The Premier supports site 'C' dam as a private enterprise similar to the Alcan Kemano deal that makes multinationals rich and the citizens of BC poor.

I do not support that concept. Site 'C' should be a crown asset under BC Hydro. Period IMO.

That sounds harsh. I could be more diplomatic.

It's a novel idea to want the government to own and run everything.

But, government is government and business is business. One is about control and the other is about profit.

Unfortunately, there is too much of a gap between the two for my comfort.

If government owns it, they are also responsible for providing wages and benefits for all of the employees and their wants. We already know how difficult that can be. Especially when it comes to labour negotiations.

So, at the end of the day, the taxpayer is on the hook to subsidize the costs of doing business if the government can't do a proper job of running it.

Red tape, buracracy, rules, regulations, controls and requirements has handicapped business for years.

I agree that the government should be responsible for and retain more control of our resources. But, they also need to get out of the way and let business do business. Percy

Besides all that it just so happens that NAFTA imposes new conditions to be met, such as the matter of subsidies, openness to domestic AND foreign investment, unfettered access to resources and so forth.

NAFTA discourages public ownership and encourages
multi-national ownership.

Percy ... actually the novel idea would be for there not to be any government and let business run everythng ....

The legislative Assembly could simply be made up of the 100 or so top companies having an interest in BC. People would be voting by their financial support of one business over another. We could even rename the Parliament Buildngs the CN Assembly or Safe-on-Foods Assembly. ;-)

At an event I was at this week, there were MLAs and forestry contractors discussing the notion that Tree Farm Licenses are for sale and that one of the parties interested in buying a license is a compnay owned by the Chinese Government.

I wonder what people feel about TFLs being sold to the Chinese? Or even that TFL's are being sold rather than returned to the people's representatives for them to dispose of as they feel is appropriate.

"If government owns it, they are also responsible for providing wages and benefits for all of the employees and their wants. We already know how difficult that can be. Especially when it comes to labour negotiations."

It seems to me the Government still own the Highways in this province. Yet they can contract out design, as they do; maintenance, as they do; construction, as they do.

We supposedly still own most of the land the trees for our forest industry are grown on. Yet the government does not log, plant trees, stand tend, design roads, maintain roads, manufacture products, etc. etc .....

"Red tape, buracracy, rules, regulations, controls and requirements has handicapped business for years."

Big business is pretty good at creating its own "red" tape. PO systems, Check Requisitions, Third Party Certifications, Industry Recognized Practices, etc. etc ... are all control systems which are put in place in large buisnesses simply from the point of view of being organized. These are not government controlled or mandated.

Simply put, a large number of people working together for a common goal require a system with some sort of control acceptable to people working in the system.

If it is not one party which sets up the system, then it will be another. But, someone will eventually set one up in order to avoid chaos.

Pearcy, IMO your missing an important point. That is the point of monopoly and the danger this can pose to all stake holders if not for the benefit of and under direct accountability to elected governments.

A hydro dam project I would argue has no rivals in terms of stakeholder that would be impacted. The only solution is to have hydro resource under direct accountability to the government of BC as its sole shareholder and beneficiary.

IMO anything that is an essential public service that is a monopoly service should be directly owned and controled by the closest level of government to those people. This would include not only the right to dam rivers for profit, but also public roads, parks, rivers, lakes, forest management, airshed, railway infrastructure, water service, sewer service, and drug manufacturing.

IMO the government should have a crown corporation that tenders logging contracts to small medium and large logging contractors.

These contractors get paid for their contracts by the crown corporation that would also be responsible for fiber supply management.

This crown corporation would then hold auctions amoung all mills in the fiber supply area for the right to delivery to their mill. The highest bidder would get the fiber, and the public would be paid the highest dollar for stumpage, benefit from the highest safety standards, and ensure local control of the local resources. The crown corp would then facilitate open competition under a fair trading system for all suppliers and buyers.

IMO that is all the Americans have ever demanded, and it is exactly what our 'big' forest companies have tried to aviod.

The tariffs would end tomorrow, because then the Americans could invest to compete in the BC fiber supply situation with a certainty to a competitive open market for fiber supply.

Chadermando

You are describing BC Timber Sales (BCTS) which has recently had to be told to get with it and bring its standards in safety, etc. in line with the rest of the licensee community. They consider themselves above the law, as virtually every Ministry does and as they in fact are.

BCTS is now responsible for 20% of the harvesting.

Some of the worst offenders on the Forest Roads are drivers of Ministry of Forest Vehicles.

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/bcts

So far I have nothing good to report about BC Timber Sales and I doubt you will find too many people outside the group who would.

And here is an environmentalist association's view of BCTS.

BCTS is also not certified by any Third party standards organization, which means that the timber cannot be used by companies who sell to clients requiring "green stamps" to give some assurance that the timber was harvested in a Sustainable Forest Management System. (SFM)

http://www.wildernesscommittee.org/campaigns/rainforest/interior/lost_valley/reports/Vol24No01/Timber

They have a lot to learn, ande by the time they learn it, it would not surprise me that they would once more be re-organized by the government (left or right) of the day for all the wrong reasons.

One more and I promise to stop. This one is right on the money from my experience with BCTS.

http://www.environmentalleadership.org/documents/BCTS_paper.pdf

Chad: "The Premier supports site 'C' dam as a private enterprise similar to the Alcan Kemano deal that makes multinationals rich and the citizens of BC poor."

Stating it as black and white as that ignores some stark realities:

Alcan brought a billion and a half dollars of investors' money and built Kemano and Kitimat.

Alcan employees have enjoyed over 50 years of steady employment at top wages and benefits and many own Alcan shares.

Alcan pensions are rated tops in Canada.

Alcan paid taxes to all three levels of government, sponsoring many community groups and initiatives for over half a century.

Alcan shares (many held in teachers' and union pension funds) enjoyed dividends throughout all of the five decades and several share splits.

Alcan's aluminum exports contributed every year to the positive trade surplus of Canada.

If the above mentioned site "C" dam project means that industry of that calibre will be attracted and establishes itself for the next 50 years or more - well, I for one would not be complaining.

That is what we want, isn't it? We don't want the power to be exported south without providing
manufacturing jobs and spin-off jobs here.

Even CAW's Buzz Hargrove has come to realize that multi-nationals are a fact of life and here to stay.

I worked 16 years for Alcan and my paycheque never bounced when I took it to the bank!

Owl, the issue you raise is one of a managment failure and not a failure in the concept itself IMO.

Diplomat that may be so, but you were not one of the natives lifted off by helecopter the day the water started to rise having had no input nor compensation for your loss. Nor were you a person who was affected in the fishing industry, or the lose of wildlife habitat for Alcans profits. these are all stakeholders that suffered for Alcans profits.

I think anything of the magnitude of a water diversion project should only be done by the public for the benefit of the public.

Your arguement that Alcan came because we gave them the river system is false logic. They built all their new plants in Quebec where Quebec still owns their rivers and dams, and did so because the Quebec government who controls those dams gave Alcan a subsidized rate guaranteed for 30 years. I have no problem with the BC government doing that to attract multination investments. In BC on the other hand Alcan is downsizing operations in order to profit more from the exports of electricity created from our damed rivers.

Facts are Alcan makes billions in profits from company dams in BC, while providing jobs in Quebec using the electricity from their public owned dams.

I believe public ownership can allow the people of BC to use that as a bargining chip for many multinationals that want to provide jobs.

Creating monoploy situations of our essential infrastructure creates economic dead zones. The past 30 years in Northern BC should be enough to show you that.

>Your arguement that Alcan came because we gave them the river system is false logic.<

Obviously you have me confused with someone else because I did not mention a "river system" or that "it was given to them."

In fact, I never even knew that Alcan had been given a river system until you brought it up.


As far as the natives are concerned I know that Alcan relocated their village to the opposite side of the bay, but I am not sure that there was proper consultation and agreement before it was done.

In all likelyhood, the natives were simply confronted with decisions made in Montreal.

The natives were treated often very badly, with disrespect and exploitation ever since this continent was invaded by foreigners, both in North and South America.

The 1950's were not a time when native rights and environmental concerns were as advanced as they are today.

One can dwell on that history forever, of course, but after lessons have been learned and old grievances addressed we must not allow our present attitudes and decisions be skewed and poisoned by the history of disrespect and racism.

Future developments of hydro-electric dams will be done only if all concerns of all those affected are taken care of first.

yadaa, Yadaa, yadaa, The Social Credit Government in the Sixties built the W.A.C. Bennet Dam, and the Columbia River Dams and if you take the time to check it out you would see that they did it by selling the Surplus Power to the Americans which paid for the Construction of the Dams, along with a lot of other things. Any Major Dam/Electricity projects should be handled exclusively by the Government and keep the Private blood suckers out of it. Having said that, I know that they are already sucking the blood through many so called Co-Generation Plants which sell to Hydro and ultimately to the USA. This puts Private Enterprise into the Hydro Business in this Province, and it is happening because their is big money in Hydro, and also because Premier Campbell is out of his league when it comes to dealing with these people. In the old Social Credit Government the best job he could hope for would be Chauffeur for W.A.C.

Palopu, Something we finally agree on re: hydro projects, and the WAC government.

As for Co-gen plants that is a huge potential industry here in the North. I hear Vanderhoof, and Houston are looking at municiple Co-gen plants intheir communities. If you shut donw the burners at the two Canfor super mills out that way the Co-gen plants wouldnot be able to keep up IMO so a shortage of resource is the least of ones concerns. Potential for 100's of jobs IMO. I have no problem with them selling excess electricity to the grid in private-public partnerships.

On another note I find it interesting Pat Bells comments on the Ridly Terminal in PR. He argues and the conservtive government agrees with him that it needs to be publically operated to ensure equal access to all in the industry and to ensure the lowest cost for industry cutting out the profit taking middle man.


This is exactly the arguement I have made for Hydro and other esential infrastructure for the rest of BC's 'CITIZENS'. The question I have is if the idea has logic when it comes to efficiency for the mining industry, then were is the difference in logic when it comes to essential services that are a monoploy for the public sector?

I don't see how they can argue both ways and still have an oppinion that is not hypocritical?

Maybe Ben can do a follow up on the Ridly Terminal and the positions of the BC and Canadian governments on their decision?

Palopu, correction Co-gen plants are not hydro related. Yes they produce electricity, but no they do not create electricity by damming up rivers as is done in a hydro project. My issue is with private industry controlling our rivers for profit. I have no issue with private industry creating electricity for profit if they have a market and an oportunity.

I view a private company having control of a river for profit the same as I would view a private industry having control of our airshed pollution regulations for profit. Both should be controlled by government and not for profit industry.