Re: B.C. leaders square off in TV debate, April 26.
That so-called debate was about as enlightening and entertaining as watching treacle drip. There was not any real debate involved, a few seconds of trying to score points over each other in what I viewed as a poorly designed forum.
It did not give enough depth into any party (other than Christy Clark’s endless smiling ‘rich families first’) platform or how they were going to fund it. I had really hoped to hear how Clark and the Liberals have relied on substantial transfers from both B.C. Hydro and ICBC in order to get their ‘balanced budget.’
Look at B.C. Hydro – the province is reliant on ‘dividends’ from the ‘profit’ (non-existent) made by B.C. Hydro. Without this income from B.C. Hydro, the B.C. government would have to borrow the money themselves to fund projects like schools, hospitals, etc. This way, B.C. Hydro is borrowing the money and the provincial government isn’t and can say it has a balanced budget. The way B.C. Hydro makes it look as though it has a profit is by use of ‘deferral accounts’ which put the debts off into the future.
Consider also the $1.4 billion in independently produced power that Hydro pays for each year that is not needed and thus not produced.
Last but not least, Clark’s famous LNG projects (also the price tumbled) to entice foreign companies she sold electricity to them at half the rate it will cost to produce on long-term contracts.
And why is she insisting on Site C dam being built and why has she waived all oversight to protect the taxpayer, when all of these are sitting idle generating no electricity?
We – the taxpayers – are on the hook long-term for both of these pet projects, or rather our children and grandchildren are.
And our hydro and ICBC rates shall keep climbing forevermore.
Dinah Lestock-Kay, Nanaimo
Re: B.C. leaders square off in TV debate, April 26.
The single biggest environmental issue for the 2017 provincial election has to be the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker expansion project.
I am concerned about the Kinder Morgan pipeline and expansion project for the following reasons:
This project is not needed to bring current tar sands bitumen to markets. The existing infrastructure more than meets current demands, so this and other pipeline projects can only mean tar sands expansion, making it even more difficult for Canada to meet its 2015 climate change reduction commitments.
As a resident of this coast, who often recreates on the waters of the Salish Sea, I am concerned about the very real possibility of oil spills.
Despite claims of ‘world-class’ oil spill response capability, recent oils spills on the coast have demonstrated the fallacy of these claims. Even the industry itself has admitted that an oil spill recovery of 15 per cent is considered a success. This is not very reassuring.
It seems that the Christy Clark Liberals have been listening to industry lobbyists instead of the citizen of B.C. On May 9, I’ll be voting for a candidate I think will champion our coast in the Legislature. I urge you to do the same.
Burtt Fidler, Gabriola Island