Essay: Site “C” Dam and the Northern Gateway pipeline

(Site “C” Dam would best support reconciliation)

Ali Rasheed

B.c First peoples

David Butler

10 June, 2021
 2

Peace River Valley is a unique environment in north-eastern British Columbia and is one

of few locations in the region which has so far remained mostly resource-producing. Site C Dam

is a hydro-electric dam’ on Peace River located at Northwestern fort St. John, 14 kilometres,

north-east of the British-Columbia, Canada. The hunting and fishing, harvesting berries, holy

medicine, and conducting rituals are the foundations of families and communities of Métis and

First Nations. In this land are their forefathers buried.

More than 80 km west of Fort St. John and its tributaries would flood the projected

8-billion Dollars plus Site C Hydroelectric Dam. Site C project has received substantial

opposition from various sources due to the proposed flooding of agricultural areas, local

ecological degradation, high construction costs, available alternatives, and uncertainty about

future power prices and demand in the province. That is to say, in the name of cost reductions,

the rights of indigenous people under the treaties, the Constitution and international law are

compromised.

For British Columbia, the Site C dam was never a good concept. Not when it was planned

for the first time 60 years ago and surely not now. To help stop it, I am writing this essay. The

indigenous people of Columbia cry out. Despite pending judicial challenges by First Nations,

The project was approved by the federal and provincial administrations in late 2014, and Permits

for construction were issued in July.

Site C Dam Project is one of Big Project which despite its major concerns must be taken

into consideration as it is beneficial for unemployed people and will also prove financially

helpful and environmental friendly and can best support reconciliation though not needed

immediately.
 3

The Site C Dam Project can generate jobs for unemployed indigenous people of Canada

as new projects require employs for work completion. It will also acts as a source of electricity.

The devastating impact on Indigenous peoples is undeniable. The dam would "severely impair"

land usage, render fishing hazardous for at slightest a generation, & drown burial ground as well

as other important historical and cultural sites, according to a joint federal-provincial

environmental impact study. But still it will provide sustainable energy and is economically

good.

From my perspective, the best support for reconciliation for the indigenous people and

the British Columbians is that Site C or any other alternative energy is not immediately needed

(Daigle 2019).  I concur with Eliesen, Former BC Hydro CEO, who stated that there was no

hurry to create new energy sources in B.C. nation. He claimed that there was adequate time to

study cost-effective, efficient, and environmentally friendly solutions. Furthermore, If there is a

need for electricity in British Columbia, there is undoubtedly a supply available that it can rely

on.

The project might offer province with hygienic & sustain-able energy, a greater number

of the jobs, and also financially conventional Hydro Bills. In my opinion if any project start then

we need employees who work for completion of that project so, Site C Dam is also one of the big

project plan it will also need workers within Canada. The Site C Dam project is considered one

of big project therefore it will necessarily need more than 400 people who work to handle this

project. It means ultimately it will produce 400 jobs within indigenous people of Canada. Many

unemployed people will get benefit from Getaway project from creation of job opportunities in

Canada. As per other impact if site c dam implemented then there would be huge problem for the
 4

fishes. Although there are many issues of site c dam, but still benefits are far greater than these

concerns as it will be a good source of energy Moreover, it is economically and financially good.

The Site C Dam is a 14 km southwest of Fort St. John on Peace River, north-east of the

British-Columbia, Canada. It is a dam under development hydroelectric. It is about 80 km

downstream from the Dam of W. A. C. Bennett. When constructed in 2025, Site C Dam will

become British Columbia's fourth-largest hydropower producer with an estimated 1,100 MW

capability and a projected 5,100 GWh of electricity annually (Holm 2018).

Former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen said in an exclusive interview with DeSmog

Canada that consumers will suffer an overwhelming spike in their power costs if the Site C dam

is constructed.

Despite the fact that building has just recently begun, Site C has a history dating back

more than half a century. Since its inception, the project has been plagued by controversy &

uncertainty. It clarifies how energy decisions are made and how we might comprehend the

effects of development. Site C Dam, which might floo 5,500 hectare of Peace River Valley, is

said to be in the violation of Nations' Treaty 8 rights. To address concerns about project, the

Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation stated it is collaborating with BC Hydro &

Treaty 8 First Nations.

Former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen said in an exclusive interview with DeSmog

Canada that consumers will suffer an overwhelming spike in their power costs if the Site C dam

is constructed.  Hence, there was no need to build various ways to generate electricity in British

Columbia (Bakker and Hendriks 2019). Additionally, suppose there was a sudden surge in

demand for extra electricity in B.C. In that case, there are already two primary sources:  About

1,000 megawatts come from the Burrard Thermal Plant, and 1,100 megawatts come from the
 5

Columbia River, and the coal-fired power station was recently converted to natural gas power.

Again, the 8.8 billion dollar Site C dam is once British Columbia's most expensive public project

(Holm 2018). For three decades, the Peace River hydro dam would damage 13,000 hectares of

agricultural land.

Due to expected agricultural land floods, local environmental disruption, high cost of

development, proposed alternatives and the instability of potential power rates and demands in

the region, the project has attracted substantial criticism from various sources. The dam had been

challenged by two of the First Nations Treaty 8 and the surrounding landowners, even though the

Federal Court of Appeal had rejected them(Jeffery et al. 2015). Caitlyn discusses the special role

that environmental organisations may play in the advancement of reconciliation in Canada.

ENGOs engaged in Reconciliation work give chances to concentrate the discourse on

connections with land in this new framework of environmentalism, which emphasises the need to

protect Indigenous ownership, laws, customs, and rights to the land. It also provides

environmental scrutiny. Moreover, it will also allow time for the outstanding issues of the Treaty

violations to be resolved fairly if done now. Environmental non-governmental organisations

(ENGOs) have a responsibility to play in teaching the public about the link between

environmentalism & reconciliation, particularly the links between environmental damage and the

continued colonial violence faced by Indigenous peoples.

The Federal Liberal government has been made aware of the weakness of the

administrative oversight mechanism and of the project's environmental evaluation, with over 200

academics and the Royal Society of Canada expressing their worry. The federal government

declared in May 2016 that "it does not study and authorize projects." The Prime Minister of

British Columbia, John Horgan declared on 11 December 2017 that: "We have come to the
 6

decision that although we do not want or want the project to begin, Site C needs to be

finished(Church et al. 2009). Site C dam construction is paused because of reconciliation issue.

Government have started an initiative through which it is inviting all members of public to join it

in monitoring this case & holding governments responsible to a common goal of reconciliation &

respect for rights, regardless of their opinions on Site C.

Other water extraction schemes, including the WAC Bennett Dam that is on the river of

Site C, have also violated indigenous peoples' interests. At the dam itself, BC Hydro, the public

service building and operating the Bennett dam, opened a public exhibition recognizing the

damage done to TsayKeh Dene and Kwadacha First Nations. As the BC Hydro Spokesman

opened the exhibition, he said that the company "will profoundly lament these impacts and that

the errors of the past wouldn't be repeated." Canada's legislative duty to uphold indigenous

interests has not been properly taken into account by the legislature. The effect of the influx of

temporary workers on women's protection, especially indigenous women, has also not been

studied. The prospect of grave harm to indigenous peoples' interests includes the creation of

large-scale mineral resources only with their free, prior and informed consent(Axsen 2014). In

order to engage more effectively with Indigenous peoples, the environmental movement must go

through its own process of truth and reconciliation.

Advantages of the Site C Dam far-out be more important than its drawbacks. The project

of Site C dam involves many questions, but advantages are far greater than those expressed by

Energy and Mines Minister-Bill Bennett at the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce dinner on Friday

afternoon. The $8.77 billion would be constructed on the Peace River in Northern England, with

Minister Bennett adamant that the dam will have renewable and affordable electricity, thousands

of employment and financially conservative hydro projects for the province, even though a
 7

variety of environmental and financial issues exist (Zickfeld 2011). Eliesen also chastised B.C.

Hydro for implementing a pricing structure that sees regular British Columbians subsidize large

power consumers.

Bennett has recognized a host of genuine issues about C Dam Site – agricultural

ramifications, effects on the climate, exceeding financial expenses, the interest of local First

Nations – however he has also pointed out that little alternatives are sufficient to ensure a

sustainable supply of reliable electricity to British Columbians.

"The best interest of Site C for the overwhelming majority of British Columbian

residents," said Bennett, "but it has some downsides, and it is our responsibility, as a nation,"

said Mr. Bennett

Eliesen also chastised B.C. Hydro for implementing a pricing structure that sees regular

British Columbians subsidize large power consumers. Other hydro customers finance mining,

prospective LNG facilities, and different kinds of projects. Those that consume a lot of power

don't have to pay the total price. Despite suggestions from its specialist committee that the

project is sent for an independent cost and need assessment, the B.C. government decided to omit

the Site C dam from the B.C. Utilities Commission's examination (Morgeson III et al. 2020).

The huge $1,100 megawatts project would deliver around 5,100 GW hours of power per

year and is projected to be the most cost effective and reliable way to generate energy, according

to Bennett.

"Building the Site C project is the fastest way to procure 1,100 megawatts of power,"

Bennett said. "No question about it at all.” “No doubt”

Bennett has not timid away from reality that in near term the plan would cost the

tax-payers, a fair share; nevertheless, project is intended to provide affordable, renewable

electricity to future generations (Stendie 2013). If Site C is intended to aid BC in becoming

self-sufficient in green electricity, it will also help the province reach another energy goal: “to be

a net exporter of power from clean / renewable resources (Jaccard, Melton, and Nyboer 2011).”

Last year's environmental assessment and 50 proposals for the BC Hydro and Province

were passed by the Site C Dam project. The dam's most recent cost estimate is $10.7 billion. It

will be able to power the equivalent of 450,000 households per year once it is completed.

Minister Bennett did not discuss explicitly Mount Polly facilities breakdown, but

reiterated that a considerable environmental scrutiny was undertaken on the C Dam

initiative(McCreary and Milligan 2014).

This is the recommendation of the federal/provincial review committee, in which I

concur. Even before the national and local governments decided publicly to 'justify' its negative

impacts, the Commission had discovered unanswered issues regarding the need for a dam and

the expense of the dam (Dubrule, Patriquin, and Hood 2018). Both Federal Government and

Province Government have the authority to revoke the project or postpone it. Critically, this

would provide time to be dealt with before the dam returns, when the remaining questions of

breaches of the Treaty can no longer be protected.

The dam of Site C became a big political topic during elections in May 2017 B.C. when

the B.C. NDP promised to give the dam of Site C to the B.C. Utilities Commission for

independent revision if elected. The NDP was sworn to be British Columbia's new government

on 18 July and soon afterwards the B.C. Utilities Commission submitted the barrier to undergo a

rapid inspection. The scheme is behind schedule and on budget in the final report issued on 1

November and should be supplemented with alternatives of $8.8 billion or less.

The British Columbia government and the union of Service Employees reported on July

23 that it opposes the Site C dam because it violates indigenous rights and causes giant habitat

and agricultural area loss. Indeed, neither in terms of the environment nor in terms of attempting

to interact with First Nations, the Site C Dam is illogical. British Columbian Hydro's mid-load

projection, including the impact of electrification, was also too optimistic (Carr and Luth 2017).

Even with the progress of electrification, some dangers may result in lower demand than low

demand.

It also makes little sense from an economic standpoint to the British Columbians.

Ratepayers will pay immensely over the next few years. Stopping the mega project, the Better

Path reconciles the British Columbian government and the indigenous people and groups.
 10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Axsen, Jonn. 2014. "Citizen acceptance of new fossil fuel infrastructure: Value theory and

Canada‫ ׳‬s Northern Gateway Pipeline." Energy Policy 75:255-265.

Bakker, Karen, and Richard Hendriks. 2019. "Contested knowledges in hydroelectric project

assessment: The case of Canada’s Site C Project." Water 11 (3):406.

Carr, Deborah, and Elizabeth A Luth. 2017. "Advance care planning: contemporary issues and

future directions." Innovation in Aging 1 (1).

Church, Michael, Nichole Dusyk, Matthew Evenden, Ken Forest, Marjorie Griffin Cohen,

Alexander Netherton, and Adrienne Peacock. 2009. "Site C: Considering the Prospect of

Another Dam on the Peace River." BC Studies: The British Columbian Quarterly

(161):93-114.

Daigle, Michelle. 2019. "The spectacle of reconciliation: On (the) unsettling responsibilities to

Indigenous peoples in the academy." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space

37 (4):703-721.

Dubrule, Tye, DL Dee Patriquin, and Glynnis A Hood. 2018. "A question of inclusion: BC

Hydro’s Site C Dam Indigenous consultation process." Journal of Environmental

Assessment Policy and Management 20 (02):1850005.

Holm, Wendy. 2018. Damming the Peace: The hidden costs of the Site C Dam: James Lorimer &

Company.
 11

Jaccard, Mark, Noel Melton, and John Nyboer. 2011. "Institutions and processes for scaling up

renewables: Run-of-river hydropower in British Columbia." Energy Policy 39

(7):4042-4050.

Jeffery, Bradley, Pierre-Hugo Lecomte, Sophie Le Noble, and TJ Macalanda-Ung. 2015. DAM

IT! The Site C Dam on the Peace River.

McCreary, Tyler A, and Richard A Milligan. 2014. "Pipelines, permits, and protests: Carrier

Sekani encounters with the Enbridge Northern Gateway project." cultural geographies

21 (1):115-129.

Morgeson III, Forrest V, G Tomas M Hult, Sunil Mithas, Timothy Keiningham, and Claes

Fornell. 2020. "Turning complaining customers into loyal customers: Moderators of the

complaint handling–Customer loyalty relationship." Journal of Marketing 84 (5):79-99.

Stendie, Larissa. 2013. "Public participation, petro-politics and indigenous peoples: the

contentious northern gateway pipeline and joint review panel process."

Zickfeld, Kirsten. 2011. "Greenhouse gas emission and climate impacts of the Enbridge Northern

Gateway pipeline." Written evidence submitted to the JRP for Living Oceans Society,

Raincoast Conservation Foundation, and ForestEthics.