Privatization of B.C's Rivers !!!!!!!

[Kraft]

Please read this, I recieved this Email sent to Vancouver Angling and Game Association (a fishing club I belong to) .....
To All ,
I do not know if you are aware of this fact so I am sending out emails to those that might have an interest. The BC Gov't is trying to enact Bill 30 and contained within this Bill is clause 56 which will privatize 535 rivers in British Columbia. On Monday this Bill goes to the committee stage. One of the companies that will be in charge of a river is BC Transmission Corp. This is a total outrage, firstly to privatize a River but to allow companies to run a river is a staggering thought. Imagine if Alcan was one of the companies and the raminification this could have on all peoples of this province. I hope you will take a few minutes and either pass this email along or write your own letter to your MLA and express your dissatifaction with this.

Bob Ashton
VP ILWU Canada (International Longshoreand Warehouse Union)

This E-mail was recieved by me on May 15 /2006

 

[scottyboy]

wow thats crazy stuff , how in the heck would they manage the rivers???i.e fish cops???the raping . i just don`t get . this is government ???

 

[Mr. Dean]

Is there a link that could be posted to get all the info? Maybe a govt anouncement?

 

[falkor]

Wow is right! I didn't think anyone would ever consider mining gravel out of a major salmon producing river. Now this. Is there a link to this

Thanks for the heads up

Falkor

 

[Time]

Here is the link to Bill 30, Spring Session, 2006
No clause 56?
What's this about?

http://www.legis.gov.bc.ca/38th2nd/3rd_read/gov30-3.htm

Also could not find an Ashton in ILWU executive.

Who is Kraft?

 

[falkor]

Afternoon Gentelmen

Time you are right, there is no reference to "56" found anywhere.With somthing of this scope and magnitude you would think it would also be on every newpaper headline from the UK to Japan. I hope this is only a bad Joke on sombodys part.

Falkor

 

[scottyboy]

hopefully a joke [B)]

 

[alley cat]

There is no "56" as it were and as a retired Local Union President I called up our National Office and asked for an investigation and report on the purported Exec member of the ILWU and they came back empty on possibilities of the person.
I made some other calls to retired ILWU members and called in some old markers to see if there is such a person...........zip known...............draw your own conclusions gents.


AL

 

[Zek]

A couple of cracks occur in kinder, gentler facade

Vaughn Palmer
Vancouver Sun

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

<snip>

Not many happenings in our tamer-than-it-used-to-be legislature can compare to Corky Evans in full rhetorical flight.

"This is the dumbest thing you could do," he blasted the government one day last week.

"This is community against colonialism. This legislation will take away any bargaining power from the community forever. We're talking about wrecking something beautiful, something in your heart. . . .

"They are using the power of the fountain pen to steal from people any say they might have over the land base in which they live."

The reference to "steal" brought a complaint about unparliamentary language. Evans changed it to "borrow forever."

The occasion for this outburst?

A single clause, amounting to a dozen or so lines, put forward by the government as an amendment to the Utilities Act.

The Liberals said it was needed to "clarify" that local government can't use zoning to prevent electrical generation projects from going ahead on provincial Crown land.

Not a hypothetical possibility.

The change was prompted by the efforts of the Squamish-Lillooet regional district to prevent a privately backed power project on the Ashlu River.

The B.C. Liberals say the law was already clear that local zoning can't be used to prevent mining, forestry, oil and gas or other resource developments on Crown land. BC Hydro is specifically exempted for its power projects as well.

But there was no such treatment for independent power projects backed by a private company.

The amendment supplies the exemption, provided the projects are on Crown land.

The government will still consult local government. But there'd be no absolute veto for municipalities or regional districts.

This, as the Liberals see it, will remove one potential roadblock in a process already subject to myriad approvals.

The projects would still have to meet federal and provincial environment standards, as well as getting a go-ahead from the utilities commission.

For the Opposition, house leader Mike Farnworth characterized the measure as "the Local Government Is a Conceit We Can No Longer Afford Act -- because that is the effect."

Other critics have accused the government of acting in league with "the forces of darkness" -- to which the Liberals responded that darkness was more likely to be the result of not building new power projects.

Evans, for his part, accused the Liberals of "shoving it down people's throats."

The protests notwithstanding, the change -- section 56 of Bill 30 -- received final approval late Monday.

It did not make the list when the New Democrats lobbied government to hold back what they regarded as the most objectionable measures still on the order paper for this session.

The Liberals agreed to backburner three of the four measures.

In return, the New Democrats agreed the rest of the government's agenda could be disposed of "in a timely fashion" -- section 56 included.

vpalmer@direct.ca

© The Vancouver Sun 2006

 

[OldBlackDog]

If there was a law that Fish had a right to water this would not fly.
However they have no right to water and neither government is going to do anything about that.

Have you people looked at the mining rights on rivers?
Wait till they start doing this and you will not believe your eyes.

 

[5-Salt Fever]

Who sponsers this kind of legislation??? It borders on criminal for cripe sakes.

They ought lynch the bastards who even introduced this legislation.