Dark Days At Year’s End

Dead-End John

 

Dear John,

When I last wrote, it was about the novelty of the Dear John phenomenon. This time, I fear that the intent is very much in line with the original intent of letters of this nature. Your reading of the data for and against Site C construction seems to be very different from mine, and in any case, the idea of flinging another good seven billion dollars after the bad four that was essentially down to Christy Clark and her lot is a powerful inducement to quit the project, sorta like what Dad used to say about getting out of a hole: the first step is to quit digging. You have now pretty much forever linked your name with a project conceived in greed and executed with blunt force political trauma: you have turned Christy’s nasty little quip about getting Site C to the point of no return into a self-fulfilling prophesy. You have chosen to stick with a 20th-century project that has no place in a climate care strategy in the 21st century and have therefore earned the nickname “Dead-End John”, the dead-endedness referring not only to this project, but also to the length of your mandate and to the legacy that you leave to future generations of British Columbians. You have effectively become a patsy for the former Liberal clique, all of whom must be feeling rather smug right about now. What explains the rubber-kneed capitulation that we got to witness this morning? Is your political, social, economic, and reconciliatory acumen so stunted that you were able to overlook the impending catastrophe that awaits us, both in terms of legal battles the apologies that you will be forced to issue over cost overruns and completion delays? Did some Bilderberg-like group of rich heavyweights reach out to twist some painful part of your anatomy to incite the sort of tone deafness to your constituents that produced this gawdawful abomination? Are we completely ignoring the consequences under NAFTA to control over water exports? Do we not have a willingness to explore other opportunities in terms of energy production and the kind of jobs that might go along with it?

I guess in real life there’s no chance that you’ll be back in the rotunda tomorrow to tell us that it was a bad joke, and that really, no one could be that politically blind. I think it’s very likely that the New Democratic Party of BC has seen the last contribution and the last vote from this British Columbian, and I suspect that this kind of shenanigan is likely to produce a similar effect elsewhere. When that alternate to corruption is foolhardiness, or for whatever reason produces the sort of headscratchingly blunders on the order of continuing Site C, I’m guessing that many voters are simply wishing a pox on the houses of all politicians and going off to get what they can while they can.

Sadly, there is no respect left with which to sign this missive…

Respectfully,

Dan Schubart

Previous, pre-decision note:

Dear John, (I’ve never before had the privilege of writing a Dear John Letter!)

Pull the rug out from under the Site C project, would you please? It was a political decision made by Christy Clark as a gift to her contractor friends who have already done untold damage to the province and who need to wear the blame for the, pardon me, downstream effects. Our union brothers and sisters should be looked after by an ambitious (but well thought-out) program of renewable energy infrastructure, forest and fishery remediation, and programs to encourage small-scale intensive organic farming, as well as the protection of vital water resources. The Liberal Party needs to wear the blame for this project, every aspect of it, like Coleridge’s Albatross, as they parade through the upcoming corruption inquiry (you will encourage Mr. Eby to undertake this, won’t you?), along with all the other (NOT) on-time, on-budget fiascos that characterized the Campbell and Clark tenures on the government benches.

John, er, Mr. Premier, I like your style, generally, and much of your policy platform and would like to think that I could, with a clear conscience lend both moral and financial support to your party. But a decision to maintain any part of the Site C project or to support the various pipeline fantasies would preclude support of any nature, particularly as a decision on a moral basis: I have grandchildren and I would like for them, and for all citizens of B.C. (your bailiwick), Canada and the World to have a reasonably stable planetary environment in which to grow and thrive. Site C cannot be part of that vision.

Get in front of the cameras, with or without that Weaver feller, and tell BC that the citizens are in charge, not the SNC Lavallins of the world.

In hopes that you’ll act in a way that allows me to sign this…

Respectfully,

Dan Schubart

Port Alberni

Na, na. na-boo-boo!

2 thoughts on “Dark Days At Year’s End

  1. Thanks for these two excellent letters they really get to the key points.

    I also sent two notes to the Premier. The first, hopefully to honest John Horgan, the second in great disappointment to ‘Christy’ Horgan. Premier Horgan, his government and party are facing major seismic fractures. Can they be controlled and mended? I still hope but…

    Digging out of this disaster will take all of us all we have. It is hard to be positive. How can this possibly end well?

    • Digging hard and early may help stave off disaster and rescue Horgan & Company from further actions based on the kind of advice they got it his case. Meanwhile, all support going to orgs sticking logs in Horgan’s spokes.

Leave a Reply to Bill Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *