe and educate her kids she should be permitted to enter permanent bondage to some guy with lots of loot! Look it up…I can give you the guy’s name but your government should, I know you would agree, do its own research.)
4. If I’m wrong about the pipeline issues clearly you should maintain your position. Just in order for people to understand what that position is, can we infer from recent comments that you don’t think the Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat should be dealt with by the National Energy Board? And that I’m wrong again to point out that a spill from such a pipeline is inevitable and the ability of Enbridge to get to, much less do anything about it is nil? Again, with respect, might I suggest that your people “google” Enbridge/Kalamazoo?
5. I am always on about tanker traffic and simply oppose it as being a sure source of catastrophe. Again, with respect and just for clarity, might I infer from your statements that you don’t understand that the Enbridge Pipeline must result in about 300 tankers a year out of Kitimat, down the most beautiful and most dangerous coastline in the world? It’s like the old song about Love and Marriage – “you can’t have one without the other.” I should add, Madame Premier, that I’m sure you know about the new capacity and planned huge expansion of the Kinder Morgan line to ship Tar Sands gunk through Burrard Inlet.
No, of course, a person of your attainments must understand the big picture here and just think that in this modern world we need gunk from the Tar Sands going to China more than a pristine environment.
I do have this little query Ms. Clark: what does BC get out of all this except short term labour? Are we getting royalties? Any security against damages certain to happen?
6. I have been making a lot of noise about First Nations rights where land has not been ceded. I believe First Nations have rights and, following the Supreme Court of Canada, ownership of land not yet dealt with. Following the theory that the opposite of Rafe’s opinions are the right ones, you should continue to ignore these interests and just barge ahead – after all, we’re only talking about a bunch of Indians here and you will surely make the case that Rafe’s concerns about their rights are not in the best interests of the Province. Standing against Rafe and all those who stand with First Nations, especially where the environment is at issue will surely be understood by voters for what it is – loyalty to all your old friends. Surely that trumps concerns for touchy-feely things like birds, bears, fish, caribou that don’t make you a nickel for election expenses.
May I make another assertion on your behalf, namely that the NDP are fiscally irresponsible and that your government is business-oriented. I want you to know my stance so that you can be clear what you oppose.
Here’s Rafe’s take:
Party philosophies and positions tend to change over time and the coming of new issues – surely you and your party would agree to that. I believe that the NDP has learned much more from its mistakes than you have learned from yours.
I say that there are things the public should know about.
The NDP from 1991-2001 doubled the Provincial debt. From 2001-2011 the Campbell/Clark government more than tripled it.
I understand that your claim is that the Liberal debt was caused by events over which you had no control. If that’s the case you must be saying that when you put together your 2009 budget and ran an election on it you hadn’t heard of the 2007 stock market crash and the 2008 massive Recession.
At the same time – I hope I’m not embarrassing you Madame – when the NDP were in power the Asian Flu occurred, all but obliterating that market for our forest products. I would like to say that then-Opposition Leader Gordon Campbell pitched in and offered bi-partisan support in our province’s time of need but, alas, such was not the case.
So there we have it Premier – your view of things and those who are of another persuasion.
Disagreement on all fronts – so let’s you and me have a debate!
Looks like pretty easy pickings for you but I’m used to being beat upon and will do it just so you can demolish all my silly, left wing notions with one swing of the bat.
Surely you, a premier with all the resources of government behind you isn’t afraid of an octogenarian who’s not running for anything. (I’m not running away from anything either – are you?)
So, let’s do a TV debate on these matters – any time, any place – and let the chips fall where they may.
I write this not just as a New Year’s thought but also as one looking personally at his ninth and presumably last decade. And a sad scene I see.
From the commencement of time ownership and control of societies have been shared, preposterously unfairly, between “them that has and them that doesn’t”.
It continues today as never before. What the super rich don’t own, they control. 100s of thousands of jobs, thanks to the computer, have been exported to lands where labour is dirt-cheap and where benefits are minimal if they exist at all.
We are witnessing the corporatization of our government by the powerful. It’s an easy task, for the ordinary MP or MLA, by reason of our rotten system, does what his or her leader orders. The decisions of society are no longer made by parliaments – if they ever were – but in the corporate boardroom.
A question or two:
What say did you have re: fish farms? What say have you about the huge damage these farms present? What say have you now on new licenses?
What say have you had in the destruction our rivers by large and very rich foreign companies? Have you agreed that it’s a good thing that these private sector companies get a sweetheart deal, where they sell power to BC Hydro for more than twice what it’s worth, forcing Hydro to buy this power at a huge loss when they don’t need it?
BC Hydro is technically bankrupt – is that what you thought you would have when the Campbell government set forth its private energy policy, turning over power production to rich companies like General Electric?
What say did you have in the privatization of BC Rail where the Campbell government gave our railroad away in a crooked deal that the government hushed up?
What about the Enbridge Pipeline scheduled to ship hundreds of thousands of barrels of Tar Sands gunk (aka bitumen) from the Alberta to Kitimat? Have you had a say in this matter? The only reason to send this gunk to Kitimat is so that it can be shipped down our coast through the most dangerous waters in the world – have you had a say in this?
Of course you haven’t and it’s instructive, I think, to note that Premier Clark will only express her opinion after the rubber stamping National Energy Board has deliberated.
Premier Photo-Op doesn’t seem to understand that the approval of the pipeline means oil tankers at almost one a day sailing down our pristine coast line.
Is the premier that dumb?
Or is it that her government is prepared to approve tanker traffic?
The companies and politicians talk about minimal risk – the plain, incontrovertible fact is this:
THESE ARE NOT RISKS BUT CERTAINTIES WAITING TO HAPPEN.
The issue facing BC can be simply stated: will we give up our land and resources to the private sector and, while we do it, will we accept the destruction of our environment?
The Corporations say that these efforts, fish farms, private power, pipelines and tankers will being lots of money and lots of jobs into BC.
I ask two questions – what money and what jobs? Building fish farms, private dams and pipelines bring construction jobs, mostly to off shore crews, and leave behind a few caretakers to watch the computers. The profits go out of the province into the pockets of Warren Buffet and his ilk.
This is the fact Premier Clark must ponder and soon: will the public of BC simply accept these destructions of our beautiful province? Will they just simply shake their heads and go quietly?
In my view they won’t. Through the ages the long-suffering public takes so much and no more. Read your history, Madame Premier – there comes a tipping point where the public will take no more and in my judgment we have reached that point.
I beg of you, Premier, shake the scales from your eyes, look and think! This isn’t a right wing versus left wing matter but a question of right and wrong.
The last thing in the world I want to see is violence but I tell you fair that the decision rests upon you – if you don’t deal with the fish farmers, the energy thieves, the pipelines and tankers there will be violence, and that will be the legacy of the Campbell/Clark government.
It’s customary at this time of the year too look back, comment, and look to the New Year. Why should The Common Sense Canadian (CSC) be any different?
We’ve been going for about a year and a half so my comments may take us a little earlier than last January but let me start by saying that both Damien Gillis and I are pretty proud of our progress.
Neither of us believes in some commonwealth of environmental people and groups. That’s not practical as we all have issues we feel more strongly about than others. We do, however, like to feel that we can bring a vehicle into being that helps all environmentalists and groups find a place to air their feelings. As one would expect, the particular passions of Damien and me will stand out in the work we do but we also support many other groups. Because of the history we bring to the CSC, we tend to look most in four areas, in no particular order: fish farms, private power, pipelines and oil tankers – the latter two being bound together but still two separate issues; but you can’t have one without the other.
What we’ve seen happen in the past year or so is a sense of all environmentalists feeling part of the same general battle – and battle it is.
Let me expand on that last thought a bit. All of us, whether trying to save forests, or a river, or a coastline or whatever are met with the cry “aren’t they in favour of anything?” If they’re not hugging trees they’re against jobs for the young and prosperity for communities. These and similar questions have been raised since the first day someone declared that there were other issues than just monetary ones. To show you how ridiculous this gets, supporters of the proposed “Prosperity” Mine allege that this mine will give employment to 71,000 people! Why not 710,000 if you’re going to be ridiculous?
What we try to do is challenge people to make a value judgment on what is done and place the environmental issues securely on the table. The main reason we do that is that damage to the environment is permanent while the economics diminish as time goes by, leaving only the scars.
Let’s look at a so-called “run-of-river” project. We’re told that these are necessary to create jobs yet when the deed is done there are only a bare handful of caretakers left behind while the river, and the ecology that depend upon it, are permanently and seriously impaired.
Now we are democrats. If the public, fully informed, wish to create permanent environmental damage, that is their right. What happens, however, is that the public, if they are informed at all, only see the glitzy ads by the company and the smooth assurances of the politicians.
Public hearings are, frankly, bullshit. The decision has been made and, like a trial in the old Soviet Union, a “show” trial must take place.
Let me give you a recent example: when President Obama refused to authorize the Keystone XL project which would take “gunk” from the Tar Sands to Texas, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty instantly responded and said that we would have to put the proposed Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat, BC, on “the front burner”! Before the National Energy Board hearings even get off the ground the Finance Minister is assuming the result! Yet, he’s right to do so because the “fix” is well and truly in.
This takes me to the meat of the matter for, in the past couple of years there has been an astonishing cooperation of environmental organizations to fight these things together.
I’ve been all around the province making speeches and often the stage has been shared with COPE union spokespersons, the Wilderness Committee, Alexandra Morton and her Raincoast Research Society, the redoubtable Donna Passmore and her work on highways and farmland issues, CoalWatch Comox Valley regarding the proposed Raven coal mine, citizen groups fighting local issues like overhead transmission lines and numerous grassroots organizations in the Kootenays in Northern BC, on the Sunshine Coast – and the list goes on.
Of enormous consequence has been the work all the different environmental groups have done with First Nations on the issues I have mentioned. One of the most touching moments in my Roast of November 24 last were the speeches given by Grand Chief Stewart Philip, Chief Bob Chamberlin and Chief Marilyn Baptiste; and I tell you truly that I wept when they spoke and sang and considered how far down the road to true understanding of their concerns I had come – something, I might add, Chief Philip commented upon with a twinkle in his eye to match my tears.
Let me pause here to note that I have left out many people and organizations that have every right to stand out in front as those I have mentioned and I deeply hope that I haven’t offended any of them.
Let me speak out clearly on political matters. The Campbell/Clark government are enemies of the public at large. The destruction they have caused, and which will happen because of their policies, beggars description. Not unnaturally, the NDP have been the beneficiaries, often accidentally, from this public disgust with the government. I can tell you that at my “Roast” were people I knew from my old Socred days – people who a year ago would have preferred to be found in a house of ill repute than be seen with the CSC helping us in our fundraiser.
I must say this: the NDP gets no easy ride from us. It’s simple to jump on a bandwagon but we demand commitments from them – not airy, fairy crap that passes for commitment in political jargon.
I’m going to end now with this look ahead. 2012 will be the year that decides where we go in BC.
Will we have more rivers destroyed for private profit? Will we see our province, my homeland and yours, turned over to the 100% certain destruction by pipelines? And to the 100% certainty of catastrophic oil spills on our coast and in Burrard Inlet? Will we continue to allow fish farmers to annihilate our sacred Pacific Salmon? Will we watch idly as Fish Lake is destroyed to set the precedent of more of the same?
Will we do nothing as we lose more and more farmland? Will money promised and jobs pledged suck the wind out of our ability to see what’s really happening to us, our children, our grandchildren and for some of us great-grandchildren?
That is the advantage, you see, of old age – right before your eyes are the people we hold BC in trust for. The wisdom of the ages, in the soul of our First Nations, is the wisdom we must listen to and apply if we want to save our province from those who would convert it into cash for private use, leaving us with nothing but the scars to remind us what damned fools we’ve been.
The Common Sense Canadian will be in this fight in 2012 and in the years to come and, along with those we march alongside, do not intend to lose the battles nor the war.
Harper’s government officially announced in recent weeks a new Border Security deal with the US. However, little press space was given to the ugly twin of this deal – the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) and their “Joint Action Plan”. The RCC was set up to “streamline” regulations in four economic sectors engaged in cross-border trade. These sectors are Food & Agriculture, Transportation, Energy and Environment and Personal Care Products.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the press release for the RCC’s Joint Action Plan. The word “Energy” was dropped from the Energy and Environment sector. That’s right. Never mind that energy, including oil, natural gas and hydroelectricity, is arguably the most important sector of Canada-US trade in today’s constrained energy supply world.
Mounting opposition to pipeline development on both sides of the border make the Energy word a bit loaded politically for Harper and especially Obama right now. (Visions of the protesters surrounding the White House and the BC First Nations announcement of opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline float in my head as I write this). At any rate, it was conveniently dropped. The new Environment-only sector in the Action Plan concerns itself with fairly benign co-operation on air quality standards for emissions from light duty vehicles and trains and levels of particulate matter in air.
To understand what poison pills may await us in the not-talked-about-but-still-there Energy trade sector, a look at the RCC Consultation Report released in February of this year is required.
This document is important in that it contains the complete consultation list of regulatory harmonization items to be considered for implementation. That is the basis of Action Plan items, which is clear from the page 5 Action Plan statement: “Stakeholder input was key in developing this initial Joint Action Plan, which represents a first set of actions and initiatives that will begin the process of developing more closely aligned regulatory systems between the U.S. and Canada.”
And also from the page 9 Statement: “…there were a number of suggested initiatives that were considered but not included in the initial Joint Action Plan. The RCC will continue to examine these suggestions as it develops areas for future work.”
Of the eight suggested initiatives which the government chose to list in the Consultation Report’s Energy and Environment section (Appendix B, page 22) consider the following three:
As is always the case, the public is the last to find out the government’s plans, but it takes only a modicum of common sense to see that Harper’s moving of the Environmental Assessment Process to the National Energy Board from the Ministry of Environment, the subsequently announced streamlining of the Environmental Assessment Process, and the budget cuts to the Ministry Environment resulting in fewer and fewer monitoring facilities and scientists to staff them or to write reports on environmental implications of resource extraction are all related to establishing a “single Canada–U.S. regime” for pipelines and other cross-border infrastructure.
In the wake of both the Fukushima disaster in Japan and the privatization of the Canada’s nuclear industry, the limiting of liability in the wake of nuclear accidents is particularly chilling. One expects that like the US (which, for example, limits liability on the costs of oil spills to a ridiculously low amount in dollar terms), we can expect to see similar regulations in Canada regarding nuclear accidents.
And finally, neither Tar Sands oil nor hydroelectricity will be “discriminated” against in the future by regulations in either country. The term “Large-scale” hydro projects remains undefined in the document. But surely Site C Dam would qualify for non-discrimination and perhaps some of the larger ruin-of-the-river projects.
The RCC documents are all written with the outdated and disproven arguments of increased “customer choice” and “decreased customer cost”, hand-in-hand with public safety and environmental protection enhancement. The public knows none of this is true. But Harper marches on, head down and in step with his corporate buddies, to the beat of the trickle-down economics drum, while global markets implode, citizens arise en masse and peak everything envelopes the world. No wonder he and Obama need to continue to build a police security state to enforce their policies on us.
The other three trade sector action plans and consultation report items will be discussed in future postings. They are equally, if not more, disturbing.
Nelle Maxey is a grandmother who lives in the beautiful Slocan Valley in south-eastern BC. She believes it is her obligation as a citizen to concern herself with the policies and politics of government at the federal, provincial and local level.
I see that Premier Photo–Op has appointed George Abbott, Education Minister, to work on revamping the Liberal Party to get it out of the ditch prior to the May 2013 election.
Good luck, George – you’ll need it.
My latter day concerns have been about environmental issues, something I don’t believe the Liberals can do, or even want to do anything about. The government would go a long way down the path of reconstruction if Premier Clark did four things: put a moratorium on fish farms along with a program of getting them on land; put a permanent stop to any new so-called “run of river” projects; announce the end of Taseko’s Fish Lake project; announce that no oil tankers will ply BC waters.
The trouble with the first three is the Campbell/Clark government doesn’t have the political courage to do them and, moreover, doing so would cost the party substantial political donations – a telling point with this bunch to whom election funds always trump honesty and honour..
The fourth one is tricky. The provincial government probably doesn’t have the authority to do anything about the pipelines but it sure as hell does over tankers – and without tankers there will be no pipelines. The Campbell/Clark lack of courage is because of its stupidity with the HST and it’s now so deep in debt to the feds they dare not oppose them. Yes, folks, the HST has us in thrall to Ottawa, something that in my time has never happened. In plain language the feds hold Premier Clark in a blackmail position – if BC is to be shown any mercy over the HST cock-up it must permit the Fish Lake project to proceed, make no noise on the Enbridge pipeline project and approve oil tanker traffic on the coast.
This, dear readers, is one reason Gordon Campbell was eager to clear out and one of the reasons Prime Minister Harper gave him that plum job in London.
Those are not the only problems Mr. Abbott has. The underlying malaise that the C/C government must deal with is that they have done a lousy fiscal job. While painting themselves as the fiscally sound party, they have kept the story of NDP fiscal sins front and centre, for wasn’t it they who bollixed up our economy?
The answer is no. The NDP look like Ebenezer Scrooge compared to the government of wastrels we’ve been governed by for the last 10 ½ years. It started right after the May 2001 election when Campbell gave away more than a billion dollars in taxes on the well off.
From that point until now, the Campbell/Clark government has more than tripled the real provincial debt, putting the province in hock for as far as the eye can see.
Because of the lousy media we have, it wasn’t much noticed that when the Liberals came down with their unbelievable 2009 election budget – which was over a billion dollars short of reality – that it was phoney as Hell and that the Liberals knew it throughout. This came out when, after the election was safely behind them, the government said that it was all the fault of the Recession. To accept this bullshit would mean that the Liberals didn’t notice the Stock Market crash in 2007/08, nor the recession that followed! They also had to ignore the information that the Finance Ministry had that tax revenues were dropping.
In short, the Liberal government either was so stupid as to not notice a market crash, a huge dose of criminality on Wall Street, or the severe Recession that followed – or they deliberately lied.
Then there was the HST that one need not mention.
In short, the Liberal Party’s renowned fiscal prudence is a crock of crap. And it’s worse – the government ought have foreseen the fiscal problems even before it hit the fan – reading numbers and foreseeing trouble is what Finance Ministries are all about.
To Mr Abbott – while you’re reorganizing your party, looking to the future as politicians always say, I must warn you that you will be looking to the past as well as you will be asked questions. There are, even in your own party, a great many British Columbians who want answers, no matter how awkward it might be to give them.
Read this report from the Vancouver Sun on BC Auditor General John Doyle’s slamming of BC Hydro’s shocking accounting practices.
“Not often do accountants engage in the bookkeeping equivalent of hand-to-hand combat. But
there was some of that at a meeting of the public accounts committee of
the legislature one day last week, as BC Hydro’s chief financial
officer and acting CEO Charles Reid squared off against Auditor-General
John Doyle.
The occasion was supplied by the committee review of
Doyle’s recent report on Hydro’s growing practice of defer-ring current
expenses to future years. The flashpoint was provided by Doyle’s
bald assertion that although every penny of the soon-to-be-$5-billion
balance in the 27-and-count-ing deferral accounts will have to be
repaid, neither Hydro nor the government has any detectable plan to do
so. (Nov. 30, 2011)
Read article: http://www.vancouversun.com/Auditor+finds+billion+snake+dilemma+Hydro+hard+swallow/5788297/story.html#ixzz1fDPdH0v4