I must be missing something. Were does BC Hydro fit in this plan? Years ago the government of the day bougth out all the private power producers and formed BC Hydro.

I guess Gordo likes to turn the wheel backwards. Seems he cant look ahead. All he can see is profits for his pals.
Cheers.

Cheers

I agree Bridge,there is something odd about this whole process of looking for private money for these kinds of projects.
It does seem like we are going backwards as well as losing control of our resources.
I wonder if we will regret that down the road?
It also leaves me wondering why Campbell is so hot to trot on this kind of development format?

I'm with "Bridge" on this. The privatization of public utilities is not the mandate of good governance. Why haven't our BRIC shares covered any shortfall? lol

BC-Hydro is/was essentially the citizen's cooperative. The citizen's interests have been hijacked, plain and simple.

"Business says there needs to be more than a promise of involvement by the government for private industry to get the financial backing it would need."

Although Campbell wants private money, note what the private money holders want, according to the quote above.

They obviously want the government, i.e. the taxpayer, us, to make sure they don't actually run any risk of losing any money. That's fine, as far as it goes, but if the cost is to be guaranteed by us, why not pay for it and take all the profits as provincial revenues. If we take the risk then we should get the benefits.

Ammonra writes....
"They obviously want the government, i.e. the taxpayer, us, to make sure they don't actually run any risk of losing any money. That's fine, as far as it goes, but if the cost is to be guaranteed by us, why not pay for it and take all the profits as provincial revenues. If we take the risk then we should get the benefits."


Exactly how it should go. But you need to remember that Gordo and the liberal government of BC will never let their corporate buddies assume any financial risk.
Not when there are bazillions of taxpayers dollars just laying around.

PUBLIC POWER FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"But you need to remember that Gordo and the liberal government of BC will never let their corporate buddies assume any financial risk."

Doesn't the headline say: "Province Seeks Private Investors For Northwest Power" ?

Private investments always involve risk taking. *Gordo* is indeed asking his *corporate buddies* to take financial risks and that is exactly what they should take, because once they put some of their own private money into the pot we won't have a 400 million dollar (taxpayers' dollars) power line going somewhere without anybody being committed to start using it right away.

Once the government puts up the 250 million dollar share the corporations will take that commitment to the banks to borrow the other 150 million.

"Not when there are bazillions of taxpayers dollars just laying around."

For Fast Ferries?

Jeepers!

The thing is for their $150 million investment the private investors will profit so much more than anyone else. Does that seem fair ? Usually for their $150 million investment they get controlling interest in the project to try and make it succeed, but when they screw up it is the public that comes to the rescue. Basically a great system for big business and bad business for the public.

150 million dollar participation in a 400 million dollar power line project will not give anyone a controlling interest - it's not even 40%.

If the capitalist system does not work well for us (as problematic as it often is) than perhaps we should look at one that gives all the control to the state - only then it will be the state that calls all the shots, like tell you what kind of a job that state requires you to have and how much (or how little) you get paid for doing it. It will tell you where you can live and what your state owned apartment looks like. If you don't like any of this you will be classified as an enemy of the state!

Haven't the Soviet Union and all its captive satellite states been trying to liberate themselves from that kind of slavery for many decades?

Oh, by the way, the state controllers (top echelon) will keep the lion share of the money for themselves to live like kings -
swanky resorts on the Black Sea for the party bosses and shopping centers in secluded locations with all the latest trappings, unavailable to the working class but enjoyed by the cadre, their families and friends. Can't vote them out either, because at election time there is only the one state party to vote for!

Nice system for those who hate the words *corporation* and *profit.*

I like our system better. Much better! Let the corporations make profits and pay taxes on them. Let them re-invest some of the profits to build new production facilities and keep the old ones up-to-date and the jobs that employ us will be safe.

If the corporations do well the pension funds of everybody, including union pension funds will be solvent - because every pension fund in Canada invests in corporations and shares of banks, which are corporations as well.

Reality.

The statement was:
"Business says there needs to be more than a promise of involvement by the government for private industry to get the financial backing it would need."

The way I read that is that there needs to be an MOU in place with anyone who might want to join the government in a true contractual type of partnership agreement before industry can have any meaningful discussion with lenders and investors on their side. Neither they, not the goveernment wants to be left holding the bag. At the same time, both parties should benefit from gains and be responsible for losses.

This is an infrastructure investment which would benefit both the people of the province and the industries that will take advantage of having power on hand in short order.

Traditional situation; industry proposes a development; make an agreement to purchase power for 20+ years at a certain rate, government builds to service the industry based on projected income and takes risk of building to higher capacity on the basis of other industries following = government taking virutally all the risk with respect to power.

It seems to me government is actually interested in sharing that risk as well as profits. Can't have it both ways.

Sort of like getting power to a lakefront property. One household ... tough luck unless you pay for it yourself.

10 properties ... depending on the distance ... now we can talk ..... who pays for what and who will sign up to be on the grid.

If you take a look at how the present P3's in this province benefit the company that partnered with public and how little the public gets back out of it, you will see that simple ratios of how many dollars they invested doesn't correspond to the profits taken away.

Really, Diplomat, exaggeration like that may make people believe you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

W.A.C. Bennet used public money to build a dam owned by BC Hydro. He actually got the money, or some of it, by introducing a pension scheme for public employees and using their contributions to build the dam.

Was W.A.C. Bennet a communist, then? I hardly think so.

Many projects are paid for by public funds and are publicly owned, contributing to the province's finances and ameliorating the tax burden. It has nothing to do with the communist bugaboo. It just makes very good sense sometimes.

Diplomat here is how the present state works. We pay the third lowest power rates in Canada and the US mainly because we have hydro power which is cheap. The other low rates are Manitoba and Quebec, also because of hydro power and state owned. Now here in BC the province is supporting Independent power producers or IPP's. These are privately owned but very expensive so we the taxpayer are subsidizing them. Some of these contracts are as much as 80 dollors a megawatt hour. Hydro's cost with our plants is about 6 dollars a mwhr. Now I have learned at night as power usage decreases we can buy power as cheap as 5 dollors a mwhr and cheaper from Alberta and the US because they want to keep the thermal plants flat loaded so that power has to go somewhere so we can back off our hydro plants and buy very cheap power. But we loose out because of the high priced contracts to these IPP's

So to me that is how Gordo is sending money to his buds who have the IPP's. Isen't government subsidized free enterprize just wonderful.

Really, Ammonra, there is nothing wrong with our government using public money to build dams for crown corporations. Owl explains very well how a partnership of public and private money can benefit both parties. That is the system we have and it works very well. But - as soon as private corporations make a profit the accusations of the kind seen above start to fly!

Either one accepts that corporations make profits (ideally) or one has little choice but to favor a system where there are no private corporations at all, whatever that system is. No private corporations - no profits to object to. I know the state of the *Workers' Paradise* of the so-called German Democratic Republic (the former East Germany) very well. There were no corporations there, but a lot of misery and no freedoms. This is an example and not an attempt to raise what you call the *communist bugaboo.* Poland, Hungary, etc were in the same condition.

Do you accept an argument which suggests that corporations are actually entitled to some profits if they are run efficiently, according to the law and respectful of the rights of their employees and the environment?

My comments were directed at those to whom the word profit is the proverbial red flag.

diplomat, what you are doing is blindly following ideology. There are some things that government should be involved in and power is one of those things. There are many things that government should not be involved on (pulp mills and fast ferries come to mind). Corporations are indeed entitled to profits but based on the risks they take, not the risks we take as taxpayers. You have not mentioned a single word about why we should pay the private power producers such inflated rates in order keep them in business? Is that not the same as continually pumping taxpayer dollars into a losing business because your ideology says that business should continue?

It's not MY ideology! Canada is a country where it is lawful to form a corporation (you yourself have the freedom to form one if you choose to do so) and operate it for profit if you obey all the laws and pay all the taxes.

I have no ideology that dictates pumping taxpayers' dollars into a losing business like it happened for instance in Prince Rupert where the NDP government propped up a pulpmill (which was decrepit and worn out) with far too many millions of dollars. I talked to contractors who worked there and they told me that the whole effort was a bad joke.

I say that those who condemn legally made profits by corporations (as if they were made illegally and criminally) as blindly following some other ideology.

GM, Ford and Chrysler have been reducing their workforce by tens of thousands because they can't make a profit. Ask Buzz Hargrove if it is desirable for corporations to make a profit and operate in the black instead of bleeding red ink all over the place.

"You have not mentioned a single word about why we should pay the private power producers such inflated rates in order keep them in business?"

We should not pay them inflated rates in order to keep them in business. If they can't stay in business while getting normal rates they should not be in business in the first place.

This discussion is about private participation in the construction of a power line.

If the corporations need the power line badly enough they may decide to invest in it.

And I am NOT against it. Neither would I begrudge them any profit they would make with their participation and their planned mining ventures.

All power in BC in handled by the BC Transmission Corp which is a subsiduary of BC Hydro. Private companies who generate electricity have to sell it to Hydro and also pay BCTC to carry it to its destination.

BC Hydro is being quietly taken apart and will eventually be sold to private interests. We of course will get to keep the debt as it is not shown on Hydros books but is shown as being owed by the Provincial Government.

Wht not put a new tax on the new gas tax to finance this project for the mining industry?

I have no objections to profit making in general, as long as it is not gouging or exploitive.

Diplomat, you raised the Communist bugaboo in the context of this discussion as if objections to PPPs was automatically promoting communism. It is not, and publicly finded projects are not communist by default. As I pointed out, W.A.C. Bennet wsa not a communist but was in favour of state funding for public projects like Hydro generation.

The fact is, you introduced the communist nonsense into a debate in which it has absolutely no relevance. It is, however, a dis tractor diverting attention away from the Liberal's attempt to give profits to his friends once again instead of sending the profits to the Treasury and giving the taxpayer a break.

Tell the victims of communism that communism is a *bugaboo.*

Thank you for clearing up some of the misconceptions I had about the way you like to participate in discussions.

"Prince George, B.C. - The Province is inviting the private sector to partner with government and build the $400-million Northwest Transmission Line (NTL) along the highway 37 corridor."

Where did you see me mention the subject of PPPs? This discussion is/was about the invitation by government to the private sector to partner in building a transmission line.

Others raised objections to private sector involvement and claimed that the government was only looking for a way for its pals to make no-risk profits.

That is their opinion and the have every right to feel that way and express it.

I expressed that if the private sector takes the risk of investing it would be legally entitled to some profit, which is according to other statements a complete no-no.

You and they have other opinions and the only system where there are no corporate profits allowed is/was in state controlled economies, i.e. as demonstrated amply in the past in totalitarian one-party states, the kind you chose to call communist bugaboos - a word that was not part of my vocabulary until it was introduced by you.

Let's stick to the truth.

So, we have those who believe electric transmission has to be publicly owned.

So what make the tranmission of electric energy different from the transmission of natural gas? Oil?

What about that other public utility? telephone service? Why is that private? Time to go back to a publicly owned telephone system.

Postal Service?

I say it really does not matter as long as the parties who are responsible for what might be a monopoly in some cases provide a reliable service at a reasonable price. If the public has to fund part of a system because business would otherwise not invest and build, since business is typically quite conservative in their risk assessment, then my simple requirement is to make good deals with the public's money.

There is no question about the liberals intentions to privatize every publicly owned infrastructure we have.
It looks good on the financial ledger when we have more cash in the bank.
A billion from CN for the BCR plus BCR selling all of its properties which generated more cash.
These liberals want to be seen as great money managers and therefore do not have to explain how they invested into future infrastructure projects.
The problem with this privatised infrastructure is that we are vulnerable to economic collapse at the financial whim of a corporation.
If they don't make enough money, they simply decide to shut down what can represent a critically important service to industry and therefore an entire regions economy.
The potential for economic development in the northwest of the province is huge--but it will only be developed if there is reliable and reasonable prices, long term. Corporations cannot provide the same confidence which publicly controlled infrastructure can.
CN is a perfect example of a corporation in control of a huge and critically important essential service to industry. However this corporation has other higher priorities than its long term service to northern BC.

"...they simply decide to shut down what can represent a critically important service to industry and therefore an entire regions economy."

I don't think that it would be that easy. Usually contracts are agreed upon that prohibit unilateral actions of that kind.

Additionally, the government would have the responsibility to step in and ensure that a critically important service to industry (and the general population in the case of power) is maintained.

This may be totally irrelevant to this discussion (in the opinion of some) but I'll dare mention it anyways: In the 1960s there was a long strike at Alcan's smelter in Kitimat which gets its power from a privately owned power generating facility in Kemano. The government ensured that sufficient power was generated in Kemano (same union, same strike) to supply Kitimat and Terrace etc with electricity for the entire 10 weeks of strike action during which the smelter was completely shut down. There was no connection yet to B.C.s power grid so all the proper arrangements were made ensure the safety of the communities and the viability of the area.

BC Hydro is an essential infrastructure in both its production and distribution and should never be privatized in any way including through partnerships to build future transmission lines.

If the business case is made to build the new transmission line... then it should be built and owned by the province through BC Hydro.

BC Hydro involves our rivers, and therefore our watersheds, and it is an essential service that determines the productive capacity of this province economically. It is a national security issue to have it public owned. Ditto for our provincial highway infrastructure, city sewer and water, local police services, as well as health care services.

Public isonomia should never be confused for communism in the black and white world of diplomat.

I'd like to see the province as a whole be able to elect three people who would have a veto power over the legislature in responsibilities of their ministries. A minister of crown assets, a minister of public services, and a minister of public infrastructure.

The corporations have their advocates and they own the political system so the people of BC need an advocate of our own that protects the interest of the citizens of BC from the creep of changing governments and small precedents that rob the citizens of BC over the decades of our heritage. The Alcan power deal is a prime example where these public elected ministers could have played a role protecting the interests of British Columbian's.

A premier like Gordon Cambpell should not have the power to sell the province off with impunity and the people of BC have no say in the matter. The premiers power needs to stop at the feet of elected praetorian guards that protect the interest of the public on key issues.

The commie-phobes always beat the same drum, the NDP subsidization of Skeena Cellulose. Meanwhile Gordo has subsidized Multi-National forest companies since he was originally elected to power. Ask any community who has lived in the wake of Canfor?

One need only look at what the capitalist system is doing with the cost of gasoline. Most of the posts on this subject I should point out are not against privte corportion. We are aginst what Campbell is doing with public infrastructure.

The ferries and the pulpmill investments were to keep people working. Now we have a government that hit us with carbon tax and are giving away $400,000,000.00 to look good. Some of us place a lot of our faith in political ideology When we should be looking at good goverance and keeping it on track for all of us.

Cheers

"Now we have a government that hit us with carbon tax..."

The NDP wants to bring in its own version of a carbon tax.

The (fast) ferries and the pulpmill *investments* were monumental flops.

Cheers!

We have all herd this song before, "its
communism" if there are no profits

Six hundred million for a few miles of highway. Then there is the glitz show to come, rapid transit and the list goes on. And we in the north will have to payup. What will our debt be when Gordo signs off.

Hey diplomat you generly have some great idias. What happend this morning? If its the heat it will only be a few days and we are back to rain.

Cheers

It's the heat, Bridge :)- and the fact that some NDP supporters seem to have phobias of their own.

Say anything about the difference between the type of society we have (profit based, freedom of choice where to work, live, what type of profession to choose, what to buy, where to travel etc) and a state controlled society and they come at you with a vengeance with accusations of communism phobia (bugaboo?) and other character deficiencies.

This makes me wonder: why do some of them have this fixation on communism and why do they use it to try to derail discussions? Are they afraid that someone makes comparisons? After all, what I said about the workings of such a profit-less society is 100% true.

Democrats pride themselves to be in favor of letting people say what they wish to say and not try to stifle expression of opinion because it doesn't fit their ideology. Persuasion with logical argument would be a better method to win over converts - not by accusations that are baseless.

Why would I continue discussions with those who show so little respect for my opinion and I begin to wonder if they represent a large number of those who subscribe to the same political agenda?

"Really, Diplomat, exaggeration like that may make people believe you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes."

Baseless and an attempt to insult. It didn't have the desired effect.

Folks ....

If you get out of your parochial box and start looking at the bigger picture a bit some of you may realize that this is not a matter of the solialist boogeyman versus the much hated Gordon Campbell bogeyman.

The liberalization (not a reference to the BCLiberals) of the elcticity industry is under discussion and under changing policies in many parts of the world. In fact, BC is a bit late out of the starting blocks.

In fact, if we are not careful, the USA might start slapping duties on Canadian products produced with the aid of "subsidized" electricity based on the way they handled the softwood trade between the two countries.

The world is changing folks. Be alert to make sure that we do not get taken to the cleaners, but neither right nor left, nor public or private will guarantee that.

Market liberalization from Denmark
http://www.druid.dk/uploads/tx_picturedb/ds2001-237.pdf

Switzerland policy changeshttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6Y-4M1D07F-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cafa51de5a536886bd967821d183a29b

International Energy Agency http://www.peaklma.com/files/public/Jones.ppt

BTW, that article from Denmark is on this interesting site.

http://www.druid.dk

What are we doing to research how to stay competitive in the intrantional marketplace?

diplomat, you were the one who politicised this thread with your comment on NDP subsidisations. Then in the same thread you get all defensive. I have never voted NDP and I won't next election either but I will hold whoever I vote accountable for their actions. I prefer to be a political realist rather than follow blindly any ideology whether it be evil capitalism or the dreadful communism. That is why we live in the greatest country on earth where universal healthcare and multi-national corporations can live and thrive on the same land.

"That is why we live in the greatest country on earth where universal healthcare and multi-national corporations can live and thrive on the same land."

Good lord ... you sound like one of those people from the USA ....

I love this country, but I do not have to stretch the truth to do so. There are many other countries in the world where universal healthcare and mulit-national corporations can live and thrive. So that can't be the sole reason since that is not what makes this country unique..

lost it all .... I can see why the handle ....

you said .... "diplomat, you were the one who politicised this thread with your comment on NDP subsidisations"

There were exactly six posts before diplomat's which spoke about "gordo" and his wishes to give money to his corporate friends or simialr suggestions .... talk about politicising...

You really seem to have a tendency to not understand the written language or a tendency to stretch the truth .....

This discussion is way past my power of comprehension In all simplicity, I just wish we could own what we have. Our beautiful country with its'lakes and rivers and not exploit so much. I don't care much for all the politics and I don't understand them.

Ok diplomat the "you would think"
assumption of what is contained in a critical infrastructure agreement is a logical assumption, but a totally incorrect one.

Read CN's agreement with our province and you will find that good faith assumptions are like believing in the tooth fairy.

OOOH they wouldn't do that..oh no..they wouldn't do that... they did it and they will do it again. You can have all the faith you want in the way things are being done..but blindly believing doesn't make it true.

I use to think diplomat was a wise older folk, but by recent posts seems young and naive with assumptions, generalizations, and simplifications.

All I have to left to wonder is what is profit in the world of diplomat? Diplomat doesn't define profit, so we are all left to wonder what the heck it is that is the genus of the diplomat ideal society theory.

Is profit value, or is it money, is it sustainability, or is it quality of life, or is it a number on a foreign multi-national income statement? Profit can be many things, but if we are to say it is a number and not a quality of life issue, or a environmental issue, or a an enabler of future opportunity issue, then by just going by the numbers we would also need to know how are we defining the profit numbers? Is profit before taxes, or after taxes, is profit before amortization of capital assets, do we count profits from the operating income, or from the net income? And then once we finally agree what the term of profit is then who's profit are we talking about anyways? Is it the profit of the general good (public), or is it an equity shareholders profit, or a bond holders profit, or the banks profit on speculation, or is it the workers profit through wages and bonuses, or is it the subcontractors or government who want their cut, or is it none of the above, or all and any thing in between?

I think we can all agree we want profit... no question about that.

Profit means nothing though unless you are willing to define what profit is in the case you wish to use it. Its like saying I wish the whole world to be 'I am' because 'I am' is the best and therefore the whole world should be 'I am'. The rest of us have no idea what 'I am' actually means. Ditto for profit.

Profit for one guy is the day off with a case of beer in the sun, and for another its the value of his home after an afternoon of improvements, and for another its a number on a statement before or after taxes ect, and for others its what they could give to their community.

So if the argument is you want a society built on profit therefor lets privatize the BC Hydro infrastructure... then that is an argument I can't buy because it shows a complete ignorance of the real issues in favor of fantasy land of political spin.

Actually what I should have said was that a profit is nothing more then an investment before its invested.

Everyone just received a $100 bribe profit in the mail from the BC liberals signed by the premier himself. Where did these people spend that check? Did they buy beer, or invest it for the future? Was that $400 million a good investment for BC? Could it have been allocated for a greater return on investment?

This would be important because he who has the profits makes the investments and where those investments are made determines the future economy. Many stakeholders are involved in any enterprise, all have rights in determining profit distribution... so the argument that to question diplomats hunch on privatization of public infrastructure for profits... means you're a communist... simply doesn't make sense in a world that is not black (communist) and white (profits).

"Everyone just received a $100 bribe profit in the mail from the BC liberals signed by the premier himself. Where did these people spend that check? "

Profit? It might be an income, but incomes are hardly profits.

Why is it important where people spent the check? Those people who actually have a budget .... and have defined where they will spend the income they count on every year, are encouraged to spend it on the parts in their budget which go to improving their energy using infrastructure so that they end up using less energy, especially that which uses fossil fuels.

So, get rid of that oil/gas/wood furnace and replace it with an electric furnace ..... ;-)

For the larger part of the population that does not have a budget, spend it where you see fit, preferably locally on local products.

Eagleone, two great posts and I enjoyed reading them! You say diplomat's world is white and black, but you don't seem to notice that the first six posters on this thread (as pointed out by owl) live in a black and white world. Somehow they escaped your criticism.

I don't think that my world is black and white! I have mentioned many times here and elsewhere that my world is the one I live in. It consists of facts, like some corporations are public (government owned) and others are private corporations. Each operates according to the rules and conditions under which it was incorporated.
There is a legitimate role for each to play.

Soon, under the coming NAU terms all subsidies will come again under the microscope of the USA and ultimately Mexico and Canada may find themselves in a real pickle as far as government ownership and subsidies go.

At election time I do my duty and go out and vote, wishing that there were parties and candidates that I could really warm up to. There aren't. So I always vote for the lesser evil.

If my world was black and white I would simply vote my narrow ideology and that would be it.

I go out to work and I profit from doing so: I get a good wage and benefits. The company expects to make a profit after all taxes and expenses to pay all the shareholders a dividend and re-invest some of the profit to keep the facilities up-to-date and competitive with others who are in the same business.

The store owner who doesn't break even and make a profit overall will soon have a *Going out of business sale* sign in his store window.

If GM and Ford can't make a profit producing vehicles in North America they will move their assembly lines to Asia and bring the vehicles to their dealer networks here which are already in place.
Therefore, in the practical world that we live in: Should GM and Ford make a profit or not?

I have NEVER said that all public infrastructure should be privatized for profit. The discussion (and it seems that I have pointed this out before) is/was if PARTIAL private participation in a 400 million dollar power line ought to take place and whether or not profits should be allowed to accrue to the private investors.

The idea of partial private participation produced a howl of indignation by people who live in a black and white world where only the government should be allowed to own and operate certain entities - no matter what. If that is what they actually believe their's is a very stressful world.

When I pointed out that I have actually been in a society where everything was state owned and controlled and what it looked like I was accused of raising the *communist bugaboo.* Well, sorry folks but I have been there and it ain't pretty.

I haven't cashed my 100 dollar cheque yet and I think that it was a silly unnecessary publicity stunt - but, I am not going to send it back either.

Criticize me some more - I don't mind...

Well, that's it.

Before the Gordon Campbell government took over, BC Hydro, a Crown corporation, produced and distributed 90 per cent of our power requirements, giving B.C. homeowners and industries the lowest power costs in North America.
When BC Hydro as a crown corporation made money it went back to the government of the day as dividends providing money for schools, hospitals and the like. Under the Gordon Campbell government plan, we will
pay amongst the highest costs in North America and all the profits will go to private companies and their shareholders, not the citizens of BC or the public services needed.
These private companies aren't competing in the market place; they are private monopolies on the taxpayers' dime,big time !!
Why would the Gordon Campbell government want to drive up the cost of electricity, give away taxpayer money to (mostly) huge private? Why would the Gordon Campbell government put the interests of corporations ahead of those of the people?
Is the Gordon Campbell government so ideologically married to their far right wing views that its decisions are not based on doing good things for the people of BC? Is it for campaign funds from the ever grateful corporate supporters, and where are our MLA’s on this issue? Can it be that they too fear the loss of campaign funds from the ever grateful corporate supporters or the loss of their job (Paul Nettleton), or both?
Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals sell off of BC Hydro is asinine, regardless of what your political stripe maybe.
Tuesday May 12, 2009, make your vote count by supporting the candidates that supported your community.

Okay ..... let'd build the transmission line with BC Hydro (government) dollars and get the money to pay for it how?

1. charge the users of the electricity from that added access a fee based on a 20 year recovery of the cost of the infrastructure?

2. increase electrical fees throughout the province to pay for the increased access to businesses and communities in a specific region of the province?

3. don't charge anyone any more, but take the money out of education and healthcare?

4. don't charge anyone any addtional money for electricity, but reduce the amount of dollars paid off on the provincial debt.

5 .... any other system others might suggest, as long as it does not involve corporations participating in the risk ... THAT is a big no no .... risk can only be attributed to the entire province and its taxpayers and casino gamblers ......

;-)

Seamutt said: “We pay the third lowest power rates in Canada and the US”

Bond said: “giving B.C. homeowners and industries the lowest power costs in North America.”

Can people get their facts straight please!!! Which one is accurate?

Then Bond said: “Under the Gordon Campbell government plan, we will pay amongst the highest costs in North America”

Folks .. can we agree on some facts. Here are two sources of data. If anyone has any better sources, please let us know and link us to them.

BC Hydro site http://www.bchydro.com/rx_files/policies/policies55150.pdf

USA site http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html

Accroding to the two tables linked, here is the list of states/provinces with the lowest resoidential electricity costs per kwH

1. Idaho 6.34 cents
2. Nebraska 6.38
3. Manitoba 6.4
4. Missouri 6.49
5. West Virginia 6.55
6. North Dakota 6.57
7. Hydro Quebec 6.7
7. BC Hydro 6.7
9. Kentucky 6.93
10. Wyoming 7.29
11. Oklahoma 7.37
12. South Dakota 7.4

from highest down

Hawaii 28.53 (non North America, but USA)
Connecticut 18.04
New York 16.85
Massachusetts 16.68
Maine 15.64
Rhode Island 15.45
Alaska 14.97
New Hampshire 14.78
California 14.36
New Jersey 14.19
Vermont 13.99

I am looking at the C$ and US$ being on par within a % or two, so not much difference .... when one factors in average personal income in the USA and Canada, the US rate should be lower than the Canadian rate on a relative to income basis

So, I am not sure how BC Hydro figures we are 3 lowest in North America nor how any poster on here does unless they believe in the gospel accroding to BC Hydro (whether under NDP or BCLiberal gov).

Seems to me that there are 5 US states ahead of that.

As to that our rates will be with the highest in North America ... great exageration which only the most gullible will buy into. There is a hell of a way to go before we get there and the target is not exactly static ...

If you wish to make a point based on fact, it helps if you are a bit more accurate .... Not saying I am accurate, but I think I have provided a bit of a more objective context.

So, now that we have that out of the way, you were all saying????

Great research, Owl! Thanks!

Owl, #7 out of 63 is not that far off from #3 with only a change of less then 1% when the spread between the top pay and the lowest payer is 450%. Your splitting hairs for your argument.

Also of your choices I pick #2...
"2. increase electrical fees throughout the province to pay for the increased access to businesses and communities in a specific region of the province?"

That was the original purpose of BC Hydro to open up th north to business historically, and it is why the Lower Mainland politicians wanted BC Hydro broken up in the first place.

Lets face it Northern BC would never have had electrification if Gordon Campbell had been in power when development came this way. The province should pay the up front cost for the infrastructure build out and I think we can all agree that it would be paid back over time because there is no questioning the viability of the potential mining operations in the vicinity. Someone needs to get the ball rolling and that is the roll of government... and infrastructure like hydro it is also the role of government to make things happen.

It is no different then a tax incentive given to any other industry to get operations up and running with the government making their money back over the long term and via spin off benefits that accrue from the private investments that are enabled.

Diplomat I would argue that your point of view is that from the perspective that we in BC need to sell out any advantage we have from our system of government and our natural resource advantages such as BC Hydro... so as to make ourselves more compatible with the robber baron economy to the south facilitating an easier merger of our two countries.

IMO that is bordering on treason in the motivation that we need to sell out our own future in order to make a lowest common denominator fit with a country that wishes to incorporate our sovereignty into their own. It ignores the historical struggles our forefathers have made to make the kind of place we now live in and enjoy the fruits of their hardships.

It seems the baby boomer generation was a spoiled generation that had everything given to them on a silver platter with no struggles of their own and the result being that they would be more then happy to sell out future generations if it adds more numbers to their investment portfolios to be damned with the spin off effects. It was a generation that was protected and coddled and as such is easily manipulated by the bankster ideology of New World Order through unrestricted capitalism. While I'll have you know that unrestricted capitalism taken to its full maturation is in fact communism/fascism under the central bankers.

Support for the NAU is in fact support for communism of the North American economy through first gross abuse of capitalism to achieve the fascist state, which is the twin step sister of communist totalitarianism (only difference being one hides behind a curtain to pull the strings and the other is out in the open).

I support free enterprise economics and the politics that support that. I do not support banksters through multinational corporations controlling a monopoly on the means for the production in the private sector economy and thus our governments that come with it.

Talk about black and white ideologies! I think eagleone takes the cake for black and white labels in this discussion. Or does 'bordering on' make the charge of treason only greyish? Or maybe the term 'banksters'? Is that not a rather dark shade of black to paint things (people) with? There is a lot of rhetoric that goes with any debate on privatization. WHy dont some of us just admit that we are on one side of the fence or another rather than pretend we are objectively arguing on a case by case basis?

"Your splitting hairs for your argument"

Yes, bugt it is the type of hairs people like to split the world over. If they wouldn't, we wouldn't have Olympic games ... 1/100 of a second between gold and silver ..... Your either third or yur not ....

However, I can buy that argument if one were to say that we have amongst the lowest residential electricity rates in North America.

Of course, when we talk about getting to the highest with the weay we are going, that is not longer splitting hairs is it? We are no were near there and likely won't be for some time. The states and provinces which are with the lowest are the ones which have a high dependency on hydro. Newfoundland is so high because Quebec has a sweetheart deal with transmitting their electricity to the US. At least that is the way it used to be. Haven't had any pressing desire in a few decades to check that out.

You should take a look at some of the European rates. Talk about carbon tax .... way ahead of the game there.

Did you see that Canada is loosing gorund against other countries in "quality of life". Most of the countries we are loosing ground to have had carbon tax up to their ying yangs for decades.

As well it says our biggest loss is in the area of innovation. It basically says we are resting on our resource asses and taking it easy.

Hmmmmm ... rings a bell.....

;-)