I do a weekly little radio spot called the Political Panel with Erin Chutter on the “right”, Moe Sihota, president of the BC NDP on the “left” and me God knows where. Moe and I had a bit of a dustup some weeks ago about the Environmental Assessment Hearings in the province which he, when Environment Minister, set up. He praised them if not to the skies, pretty high and I said, essentially, that they were a farce.

In support of his position (after I’d declared that they hadn’t turned down a single private power project) he retorted the Klenaklini project had been kyboshed whereas in fact that wasn’t so – it had been turned down not for any environmental reason but because their proposed transmission lines and roads went through a park. My point isn’t criticism of Moe – he agreed, upon consideration, that I was right. The reason none have been turned down for environmental reasons is that this is not the purpose of the hearings! The hearings are after the approval has been given in principle and the question becomes the terms of reference for subsequent deliberations by technical people.

Well, you might say, doesn’t that mean that they project could still be turned down?

Technically, yes – but it’s not likely to happen and hasn’t happened yet. It’s now in the realm of politics for the approval is now in cabinet’s hands and all the panel can do is make recommendations and since the man in charge in the process is a Gordon (Pinocchio) Campbell appointment, you feel, even if your can’t prove it, that punches will always be pulled.

The companies that have made applications are also, in most cases, political donors of some importance to the BC Liberal Party. What does happen, if things do get a little dicey, is that the company is asked to go back to the drawing board and come up with a “mitigation” plan. This is what happened with Taseko Mines and Fish Lake. The “mitigation” for destroying a lake and 75,000 trout is that the company would build an artificial lake and throw some trout in it! I need hardly say that this is scarcely mitigation; it’s a cheap cop-out.

It used to be that a municipal body could decide whether or not to zone for a private power project and while that was unsatisfactory, since it didn’t deal with environmental concerns thoroughly, it was something and the one time I know it was used was when, a few years ago, the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District held hearings all over the district into the question of zoning for the Ashlu River project. They turned it down and the Campbell government promptly passed legislation taking away from local governments their power to zone for these projects.

(The Ashlu is a good example for it’s a horror story which can be visited by Lower Mainland citizens quite easily. It was billed as a “small project”, genuine run-of river, and “a weir not a dam”. See for yourself, when the plant is running, how much water is left in the river.)

I have attended several of these Environmental Assessment meetings and they are essentially put on by the company which invariably holds them at an inconvenient time and place. One such effort was amusing to say the least. The company wanted to avoid the largest population center in the area, Nelson, so held it in Kaslo where more people showed than there are people who live there!

The meetings are chaired by an employee of the Ministry in conjunction with the company. It may seem a little thing, but appearances are important; the chair and the company person(s)  can often be seen having dinner and/or cocktails together.

Members of the public can speak but only on the questions of what the terms of reference for the technical panel will be. Any questions about the advisability of the project are ruled out of order with two exceptions – the company spokesperson can take as long as they want to extol its virtues as can a First Nations chief if his band has been adequately rewarded.

It’s a demonstrable farce.

It all raises a fundamental question – if the public can make their views known on whether a building should be built, or a certain store chain build a store, why the hell can’t they have a say as to whether of not destruction of their river should take place?

It’s this question that haunts the process, will always haunt the process, and why BC will soon have civil disobedience if the public continue to be denied their say.

I hate to sound ungracious towards our friends and neighbours by asking that question but it’s occurred to me quite often and I, for one, would like an answer.

With fish farms, what the hell is in it for us with them?

Over 90% of the farms are foreign owned and none of them is owned in BC. The license fees we collect are like a handful of sand is to Vancouver’s beaches. Our wild salmon are destroyed, the environment desecrated and the loot all goes to big companies and their shareholders, mostly in Norway. Furthermore, because these companies are from out of province they don’t give a fiddler’s fart how much damage they do.

Jobs?

A few caretakers and that’s it.

We take all the risks, we take the certain environmental losses and they get all the money!

Whoops, I forgot that there is a BC beneficiary – the Liberal Party of BC, G. (Pinocchio) Campbell, prop.

With pipelines shipping oil from the Tar Sands through pipelines to Kitimat for passage through our waters – what the hell is in it for us?

The oil comes from Alberta so that only the Alberta and Federal governments get any royalties and other taxes. We run the many real risks in taking this filthy stuff over our province, through our delicate habitat, then shipping it down the most treacherous part of our coast and get nothing for it!

We have to do the policing for sabotage, terrorist attack or plain misadventure since Enbridge sure isn’t going to. And on their track record, who would want them to be our watchdogs?

When the damage is done – and it will happen – we’ll have to bear the cost since Enbridge sure isn’t BP and a big loss would probably bankrupt them.

These questions apply to the oil presently being piped down to tankers in Burrard Inlet putting not only Vancouver Harbour at risk but all the BC coastline they sail past.

Moreover, as with fish farms, these companies are from out of province and don’t give a damn for our environment.

What’s in that for us?

Some rent for the right-of-way?

Jobs?

Sure there will be employment to build the line but that’s short term and most of those jobs will be from out of province.

We take all the risks and they get the dough!

Whoops! I forgot Pinocchio and his trained seals (See “whoops” above for details.)

Independent Power Producers (IPPs) are building their dams (they prefer we call them weirs) on rivers all over the province to make electricity.

What the hell’s in it for us?

These are all large offshore companies that take the profits while we inherit buggered up rivers. But it’s worse, Not only do we lose our rivers, we pay for these dams because our provincial company, BC Hydro, owned by me and thee, is forced to pay these IPPs double what their power can be sold for. Since IPPs don’t make electricity unless their river is flowing quickly, as in the run-off when BC Hydro doesn’t need it, Hydro must export it at a huge loss! Our loss as citizen/shareholders!

We don’t need their power, indeed can’t even use it, we finance their plants by making Hydro give them sweetheart deals, we get a fast bankrupting BC Hydro and the money all goes to non BC shareholders like Warren Buffett and General Electric!

What’s in it for us?

Whoops again! (See above re Pinocchio and his lickspittles).

We’re chumps! Marks! Rubes playing Three Card Monte at the fair! We’re being robbed blind then we beg for more!

Think on this, gentle readers – we’re taking a three way financial hit and a huge three pronged attack on our environment, be it our salmon, our rivers, our harbours, our coastline and our wild habitat and, through our government, we’re begging for more!

But I predict a change, an awakening of the people. When the Premier and the Attorney-General instructed Crown Counsel to ask for a life sentence for Betty Krawczyk for disobeying a court order to cease demonstrating, using two violent pedophile cases to back it up, it touched a lot of nerves. A life sentence for an 82 year old for protesting an environmental desecration? Likening it to sexual violation of kids? What has this government come to?

There will be civil disobedience in BC and it won’t be pretty. We’ve been lied to enough. Our heritage is bring ripped apart not with government consent but at its request.

I’m not calling for civil disobedience – I’m saying it will come because this disgraceful government has asked, no begged for it.

The basic flaw is that at these “public hearings” the public are not permitted to question the need for the project in the first place. A Ms Kathy Eichenberger chairs these meetings and simply won’t let a word be said about whether we need the project – unless, of course, you’re a spokesman for the company. I went to a number of hearings on the Bute Inlet project and was called out of order every time I spoke as did hundreds of outraged citizens. Don McInnes, the president of Plutonic Power, the company, however, could talk as long as he wished about the merits of the proposal, give power point presentations – whatever he wished.

It’s also interesting to note the chummy socializing Ms Eichenberger and the Plutonic Power folks indulge in.

All right – pause and take a deep breath. The government, which is supposed to be neutral in this process, has sent a delegation abroad to promote private power projects and who do you suppose is part of that Committee?

None other than Kathy Eichenberger of the Environmental Assessment Office!

At the same time Ms Eichenberger is the primary contact for Stlixwim Hydro/NI Hydro Holdings proposal for a private power plant that will impact every remaining alpine lake and stream in the Tyson Lake vicinity of Narrows Inlet on the Sunshine Coast.

Let me make this clear – if Ms Eichenberger wants to be the chair of meetings where she is employed by one side, that’s for her and her conscience to deal with. I allege no criminal acts whatsoever. What I say is this:

How the Hell can two governments appoint someone to be an independent chair when she has conflicts of interest you could run one of those monster trucks that screws up our rivers through?

And how can the provincial government appoint an “independent” chair to join a committee whose only business is to shill for the very companies she’s supposed to be independent of?

Every day in every way this government shows itself to be utterly devoid of any moral compass.

The polls showing Premier Campbell in deep doo-doo came out before the Site “C” decision. God only knows what the results would have been if they had been taken afterwards.

Site “C” demonstrates beyond doubt that Campbell hasn’t been telling the truth in two critical areas of his energy policy. B.C. is NOT a net importer of power which is the fundament of that policy. BC Hydro is sometimes, though not always. Moreover, counted as imports is the energy it buys abroad at low use times and re-sells in peak periods. It can do this because it can “store” energy as water in a reservoir. This isn’t importing — it’s flipping, and at a nice profit too. You would think that Campbell and his crowd would know something about flipping.

The fact is that BC Hydro is not the only provider of energy in B.C., and when you include — as you must — energy produced by Alcan, Teck Cominco and Fortis, British Columbia is a net exporter of power.

Of more concern ought to be the Campbell government’s mantra that private power will be used by British Columbia to make it energy “secure.” This is plain and simply a falsehood, a falsehood the mainstream media simply can’t grasp.

This is key, for if private power was needed for our own vital needs that would be a very serious matter, and the debate about damming our rivers would be different. The egregious nature of this falsehood can easily be seen thusly: the power to be produced by two large private “run of river” projects, the Bute Inlet and KlinaKilni projects, is considerably more than can be produced by Site “C.” So why isn’t Campbell fast tracking these undertakings, thus avoiding the need to do Site “C”?

Because they can only produce their power during the run-off when BC Hydro doesn’t need it.

In short, when Gordon Campbell told us that the decision to give our rivers away was so that private power could help us be energy sufficient in 2016, the truth was otherwise.

If you needed more proof of this, Site “C” provides it once and for all.

Why Campbell’s plummet won’t hurt Libs

Now to the polls.

At first blush they look terrible for the Liberals, but in fact, while they’re terrible for Gordon Campbell, they are a blessing in disguise for the party. Campbell doesn’t give a damn because he’ll quit next year or maybe the next at the latest and no doubt be offered a lot of money on boards of directors of energy companies — he’s earned it. For the party, however, the numbers bode well, if in a back-handed sort of way.

Carole James, despite the brave assertions of Moe Sihota, the NDP president, can’t win the next election unless the Greens and/or a new party split the vote. Given a couple of years before the May 2013 election, under a new leader the Liberals, while they won’t be rid of Campbell’s corrosive stain could, given the right leader, win again.

James’s problem is that she’s too nice and too decent for politics which, especially in British Columbia, is a blood sport. When she took her seat in the House as leader of the opposition, she wanted to improve the atmosphere — make things more grown-up and polite, you might say. However noble and admirable that was, it betrayed her ignorance of how the system works.

It’s really simple. Under our system, backbench MLAs on both sides are political eunuchs. Former U.S. speaker of the house Sam Rayburn said, “To get along, you must go along,” and sadly that’s the truth of the matter. I’m not saying that backbenchers don’t ask tough questions at caucus meetings — I’m sure they still do as they did eons ago when I was there. In the end, however, they do precisely what they’re told.

How the blood sport is played

Why do you think that government MLAs always vote for their government’s bills?

If they don’t, not only will they never make cabinet, or parliamentary secretary or even the sinecure known as the “Whip,” they risk being thrown out of the caucus and even the party.

The importance of what I’ve just said is this — the only purpose of the legislative chamber is for the opposition to spill blood figuratively instead of actually.

Good oppositions hold the government’s feet to the fire. They try to divide the government; they try to embarrass them. They want the media to show the public what idiots the government and especially the cabinet are. (You would think that would be easy with this lot in power.)

In that sense they have more freedom to make their mark with these two provisos — if they do so other than what the leader wants, they’re writing themselves out of a future cabinet, and while it may be fun to bray at the government, it’s not much food for the soul.

The object of the leader of the opposition is not to make the House a safe place for little school children to be, but to make the government sweat.

It’s to her great credit as a person that Carole James can’t do this, but it’s the death knell for her as a leader.

Premier Watts?

The Liberals will have a leadership contest in May of 2011 and they will elect Diane Watts, mayor of Surrey, as leader, and failing that, Mike DeJong the attorney-general.

Diane Watts will be preferred in a woman-to-woman fight, plus she’ll be able to say, “I’m not responsible for that horror story called the Campbell government and just look at what a wonderful mayor I’ve been.”

I hope I’m wrong. Carole James as premier would probably do a decent job — it’s not as if she has a tough act to follow.

The problem is she has to get there first and I don’t think she can do it.

“Run of River, better stated as private power initiatives, will not supply power to BC Hydro because it produces its power during the run-off when BC Hydro doesn’t need it!”

This is the question Premier Campbell must now answer -

Now you have admitted that private power will not be going for BC consumption but for export, and now that you’ve approved Site “C” to produce power for our use, will the private rivers policy, which destroys our rivers to supply power in the United States, be ended with no new licenses to be issued?

by Marvin Shaffer

Every now and again you read something so outrageous you have to laugh. So it is with the report recently released by BC Citizens for Clean Energy: A Triple Legacy for Future Generations.

The essence of this lobby group’s proposal is that the government should develop an export policy for green energy targeting up to 17000 MW of exports by 2016, an amount greater than the size of BC Hydro’e entire existing hydroelectric system. Then it wants to target for more than double that amount of exports by 2036. And the legacy they offer if this is done:

• secure supply of renewable energy
• substantial reductions in climate change impacts
• the elimination of B.C. tax-supported debt within 15 years or less and eventually even the elimination of the provincial sales tax (or presumably the provincial component of the impending HST).

The promised legacies are, of course, nonsense. Committing all that energy potential to export won’t enhance B.C.’s security of supply.  It is the export of privately-developed, privately-owned power this group wants government to promote. BC Hydro couldn’t use that power itself when the power is committed to export; it would  just be the conduit making the development and exports happen.

Nor will the export sales substantially reduce climate change impacts. It will be the greenhouse gas targets adopted in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere that will determine how much GHG emissions will be reduced and potential climate change impacts avoided. Greater green energy exports from B.C. may affect how U.S. targets are met, but they certainly won’t determine what those targets are.

As for the elimination of B.C.’s tax-supported debt — that is so fanciful one hardly knows what to say. The facts are exactly the opposite. The export plan BC Citizens want the government to implement would be a financial disaster.

The key element of the plan is that BC Hydro or its trading subsidiary Powerex would buy all of the power IPPs can develop in the province (after streamlined environmental review), paying high enough prices so the projects could be financed, built and profitably operated. BC Hydro would then provide all the back-up, shaping, and transmission services needed to be able to sell the power to export customers and receive whatever price it could negotiate.

Notwithstanding the heroic (but grossly incomplete and fundamentally flawed) numbers put forward by BC Citizens, there is no reason to believe BC Hydro could do this at a profit, let alone the multi-billion dollar annual profit BC Citizens suggest.  The amount BC Hydro would have to pay the IPPs to develop all of these green energy resources, plus the transmission and other costs it would incur and alternative trading opportunities it would forego would in all likelihood greatly exceed the amount it could get from the export sales, even with whatever renewable and other green energy credits it could secure.

Maybe BC Citizens just got the sign wrong. Silly mistake — it would be a loss of billions, not a gain that BC could expect.

BC Citizens reasonably ask the question: if we export lumber, non-renewable minerals and metals, why shouldn’t we export green energy. That however is not the issue here. The issue is why should government force BC Hydro to buy power it doesn’t need (in extraordinarily excessive amounts), supply all of the services the IPP sellers don’t have, and take all of the market risk of exports.

If the numbers are so good, why don’t the IPPs buy the services they need and export the power themselvers. After all, that is what the forest and mining firms do, and pretty well everyone else who exports goods or services from B.C.

BC Citizens aren’t looking for an energy export policy that is in the broad public interest. They are looking for a government handout of breathtaking proportions, covered by the green umbrella that apparently can make even the most outlandish proposals seemingly more palatable.

IPPs already have a lot with the costly policies in the BC Energy Plan. What their lobby group is telling us in this report is that they want more — a lot more!

Original article

The proponent, Bute Hydro Inc., recently indicated that additional field work and analysis would be conducted in the spring and fall of 2010 before it will be in a position to submit its environmental impact statement. In light of this new information, the timelines for the review panel process will be substantially delayed.

The participant funding process will be re-initiated when the proponent is in a position to confirm a timeline for the submission of its environmental impact statement. At that time, an announcement will be made with the revised funding amounts and the deadline to submit applications. Current applicants will have an opportunity to revise and resubmit their applications for consideration at that time.

The Agency announced in May 2009 the availability of $250,000 under its Participant Funding Program to assist groups and individuals to participate in the environmental review for the Bute Inlet Hydroelectric Project.

Information on the Participant Funding Program, the proposed project and on the environmental assessment process is available on the Agency’s Web site at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca, registry number 09-05-44825.

Bute Hydro Inc. is proposing to construct 17 run-of-river hydroelectric facilities in the vicinity of Bute Inlet. Major components in addition to the generating facilities include a substation near the mouth of Southgate River, associated access roads and ancillary works, 216 km of 230 kV collector transmission line and 227 km of 500 kV trunk transmission line from the proposed substation near the mouth of Southgate River to the existing 500 kV substation at Malaspina.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency administers the federal environmental assessment process, which identifies the environmental effects of proposed projects and measures to address those effects, in support of sustainable development.

For further information: media may contact: Annie Roy, Manager, Communications, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Tel.: (613) 957-0396

KAREN HOWLETT
Globe and Mail
Jan. 08, 2010

Ontario has a power problem.

A strategy to subsidize the province’s nascent green energy industry is
starting to sting businesses and many households that find themselves
paying the biggest markups on electricity pricing in the country.

Even as electricity demand – and market prices – dropped last year with
the global economic downturn, electricity bills have risen steadily on the
back of generous contracts signed by the province’s power planning agency.
Now, the government of Premier Dalton McGuinty is preparing for a looming
political backlash.

What’s at stake is an industrial strategy that’s on a collision course
with a century-old policy of delivering electricity to consumers at the
lowest possible cost. After the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in
the manufacturing heartland, Mr. McGuinty vowed to create more than 50,000
new ones through the Green Energy Act. But he is building this new sector
- and burnishing his green credentials – by ratcheting up electricity
costs.

The average market price for electricity in Ontario is at its lowest level
since the market was opened up in 2002. It was 3.3 cents a kilowatt hour
yesterday, compared with a record high average of 9.97 cents in September,
2005. But customers are not reaping the benefits of lower prices because
the government is recovering the cost of new projects from power users.

The government is luring green-energy investors with the promise of
generous long-term contracts that include a guaranteed revenue stream.
Every time a new deal is inked with a gas-fired plant, a wind farm or
solar-panel manufacturer, the costs go up for customers. During several
months last year, rates for large industrial users jumped nearly 20 per
cent. The question emerging is whether this is politically sustainable.

The government is sitting on a “political time bomb,” said Toronto energy
lawyer Peter Murphy. “While renewable energy is a great thing for the
environment, it’s also expensive.”

Mr. McGuinty’s government began eyeing the development of new, clean
energy sources in 2006, when the province was facing a shortage of
electricity. He intrinsically linked the province’s economic fortunes to
combatting climate change, saying it is not a matter of choosing between
prosperity and the environment.

Former energy minister George Smitherman was the driving force behind the
strategy, pushing renewable energy projects with little regard for cost,
according to industry sources. He resigned to run for mayor of Toronto,
leaving his successor, Gerry Phillips, to deal with the fallout from that
strategy.

Mr. Phillips is acutely aware that electricity prices are a growing issue.

“We are not as clear as we need to be about the price of the production of
electricity,” he said in an interview.

Ontario does not have the highest electricity costs on the continent, but
it stands out for the gap between the market price of power and the price
charged to consumers. Toronto ranked in the middle of the pack among North
American cities, according to a study of consumer prices done by
Hydro-Québec last April. But industry observers say prices will increase
substantially in Ontario over the next two years as the cost of higher
priced renewable energy flows through to consumers.

The Ontario Power Authority, the government’s planning arm, says it
managed 47 large-scale electricity supply contracts worth a total of
$14.1-billion last year. Contract holders receive a fixed price over 20
years for the electricity they produce – 13.5 cents a kilowatt hour for
on-shore wind farms and up to 80.2 cents for solar power. While wind and
solar make up only a small portion of electricity supply today, the rates
are well above the average of 4.5 cents that government-owned Ontario
Power Generation receives for most of its electricity output.

“Somebody has to pay the price of subsidizing an energy policy that this
government seems bent on pursuing for largely political reasons as opposed
to energy supply,” said Ontario Progressive Conservative energy critic
John Yakabuski.

Electricity consumers pay for these contracts through what is called a
global adjustment – which covers the difference between the market price
for electricity and the rates paid to companies under the guaranteed
revenue contracts. As the market price falls, the global adjustment rises.
The global adjustment averaged 2.91 cents a kilowatt hour in 2009, on top
of 3.16 cents for the electricity itself.

Adam White, president of the Association of Major Power Consumers in
Ontario, said the situation is not sustainable because it will leave
companies paying higher rates than competitors in other jurisdictions.

For most residential consumers, the cost of the global adjustment is
hidden because it is rolled into the electricity rate set by the
province’s energy regulator, one that has risen only modestly in recent
years.

But homeowners who signed contracts with electricity retailers are getting
hit hard. Retailers are now passing on the global adjustment, which is not
included in the contracted fixed rate for electricity. A typical customer
who used 1,000 kilowatts of power in December would have paid an extra
$38.

Environment Minister Barry Penner and other officials at controversial Harrison Lake run-of-river project

Far be it from me to ruin the happy tune, but here are three key questions.

I can hear it now… Tom Jones is telling us about stepping off the train… the old house is still standing… there’s his Momma and his Poppa… and of course sweet Mary with hair of gold and lips like cherry… how good it will be to touch the green, green grass of home. At that point you’re feeling all warm and fuzzy about this cat — but then, it happens. It’s all a dream, and he’s about to be fried in the electric chair.

This reminds me of Premier Campbell. Spin a good story and hope that no one wants to hear the last stanzas or asks what really happened (which would be unlikely to make the mainstream media anyway). Now, I don’t say that women take their panties off and fling them at him when the premier sings — but still the style’s the same.

In his speech to the Independent Power Producers (IPP) Mr. Campbell produced — big time. Even more rivers are going to be ruined. Even more corporate despoilers will be amongst us. Even more money will go from you and me to the shareholders of corporate America. An even bigger burden will be placed on BC Hydro as it must pay more and more money for power it must accept on a “take or pay” basis, and then sold for half the amount that was paid for it.

Those poor frustrated IPPs

I just love this line, don’t you? “IPPs have been frustrated at times by protracted sales contract negotiations with BC Hydro, which have made it challenging to attract investor support for their projects.” Imagine our company — the power company that B.C. citizens own — bargaining hard for us so that we only have to pay the despoilers double what our energy is worth! Gadfrey Daniel! That is indeed frustrating when you were expecting those cash donations to the Liberal party to produce triple or quadruple.

I wouldn’t want anyone to get the notion that Mr. Campbell isn’t consulting people, because he is. He’s consulting all the corporations who have a piece of the action and want more, and with any more newcomers who want to do their charity work for us in this distant paradise whose government is clamoring to be stripped of its water, bears, birds, trees and money so that it can feed these corporate sharks as they keep California swimming pools warm and air conditioners cool.

We will not have one, two or three task forces — count ‘em — we’ll have four. They’ll all be safe and sound under the tent of the Green Energy Advisory Task Force that Premier Campbell promised last August.

Bye bye BC Utilities Commission

There is yet another dollop for the independent power thieves. The BC Utilities Commission (BCUC), which has made such a nuisance of itself by standing up for public values that it threatens to stop progress just because it isn’t what the public wants, is getting tubed.

Imagine those churlish cretins at the BC Utilities Commission daring to say that the Independent Power Producers’ sacred legacy — the BC Energy Plan they did so much to produce — is not in the public interest! Talk about trivial reasons! Any right-thinking British Columbian knows that with Gordon Campbell standing up for us and our rights, no one needs bureaucratic nuisances like the BCUC messing things up for Warren Buffett and General Electric who are bent on doing so many wonderful things for us!

(By the way, as far as BC Hydro Chairman Bob Elton being replaced, surely no one thinks that its because he was saying things that Gordon Campbell didn’t want people to hear! Perish the thought.)

You will be comforted to know that these task forces will be reporting to notorious wild-eyed environmentalists like Environment Minister Barry Penner and Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom, plus the hand-picked chairmen of BC Hydro and the BC Transmission Corporation. Jeez, if those four toadies… sorry… learned gentlemen… and the premier can’t be trusted to stand up for us, who can we trust? As the line in that wonderful musical of the fifties, Lil Abner, goes: “The country’s in the very best of hands.”

You in the back, be quiet!

Now I hope you aren’t being picky and complaining that no one’s going to ask you or your neighbours, the rabble of the province, what you think. Or to think that opinions should be sought from scientists who might, by asking pointed questions, throw some cold water on this entire balls-up… er, project. Our “Leader,” Kim il-Gordo, says this is no place for controversial opinions. “Let’s get on with it” must be our watchwords.

Did I hear someone in the back complain that the ignorant masses didn’t even have anything to say about the premier’s energy policy when he and Alcan were sorting out the details? And is someone whimpering about how Mr. Campbell took away the right of municipalities to zone for these grand rapes… er, projects for our rivers and streams? Don’t you understand that we must all pull together behind our leader? After all, didn’t almost 25 per cent of us vote for him last May?

I have to make a confession. I’m one of those from the old school who can’t stop asking questions. I have many questions stored up from my time as spokesperson for the Save Our Rivers Society and from scientists I have interviewed. I know that time is short and we must start silting up, diverting and killing our rivers and their ecosystems as soon as possible, so I’ll just confine my queries to these.

Question 1. In light of the fact that the vast majority of private power is created during the run-off when BC Hydro doesn’t need it, doesn’t this mean that nearly all of it will be there for export by BC Hydro at far less than they paid for it? Isn’t it true, to get to the meat of the matter, that the vast majority of private power will not be for our use here in B.C., where the wreckage takes place, but outside our borders?

Question 2. Doesn’t this mean that BC Hydro will have one of two choices — go bankrupt, or make up its losses by raising rates for B.C. industry, business and the public — with, of course, the business and industrial rate increases passed on to us, the general public?

Question 3. Forgive me premier, just one more inquiry. Your old colleague Ralph Klein, ex-premier of Alberta, left office to get a big cushy position in the international energy field, making boodles of money, in part here in B.C. Is something like that waiting for you and your loyal colleagues?

Just thought I’d ask.

Postscript: Elegy for TALK 1410

The flameout of Vancouver’s TALK 1410AM radio is good news for the Campbell government as it removes — let’s pray not for too long — the voice of Simi Sara, who was the hope of all of us who yearn for the return of real talk radio to our airwaves. Sorely missed, as well, will be Dave Brindle from the same station, whose show held big power accountable by combining intelligent muckraking and fresh thinking.

Click here to listen to an MP3 clip of Rafe’s final appearance on November 2. The topics of discussion are Burrard Thermal, river privatization projects, and MP Peter Julian’s call for an independent judicial inquiry into the collapse of the Fraser River sockeye.