Since our government’s decision to complete construction, I have received many emails and calls from constituents and friends who are disappointed and upset with this outcome. Having been personally critical of the project for years, the past few weeks have been very difficult, and I too am disappointed and saddened that this flawed project reached this point. This was not the decision that my colleagues or I wished to make. We looked hard for a way to mitigate the costs sunk into Site C to date and to pursue the alternatives in which we believe.

When we formed government this past summer, we knew that the future of Site C would be one of the most challenging and hard decisions we would face. It has been. We made it with heavy hearts and in full knowledge that we would deeply disappoint and even anger many people who supported us, and counted on us to make a different choice. The values of First Nations reconciliation, agricultural land, ecological integrity and a modern energy system based on increasingly efficient and affordable alternatives are values we share.

Because of these very important values, Site C should never have been approved in 2014 by the former government. Had it not been started, Premier Horgan and our government have been clear that it is not a project we would choose.  However, almost 3 years into construction, it has been our responsibility to send the project for review by the BC Utilities Commission to help us determine the best path going forward.

As you know, the former government was determined to get the project “past the point of no return”, irresponsibly putting politics ahead of British Columbia’s people, land, values and well being. Due to the lack of transparency and oversight provided by the former government, we did not know how much money was sunk into the project or the costs of terminating it. In the end we made a decision based on the immediate financial impacts to B.C, and the programs and services so many people need and demand.

I know that many people contest the financial analysis on which we relied. The single inescapable fact with which we were faced on the best advice of Finance ministry staff, was that there is no way around having to record the debt immediately for an “asset” which would no longer exist or generate any revenue. This could affect our credit rating, adding $120 to $150 million dollars to annual operating costs. Most importantly it would take us to an exceptionally high debt level and limit our ability to borrow money for the schools, hospitals, housing and child care centres that are so needed in every part of B.C. This may make not appear to make “common sense” or long-term sense, but it is the way in which auditors, lenders and rating agencies judge government financial decisions.

I write this knowing that many people disagree with the decision, and our reasons for it. I accept and respect that disagreement. However, I hope that you will respect the fact that the cabinet of which I am part spent long hours looking at this decision from every angle and discussing alternatives. We heard directly from experts, including those who provided strong arguments for a different direction. Please trust that we made our decision in good faith.

What is hopeful from the BCUC report is that alternative sources of energy – wind, geothermal, and solar – are viable options for BC’s future energy needs. Going forward, I will continue to work toward our goals of energy efficiency and distributed, renewable power generation. While Site C is a poor energy choice in my and our government’s opinion, we will utilize the power generated, combined with a range of alternative renewable sources, to aggressively meet our climate objectives through a large-scale transition from fossil fuels and carbon pollution to widespread electrification of industry and transportation. I am also determined that no major project should ever be moved forward without the oversight of an independent regulator like the Utilities Commission.

Thank you again to everyone who has shared their views on this important issue. I respect and honor the commitment, opinions and passion of people who oppose our Site C decision. I share their determination to move B.C. to a renewable energy future, to protect agricultural land and important ecosystems, as well as to embrace the principles of reconciliation with Indigenous communities. While the decision I believe we were forced to make is a setback to these goals, there remains much important work to do and I am committed to devoting my energy and time to advance these goals in every way I can.

Sincerely,

George Heyman