een ical BRITISH COLUMBIA _ Site C construction _ Called ‘costly error’ The case for opposing construction of the Site C dam on the Peace River was given support last week with the release of study criticizing the project by University of B.C. economist Marvin Schaffer. One of three papers on provincial eco- nomic issues released by the Economic Pol- icy Institute of B.C., the report, entitled “The Benefits and Costs of B.C. Hydro Construction Projects,” concluded bluntly: “There is no technical or economic reason to immediately construct Site C.” Construction of the $3.2 billion Site C dam, which the B.C. Utilities Commission recommended against in 1982, has been thrust on to the immediate agenda again by Premier Bennett as part of the Social Credit government's strategy of undertaking major new exports of hydroelectric power to the Us; Bennett announced last year that B.C. Hydro would consider seeking an imme- diate start on Site C to produce power exclu- sively for export, thus reversing a long standing energy policy which had prohi- bited construction for export. B.C. Hydro president Chester Johnson has since begun discussions with the U.S. Bonneville Power Administration on access to U.S. transmission lines for increased exports. Premier Bennett has also broad- ened the discussion about Site C construc- tion, suggesting, not only that it be built immediately as a job creation project, but also that U.S. utilities provide capital for its construciton. Despite that haste to proceed, “the government has provided no formal benefit-cost of financial analysis indicating that such a poroject is in the best interests of British Columbia,” Shaffer’s study stated. The only justification the Socred cabinet _ has suggested, the study said, was a compar- ison with Manitoba’s Limestone electricity project — which, however, provides power at half the cost of Site C and does not result in any flooded farmland. Site C construc- tion would result in the loss of 5,000 hec- tares of land, much of it agricultural. As for jobs, the benefits from Site C would be small — only some 2,000 jobs at the peak construction period, all of them temporary. Moreover, the study noted, “the cost of the job creation would be truly enormous, at nearly $1 million per job.” Although many would argue with ‘Shaffer’s comment that there is “nothing inherently wrong with firm export sales of electricity,” his study effectively ruled out any economic benefit from the construction of Site C for export. In order to be economic, the price “would have to be in the order of four cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) at the Canada- U.S. border for the net revenues to be posi- tive over a 10-year contract period.” But achieving that price is doubtful, he emphasized, noting that the price for the current sale of B.C. power to the Los Angeles Power and Water District is only two to 2.2 cents per kWh. Significantly, that price is less than one- third the price per kWh that B.C. residential users pay for the first 550 kWh of their power. And if Site C were to proceed immediately, Shaffer’s study noted, the cost would be borne by B.C. residents in the form of higher electricity rates. He also emphasized in the first part of his study that the decision to proceed with the Cheekye-Dunsmuir transmission line to Vancouver Island — which was an unnecessarily high capacity line, far in excess of Vancouver Island’s foreseeable 4 needs — has already “1 cost B.C. residents through ‘higher eee electricity rates than necessary. “In rushing ahead with Site C, the government stands to make a very costly error, very similar to the error it made with Cheekye-Dunsmuir,” the study concluded. “The cause of this error, as in the case of Cheekye-Dunsmuir, would be the inap- propriately early commitment to large and irreversible capital investment — a com- mitment not required, given the supply cap- ability of the B.C. Hydro system in relation to forecast demand, not justified by publicly available and scrutinized analyses of alter- native system plans, and not recommended by its own Utilities Commission. It is an error which very simply need not be made.” The Economic Policy Institute also released two papers along with Shaffer’s study, which, like the Site C study, critically analyzed Social Credit government policies. One, by David Donaldson, examined the increasing trend by government agencies to privatize services to private organizations which use volunteers and emphasized that the practice does not result in economic efficiencies and, at the same time, robs people of needed services. The third paper, a detailed study of the B.C. economy by UBC economist Bob Allen, concluded that the Socred policy of providing subsidies and incentives — including special economic zones — to promote high tech manufacturing was a misguided policy which would not benefit British Columbia. Instead, Allen suggested, government should increase government spending to fight unemployment; develop programs to assist one-industry towns in adjusting to technological change; and expand and edu- cational programs to prepare children for jobs outside the resource industries. No to NOR the NORAD (North AW the United States | renewed ev OW S n wn for n yil 19 NO to Of t/ .D is a first step- comms is year: : rch of this Ye wal in Maren tl upon our Letters Pauline Jewett, external affairs critic, New Democratic Party, Ottawa, writes: I have recently returned from Washing- ton, D.C. where I had lengthy discus- sions with U.S. politicians, defence officials and experts about NORAD. It is clear that Canada will be drawn into the active nuclear military policies and oper- ations of the U.S. if Canada remains a participant in NORAD. NORAD, and the associated Unified - Space Command at Colorado Springs, will become increasingly involved in the militarization of space in coming years. This is likely to include anti-satellite activities. It is clear that NORAD is to become at least a “back-up” to Star Wars (SDI). And NORAD is certain to be involved in the event of the U.S. breaking the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and developing anti-ballistic mis- sile defences. The ABM Treaty is the cornerstone of what little arms control there is. It must be maintained and defended. Canada must work to preserve the ABM Treaty in order to prevent a horrific and uncon- NORAD PETITION LAUNCHED The B.C. Peace Council launched this petition earlier this month as part of the Canadian Peace Congress’ cross-country campaign to block renewal of the NORAD agreement. The campaign has taken on new urgency with the appearance of a leaked copy of a draft report by the standing parliamentary committee on external affairs and defence which echoes the position of the Tory majority in calling for renewal of the agreement without re-insertion of the ABM clause. Copies of the petition are available from the B.C. Peace Council, 712, 207 W. Hastings St., Vancouver, V6B 1H7. Oppose renewal, NDP urges trollable “defensive” nuclear arms race. Canada must oppose Star Wars, not aid it. And Canada must reject any partici- pation in anti-satellite and other space weapons. There was no public information or parliamentary debate when Brian Mul- roney and Ronald Reagan signed the North Warning System agreement in, Quebec City last March. There has been no parliamentary debate and little public discussion of the Conservative govern- ment’s plans to renew the NORAD agreement for up to 15 years. Like the Liberals before them, the Conservatives are making secret agreements and execu- tive level defence deals with the United States. It is time for that to stop. If you share our concerns in the New Democratic Party about the ABM Treaty, Star Wars and NORAD please write to Brian Mulroney and tell him not to renew the NORAD agreement. Tell him that Canadians want a full public review of our nuclear and defence rela- tions with the United States instead. A jury of over 300 people found the Canadian abortion law guilty of discrimi- nation against women in a people’s tribu- nal held in Vancouver Jan. 25. With the audience as the jury and six “judges” presiding, the “Speak Out for Choice” tribunal, organized by Con- cerned Citizens for Choice on Abortion, based its decision on the testimony of 15 witnessness, all women faced at some time in their lives with unwanted pregnancies. That testimony, especially that given by women who had been forced to seek out illegal abortions before the present law was enacted in 1969, shocked and dis- turbed the audience and the judges as the realities of generations of women coping with unwanted pregnancy were graphi- cally described. Young women from rural areas testified that access to abortion procedures was unavailable to them unless they had the funds to travel to an urban centre, and frequently even more money would be required to pay a physician for the abor- tion. “‘We must support freedom of choice. It is the responsibility of society to provide to everyone the services and resources neces- sary to ensure that freedom of choice, because without that there is no equality,” said tribunal judge and B.C. Federation of Labor president, Art Kube, in his sum- mary to the jury. Grace MacInnis called in her summary for the removal of abortion from the crim- inal code and the legalization of abortion clinics. “But these must be seen as long-term goals,” she said. “For the shorter term, we must organize and get ready to defend pro-choice hospital boards from the minority anti-choice groups that seek to enforce their will on the majority of Cana- dians.” North Shore residents were urged to support the pro-choice candidates in the upcoming hospital board elections at the Lions Gate Hospital. Memberships can be obtained for $5 by phoning 988-3131. Concerned Citizens for Choice on Abortion have produced pre-printed post cards for mailing to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, Minister of Health Jake Epp and other members of Parliament demand- ing that all anti-abortion laws be repealed. They can be obtained by contacting CCCA at 876-9920, or by writing to P.O. Box 24617, Station C, Vancouver, B.C. VST 4El. PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JANUARY 29, 1986 e 3