I don't support the NDP doctrine but Carole James is dead on the money on this one. Alcan has manipulated every government that it has ever dealt with. Our govt. is totally out of its league when it comes to Alcan and Roi Tinto. Gordo should be slapped hard for this sell out.

Yes I agree. As a former resident, the Campbell govt has sold not only Kitimat out but the entire province. Taxpayers no longer own our natural resources nor have we since this govt took office.

However, now that what's done is done, I want to see leadership on mitigating the consequences of this "sell out".

It is time to move on. So leaders, how do you propose to move forward? How are you going to economically diversify the community of Kitimat? What steps are you taking to ensure the continued economic viability of the north?

The BC government is happy to take our money...what are you going to do now that the forest industry is failing? What are you going to do when Alcan decides to pull out? Hmm....more taxes? The money is running out guys! No jobs...no taxpayers!

Just Kitimat?

Slowly people are starting to wake up to just what Gordon campbell is all about!
Sure took a while!

All I can say is that this is a sad day for British Columbians. I am very disapointed that this was allowed to happen. Where is the common sense?

Kitimat is only one part of the issue.
It is the precident that this kind of irresponsible government sets.
So what's next?
At the rate this government is going,they are going to implode and soon!

Only W A C Bennett's government didn't make that deal. The water resources were given away by Boss Johnson's BC Liberal Party dominated 'Coalition' government that preceded Social Credit.

When it comes to the BC Liberals, some things never change. They may tell us different, but their actions prove they're still really 'global capitalists', not 'free-enterprisers'. And there's a BIG difference.

The coalition government also started the process of giving our timber rights to the big guns like M&B and put the independant loggers out of business forever.
That's why even to this day,we can't go out and get a claim of bug kill to log, even by hand!
Big business is god to these guys and to hell with the rest of us!

Maybe we citizens should set the water free???

That's exactly right, Andy. TFL number one, for over a million acres, was given to another 'foreign' outfit, Celanese Corp. of America, whose BC subsidiary was Columbia Cellulose, (beginning the sorry genesis of what finally died as Skeena Pulp, after multi-millions of our tax-payer dollars were wasted trying to preserve jobs in a plant that was never viable once the larger valley bottom timber ('saw'logs, not 'pulp'logs, too) that could be transported to the mill by water had been creamed .)

Social Credit was often blamed for that, and other big business monopolizations, and particularly after their first Forests Minister, Robert Sommers, was convicted by the Courts of supposedly accepting bribes in the awarding of another TFL to BC Forest Products on VI.

It might be interesting to note, in regards to some comments elsewhere on this topic by Diplomat regarding the 'impartiality' of the Courts, just WHO it was that appointed the Judge that found Sommers guilty. When it comes to the BC Liberal Party, look to their deeds, not their words!

Kitkat, with Gordon Campbell there will never be any 'common sense'. If for no other reason than he's been educated beyond his intelligence.

Here is a hypothetical question: What would this Kitimat issue's outcome have been had some other party and some other leader been in charge in Victoria instead of the Liberals?

Would/could it have been different? And how?

diplomat....Todays govt. and any other govt. would do the same thing. As I said in the very first post, governments are way out of their league when it comes to dealing with Mega companies. Alcan and Rio's legal people are the very best available. Government people get left in the dust.

That question goes right back to the whole business of resource allocation, and the reasons 'why' the 'people's' resources, held in trust for us by the Crown, were allocated in the first place, diplomat.

We gave the CPR and various subsidiary companies vast chunks of BC to offset the cost of building the first transcontinental railway. It was intended that the CPR sell, or at least make available to others those resources. Which,in many cases had no commercial value prior to having a railway to get them to market.

This was an entirely equitable arrangement. As it was originally intended to be carried out.

And it worked, in many places, for many years. Timber and coal on the E& N Railway (CPR subsidiary)
land grant on VI were made available to independent forest and mining companies for nine decades, for instance. In other regions the CPR sold agricultural lands, etc. This, and the transport of those
resources, paid for the railway.

But the original deal was never intended to set up the CPR as a monopoly overlord over all the resources it had been given in perpetuity.

Something which, again on VI with the E&N lands as but ONE example,
it later became. In that case
starting from about 1968. A move which precipated the demise of a number of independent lumber mills and logging companies who'd long depended on 'timber sales' from the CPR, which were then
abruptly terminated. A number of Island communities were devasted at the time.

Such has been the case in many, many other instances elsewhere in BC
since. And such is definitely the case in regards to the original deal
the Province made with Alcan.

The diversion of the Nechako's watershed to generate electricity was made to produce aluminum and support development of the northwest region. If that goal has changed, and we're to see the depopulation of Kitimat, and lose
yet another industry that's vital to the long term economic viability of BC, then the rules regarding the transfer of that water resource to Alcan should be re-negotiated.

If it takes legislation to do that, then legislate. If Alcan's smelter has been allowed to become unviable, simply bcause they believe there's a more certain profit in 'exporting' power, then they should be put straight as to the intentions of the original deal.

And the same goes for ALL the other multi-nationals who come in here, make a promise of 'jobs' and continued community support, get our resources and then renege on the deal. It is more far reaching than that, I know. But the corrections have to START SOMEWHERE. And it might as well be here and now, or we'll all be homeless on the streets of greater Vancouver.

Here's a hypothetical question of my own. Could today's NDP ever be 'educated' enough to not repeat the same silly mistakes they've made in the past? Or are they a Party whose members are truly just 'Naturally Dumb People'? And if elected as government again would prove to be (almost) as utterly hopeless as Gordon Campbell's Liberals? Could we set them on the right track before 2009, or do we have to vote for our ruination again, regardless of who we elect?

What happens if the chinese take over Rio

You are making some excellent points, socredible. "If it takes legislation to do that, then legislate." I can certainly agree with that idea!

What are the ramifications of opening up a 99 year agreement to change the terms halfway through its term?

Especially if Alcan/Rio Tinto is unwilling (I presume it would object) to do so?

Surely there would be some legal problems, penalties, compensation etc.

Would that even be a legal option?

Could Carol James please explain whether she would have done that or even nationalized the power generation assets over the objections of the company or not.

It's easy to use expressions like "sold out" and "Gordon Campbell went to court and supported Alcan (Rio Tinto)" and "the Campbell government stood squarely with the company" and "they used the taxpayer’s money to argue on behalf of Alcan."

A lot of inflammatory rhetoric, but what would she have done instead???

We will never know for sure what Carole James would have done diplomat,but I would bet if she was to tell us now,she would say whatever made her and the NDP look good!
What would have been the outcome if the government had remained neutral as they should do?
I think that IS possible at least to some extent if not totally.
At the very least,if they cannot support the best interests of the people who live in B.C.and actually own these resources,then they should let Alcan battle it out in court without formally aligning themselves with a private company AGAINST the people of B.C,'s interests!
For the Premier of a province,any province, to step up and take the private sector's side to the extent that Campbell has done is morally wrong.
He should resign and his party should insist on it.

"...but I would bet if she was to tell us now, she would say whatever made her and the NDP look good!"

I would be interested in hearing it anyways but she seems to have no alternative viable position or solution at all.

It's one thing to be in the comfortable position of an opposition party but to be actually in a governing position is a horse of a different colour.

I think we had ample proof of that when we witnessed the shenanigans of the nineties.

There sure wasn't any evidence that the government was neutral then. For instance I was up in Prince Rupert when the Rupert fishing fleet had been egged on by government rhetoric to blockade the American ferries.

I listened to what a lot of very unhappy residents had to say about that.

Over and out.

It's a guess but I think one of the reasons the NDP doesn't have a lot to say is that back in the early'90's they themselves were a big advocate of Alcan selling off SURPLUS power.
They would probably rather not be reminded of that at this stage.
Much too stinky right now!
I am sure they were well aware of what was taking place.
In 2006,Campbell showed up in Kitimat for the big expansion by Alcan announcement.
He did not go anywhere near the Mayor or the city council.
He snubbed them completely, probably because they were already sounding the alarm bells on what was in the wind.
About that time,Campbell started to take some serious flack for being involved in the power selling deal and the matter was quickly swept under the carpet. when it started to get too much press.
Shhhh...
Not much was heard until now and we know the rest of the story.
It WAS kept pretty quiet, and the mainstream media let it happen that way.
But if it was such a good deal for B.C.why was it done so hush hush?
Gordon Campbell doesn't have the brain power to even begin to understand a deal like this or the dangers,without someone holding his hand.
So who else was involved?
Remeber Dick Harris also backed it, and it cost him the last election by over 400+ votes.
Who else is going to fall?
This is a very dangerous political football for any government to get involved in,so why would they do it?
And by the way...just where IS Gordon Campbell now, when there is questions to be answered?

...my apologies to Dick,that would be Roger Harris.

Really, when you look at it practically, the government holds all the cards. And no matter who is Premier, or what Party is in power, the question then has to be, "Why is it so reluctant to play them?"

For how else could Alcan even sell power except by using BC Hydro's transmission lines? It wouldn't be cost effective to transmit this power for 'export' if they had to build their own transmission system. And in any case the government would have to give its permission, and make a right-of-way available to them even if it was, before they could do anything.

So the whole 'profitability' of Alcan's selling power anywhere else is entirely in the hands of the BC government. It could even set the price, on basically a 'take-it-or-leave-it' basis, since there's no one else Alcan CAN sell to.

Now the question might well be, if Alcan does sell power, is what they receive for it, from us, going to be based on the 'cost of production', plus a reasonable return? As I, for one, believe it should be.

Or like so many other instances where we've allocated 'our' resources, are we going to be forced to pay some speculatively driven 'world price' for permission to access the ultimate product of them? Or face seeing all that goes to make BC "the best place on Earth" exported out from under our noses to the highest global bidder?

When are we going to wake up to the FACT that the only sane primary purpose of any economic system is to produce and deliver actual goods and services to us all for our personal consumption as, when, and where required ~ and that's in our own Province first?

It is NOT primarily in providing 'employment', which is merely a means to an end. Nor is it primarily in providing a 'financial return'to some Company, for 'money' is simply a way in which we try to account things. And utterly useless as a 'commodity' in itself, which it can never be.

We are so fortunate in one respect. Of all the jurisdictions in Canada, or even the world, we are one of the very few that are potentially entirely 'physically' self-sufficient. Alberta, for all it's oil wealth, is not. Neither is Ontario, nor many independent countries of comparable size to us.

Our standard of living should be far in advance of where it currently is, for every last one of us, regardless of where we are right now. And it should be rising at a faster rate than our cost of living is. Constantly. But is it? Or is the reverse the case. Again, now, constantly. How could any place so physically 'rich' have so many that are struggling to remain above being classed as 'financially' poor?

It's inconceivable, I think, that Gordon Campbell will ever recognize the problem. Whether there's any hope with Carol James or not, I can't say. But there may, just may, be some slight hope.

Blame the corporation friendly Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Don Brenner thinks the people of BC need to subsidize big business. Where is the quid pro quo in this sellout?

The truly scary part is the fact that for some reason,the people of this province do not WANT to see what is happening by some of their ELECTED representatives.
Maybe it's just easier to pretend that this kind of thing cannot and will not happen in our safe and secure little worlds,so let's not rock the boat!
All is well.
Well,it sure as hell can and it is,and by the time people wake up to that realization,it may very well be too late to undo the damage.
An afternoon of research on the computer will open peoples eyes and we all owe it to ourselves to do just that.
The mainstream media like news papers and television will NOT tell the story!
That should be obvious when we see that this whole issue barely even made the press when it went to court the other day.
A quick blurb and it was gone.
Why don't we find that odd?

The people in every country KNOW they are being swindled, Andy. But what they don't know is by WHO and TO WHAT ENDS. They can only find that out by asking themselves, "Who benefits from the swindle, and what is it they really want?" The answer, I think, will be found to be a very small elitist clique, and what they want is an enhancement of their 'power' over the rest of us. I have no doubt whatsoever that Gordon Campbell and his 'inner circle' see themselves very much as a part of that clique.

What prevents everyone from seeing that is the way they've been conditioned to view 'money'itself.

To each of us, virtually everywhere now, 'money' is a necessity to live. Yet the one certain thing that the overwhelming majority of us know about it ~ that we never seem to have enough of it, and must struggle ever harder to get more ~ blinds us completely to looking for the real reason "why?"

We concentrate our efforts, and often our ire when they fall far short of what we believe they should secure for us, on trying to 're-distribute' existing 'money'. What we fail to see is that there will never be any way something that is collectively insufficient in its totality can ever be made sufficient for all by merely 're-distributing' it.

It's like slicing the pie thinner and thinner so everyone can have a piece. And everyone does, but they also ALL go away hungry, too. While all the ingredients to bake a bigger pie, and ensure a sufficiency for all, sit unused on the shelf and forgotten about.

The control of the News and the control of Finance are 'concentric'. And the mainstream media, dependent as it is for its continued existence on the willingness of its advertisers and, ultimately, the bankers of those advertisers, will never 'rock the boat'. We are indeed fortunate that "Opinion 250", and the Internet in general, are so far relatively still available as outlets for 'free speech'.

Amen to that!

Again, we arrive at the most disgraceful non-reported story in BC: the personal intervention of CJ Don Brenner (Supreme Court) in EVERY major case effecting the lives of the people of BC. I reviewed almost 200 published cases where Brenner either served as an attorney or acted as a judge. There exists NOT one published case since 1974 in which Brenner represented a private individual; as a judge the same corporate and government clients that he served as an attorney, are winning 100% of all cases before Brenner. If it effects elites, Brenner sticks his nose in; if popular sovereignty might be respected, Brenner intervenes to ensure that justice is shackled.

Oppal assigned Brenner the task of writing rules that would "streamline" justice in the BCSC. However, 2 weeks ago a motion was filed that would conduce settlement of the 4 (known by me) "Queen of the North" suits (one by class action), by hearing a single "test case," and then working for a just general agreement, based on same. Brenner shot it down.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc429/2007bcsc429.html
Brenner also ruled that all native residential school's issues that are raised in the province, be under his personal jurisdiction. Last week, he deflected yet another application, based on legal arguments against his premature closure of the case.

Do you think that poor people should get at least basic legal aid? Too bad; Brenner shot down a Bar Association initiative. Do you think that a SCBC judge (Marvyn Koenigsberg) who banked money of her holocaust denier boyfriend, so that he could escape California justice, should be sanctioned for acting to defeat justice? Brenner intervened to shield her from justice. Do you think that false arrest is a recognized tort? Since Brenner took control of the SCBC in 1990, NO cop has been found liable for damages in that court. When the case isn't close at hand, Brenner dispatches his AJ, Pat Dohm to fix same. Hence, corrupt officials who admitted kiting $1 million in loans in the Walls-Millard case, did not spend even 1 second in jail; and a Cabinet Minister - Gordon Hogg - who somehow saw fit to employ one of them, is now rehabilitated. Then there is the matter of Brenner's choice case assignments to Janet Sinclair-Prowse, Alan Stewart and Dave Tysoe (now of the Appeals Court). And his role in the jailing of a lay litigator, because he sued Justices Garson and Williams (of the Picton botchup). And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Canwest will not print criticism of Don Brenner. Why? Canwest elites travel in the same circles as Brenner. BC judges claim huge expense accounts; Canwest - which alone has the resources - will not assign reporters to even examine Ministry acounts.

You know when Brenner does the dirty because THOSE cases are NOT published. I know nothing of the Ruiz-Dempsey case - other than that he served 30 days in jail for defying a Brenner order - but please read how Justice Garson omitted to recuse in a case that involved banks that she served as a private attorney.
http://www.natural-person.ca/People_vs_Banks.html

Ruiz-Dempsey attempted to use the Courts to rule that banking is based on a fraud, since the Banks create the 'money' they lend out of 'nothing'.

While I do believe there has long been a 'political' bias present in many BC judicial decisions, and I hate to seem as if I'm defending the Banks, this particular case is entirely without merit. In fact, it's just plain silly.

Anyone with even an elemental knowledge of modern banking practice would recognize that, and even a newly minted, first year lawyer with such knowledge would likely have little trouble in getting it dismissed as vexatious before ANY Judge.

To claim that the Judge assigned to the case was 'biased' and should recuse herself, knowing the likelihood against such a move, is just 'political' posturing on the part of the party that initiated this legal action. A legal action that has absolutely NO grounds in fact or in law for any success before ANY Court, even the most completely impartial one imaginable.