Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

BC's provincial election and STV referendum takes place Tuesday May 12th.
User avatar
Smurf
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10410
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 8:55 am

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Smurf »

I have been thinking about this further and wondering why anyone would support projects like this. It doesn't matter how much the building of the project costs or how much salaries cost as long as BC Hydro makes a profit every person in BC makes a profit by lower rates. In the long run BC Hydro makes the most money for the people of this province just by saving us money on our hydro costs.
IPP's make money for a few owners or investors. If those profits go to IPP's (private industry ) we all loose. I have made a lot of money in my lifetime by proper planning to save money and this is a perfect example of saving money for everyone in the province. Everyone has more money in their pockets to spend on other things which helps the economy. Not only that but low hydro rates bring business to the province, creating jobs and more money. This is one business that should never be allowed in private hands due to the fact that in todays economy it is a necessity for a family to have electricity and it is the best for everyone to keep it as cheap as possible.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
usquebaugh
Guru
Posts: 8984
Joined: Mar 19th, 2005, 3:17 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by usquebaugh »

:rate10:
Where oh where’d my body go?
Africa or Mexico?
Where or where’d my body go?
Where’d my body go?
Have you seen my ghost?
Staring at the ground?
Have you seen my ghost?
Sick of those *bleep* clouds
User avatar
Smurf
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10410
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 8:55 am

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Smurf »

This morning my wife called me to see Michael J. Fox on The View and while watching him he said something that really made me think. In my words this is what he said. When we are selling everything, our natural resources, our forests, our rivers, etc. are we really doing what we want as a society. Or are we selling what we love, our cuture, our activities etc.. I believe we are and although I realize to an extent it has to be done I also believe that in many cases we have other choices that would work better for the environment and society as a whole. Life should not just be about making money. It should be about living together for the best of everyone as much as possible. This is a perfect example of something that could be done better. Instead of affecting many of our rivers, our fish habitants and the potential for environmental disasters being spread all over the province in the name of profit for a few we could keep it in the controlled environment of one company we as a society own. I do not believe multiple sites all over our rivers are what we as a society want.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
Smurf
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10410
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 8:55 am

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Smurf »

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... elled.html

Just another perfect example of why we don't want private for profit business anywhere near our Hydro supply.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
usquebaugh
Guru
Posts: 8984
Joined: Mar 19th, 2005, 3:17 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by usquebaugh »

Smurf wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/05/10/bc-ferry-queen-charlottes-cancelled.html

Just another perfect example of why we don't want private for profit business anywhere near our Hydro supply.


But outsourcing the ferry production to Germany has been so cost effective! :dyinglaughing:
Where oh where’d my body go?
Africa or Mexico?
Where or where’d my body go?
Where’d my body go?
Have you seen my ghost?
Staring at the ground?
Have you seen my ghost?
Sick of those *bleep* clouds
User avatar
Smurf
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10410
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 8:55 am

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Smurf »

Hey Germany needs the employment.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
Smurf
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10410
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 8:55 am

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Smurf »

Actually the real problem was that Campbell didn't have friends in the business he could give the contract to.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
usquebaugh
Guru
Posts: 8984
Joined: Mar 19th, 2005, 3:17 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by usquebaugh »

Indeed.

NAFTA rights arising from private sector hydroelectric generation in British Columbia

Written by Wendy R. Holm P.Ag.
Friday, 26 September 2008 11:07

t is a commonly held belief that the greatest risks to Canada’s water resources under NAFTA are related to exports. In fact, the more immediate area of public policy concern is not water exports but water use in Canada by firms that are American or have US investors.

Private sector firms issued water licenses by government – be it for hydroelectric generation or for snowmaking – hold NAFTA rights far superior to any rights held by Canadians if those firms are American or have American investors.

Investment Provisions of the NAFTA

Investor rights – which trump conflicting provincial legislation - include the right to national treatment and compensation for losses to investment, profits, markets and goodwill if those rights are expropriated by the Government of Canada or any province

For many years, I and others have held up Alberta’s oil patch as the clearest example of water rights arising from domestic takings. Whether by water flooding (conventional oil and gas drilling) or by deep steam injection (extracting bitumen from the oil sands), water used by US firms (or firms with American investors) for energy extraction in Alberta’s oil patch is covered by NAFTA.

In a paper published in The University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review March 9, 2007, Joseph Cumming and Robert Froehlich examine in detail the effect of NAFTA on Alberta’s ability to use regulation as a public policy measures to protect its water resources.

Assuming a cutback in water use due to extended drought mandated under the Alberta Water Act, the authors present a case law review of relevant NAFTA Chapter XI Tribunals (Ethyl Corporation, SunBelt, Pope and Talbot, Metalclad, SD Meyers and Methanex) then go on to look at the success of a potential compensation claim by American firms whose investments in energy extraction suffer as a result of reduced access to the province’s water resources. Their conclusion:

“... the Government of Alberta, and therefore the Government of Canada, may face difficult financial consequences if the Director suspends or cancels a water license for environmental protection purposes. There are strong arguments available to a US investor that support the position that a cancellation or suspension of a water license is an indirect expropriation, or a measure tantamount to an expropriation, thereby resulting in substantial compensation being payable. In the case of an oil sands operation that is shut down as a result of a loss of its water license… a successful Chapter XI claim could be exceptionally high. Consider the loss of capital expenditures, the nullification of past expenditures, and the lost marketability of the future oil production.”

And while Canada could attempt to “settle” such suits before they reach a NAFTA panel, this “may allow environmental legislation and regulation to survive, but would do so at a tremendous cost” requiring Canada to, in effect, “purchase its environmental sovereignty by settling its way out of Chapter XI claims.”

Arguing the presence of external pressure by foreign investors undoubtedly constrains Canada’s ability to enforce its environmental policy, the authors go on to note:

“...the implications for Canadian environmental sovereignty in this circumstance are clear. A private investor could essential force the hand of a Canadian legislative body. A US investor, who is not accountable to the Canadian public and who may have no concern for the Canadian environment, could potentially influence how internal Canadian environmental policy and legislation is treated. As a result of the potential for a significant compensation award to be issued, a single US investor, through the threat of use of a Chapter XI claim, may be able to cause Canadian legislation to be altered or even repealed.”

To read the full review, click on this link: Cumming, Joseph and Robert Froehlich. NAFTA Chapter XI and Canada’s Environmental Sovereignty: Investment Flows, Article 1110 and Alberta’s Water Act, The University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review March 9, 2007.

Implications of NAFTA Investment Provisions on Hydro Privatization in BC

There is no difference between water used for bitumen extraction, water used for hydroelectric production, or water used to make snow for a ski hill. When the entity holding rights to Canada’s water is American or has American investors, all such takings are covered by NAFTA.

NAFTA investment defenses would trump (and, experts fear, eventually influence the direction of) provincial and federal environmental laws. Even when water licenses are reduced or cancelled on a non-discriminatory basis, for a public purpose, and pursuant to provincial legislation, they give rise to NAFTA claims for compensation under Chapter 11.

The result is an erosion of Canadian policy sovereignty and a denigration of the rights of Canadian communities vis a vis foreign investors.

This risk is unacceptably high when the commodity in question is water.


:purefury: NAFTA is the partner of the private sector, but it completely screws over citizens and the commonweal.
Where oh where’d my body go?
Africa or Mexico?
Where or where’d my body go?
Where’d my body go?
Have you seen my ghost?
Staring at the ground?
Have you seen my ghost?
Sick of those *bleep* clouds

Return to “B.C. Provincial Election 2009”