Article content continued

“There were people who were saying no because they were concerned about the jobs, or people saying no because they felt obligated to support the government in power even though they expressed their angst and regret.”

Keighley said he believes many people have left the NDP over the Site C decision, and while he didn’t want to sow dissent within the ranks, he felt a responsibility to speak out.

“I’m not prepared to sit back and say ‘oh well.’ We can’t allow this elephant in the room to pass unchallenged,” he said.

Along with the recommendation to add a discussion of Site C to the provincial council agenda, which includes topics like the provincial budget and proportional representation, the letter questioned the government’s claim that it received “unambiguous advice” that the $3 billion to $4 billion already spent on Site C would need to be recovered from B.C. Hydro customers almost immediately.

“Who provided that advice and what interest do they have in doing so?” asks the letter. “Was the advice based on fact, fiction or was it politically motivated, and if it was politically motivated, in whose interests was it motivated?”

It also asks for the documents that helped the government reach its decision to proceed with Site C to be released to the public.

The letter goes on to deal with First Nations opposition, the loss of “irreplaceable agricultural lands” and the anticipated takeover of Site C construction company Aecon by the state-owned China Communications Construction Company, or CCCC.