babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

The Fracking BC Liberals are Sucking Us Dry

103 replies [Last post]

Comments

KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

distraction removed


Brian White
Offline
Joined: Jan 26 2005

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb4plFTo5zk Canadian fracking in the USA does us proud.


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

KenS wrote:
Fortunately its not just up to the government of Quebec.

Amen - there's a burgeoning movement here on shale gas and it must keep its mobilization and vigilance up.

Quote:
But the moratorium will end after the election, and I hope people don't pin their hopes on the PQ with this. Because Quebec is no better than the ROC: no political party is to be trusted when it comes to regulation of the resource industries. We have to work with them, but putting any faith in them is foolish.

Amen again.


Brian White
Offline
Joined: Jan 26 2005

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/18/GwynMorgan2/ Some more interesting fracking info in that article. I got a call from the Christie Clark campaign offering me a 4 year liberal membership for 10 bux.   Was that call and the super cheap membership (in a riding with very few liberal members, according to the caller)  paid for with frack money?


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

When the Quebec [very hedged] moratorium was announced, it was amusing to hear Lucien Bouchard and government officials saying that we need to do a better job of familiarizing Quebeckers with the oil industry, and how "of course" people are skittish given that lack of familiarity.

IE, we need to do a better PR job.

"Of course," they say, now. But that isn't hindsight, even about their PR job. Because they were getting the PR job they wanted, which is the same one we are getting in Nova Scotia: going about the business counting on people not paying attention. And absolute BS blandishments like "it isnt fracking," "we've been doing this for 60 years," "there are no chemicals being used here," and so on.

After the Quebec announcement, which is just after we started making more noise here, the Nova Scotia government and 'regulatroy' officials are now giving us both those contradictory narratives at the same time: not fracking, no chemicals, etc; while in meetings the Minister is saying 'we hear you' 'we will have to take a look' 'nothing is decided yet'. The 'look' they are taking being selective of course, but they try to spin it otherwise.


Northern Shoveler
Offline
Joined: Feb 17 2011

KenS wrote:

distraction removed

Nice passive aggressive behaviour. Thx


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

What is your problem?

I don't buy what you said in post#60. And I said so in post#61.

On second thought, the whole thing is a distraction from the issue, so I deleted it. And you call that 'passive aggresive behaviour' when I deleted it and simply let you have the last word. ???


Northern Shoveler
Offline
Joined: Feb 17 2011

You attacked me for what I said in a post and the post was not directed at you or too you.  You are not a moderator and your analysis of what I said and its relationship to babble policy was flawed. I don't like being lectured by the self righteous so bug off.  

I asked Roscoe about his posting history HERE not his commitment to activism in the general community.  One is allowed as far as I know and the other is frowned upon.  The reason you will never be a moderator is apparently you can't tell the difference .  So in the future leave me off of your list of people to lecture.


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

Unionist wrote:

Roscoe wrote:

I confess to utter ignorance to whatever you are on about. I don't pay much attention to Quebec. Whether or not the province proceeds with shale gas extraction is their concern, not mine but thank you for the update.

Ah, I see, so when I read this upthread:

Roscoe wrote:
Quebec has realised this and is taking benefit of BC's experiences to develop their own strategy.

... that was someone who had stolen your identity? Or you're just an arrogant bullshitter? See, I am allowing for an innocent explanation here.

If you genuinely know nothing about Québec, shutting up about it is a viable option.

 

Where did I say I know nothing about Quebec? I said I don't pay much attention to it. Just like I don't pay much attention to any other jurisdiction except for its relevance ot the gas industry.

Who are you to demand anything from anyone. Strutting about silencing anyone who dares to dispute your extremism? Self-important prat.


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Roscoe wrote:

Who are you to demand anything from anyone. Strutting about silencing anyone who dares to dispute your extremism? Self-important prat.

Be quiet, you pernicious pipsqueak! Silence, say I! Your speech is no longer to our taste! Open your mouth only to hold your tongue! What insipid incivility. My word!


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Unionist I am sure roscoe has some progressive views just not any on oil or gas or invading nations with oil or gas.  He is clearly a big oil booster on these subjects.  Tell me Roscoe in which threads do you discuss issues from a progressive perspective?

All of them. Check out my posts. I believe in progressive issues and I also believe that the largesse of our resources can pay for these issues.

'Progressives' never want to discuss the fact that without the productivity oil products like fuel and fertiliser have created, 40% of the world's population will starve. I asked George Victor for his opinion on this issue and he went silent -which is a considerable feat on his part.Smile

Look to the crises rising food costs and fuel prices have created for those without resources to pay for more and more expensive basics of life. Look at what rising energy costs are doing to those on fixed incomes in Canada.

Just because I'm not an extremist  or a muser of  abstract circular theory without even a modest effort at finding solutions does not mean I don't have a progressive interest in poverty reduction, affordable housing, equality or a host of other progressive issues.

 


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

Unionist wrote:

Roscoe wrote:

Who are you to demand anything from anyone. Strutting about silencing anyone who dares to dispute your extremism? Self-important prat.

Be quiet, you pernicious pipsqueak! Silence, say I! Your speech is no longer to our taste! Open your mouth only to hold your tongue! What insipid incivility. My word!

I see you have foregone consensus in favour of the royal 'we'. I am not surprised.


Northern Shoveler
Offline
Joined: Feb 17 2011

Roscoe wrote:

'Progressives' never want to discuss the fact that without the productivity oil products like fuel and fertiliser have created, 40% of the world's population will starve.

Just because I'm not an extremist  or a muser of  abstract circular theory without even a modest effort at finding solutions does not mean I don't have a progressive interest in poverty reduction, affordable housing, equality or a host of other progressive issues.

I guess it is your language throughout many of your posts that talks of other progressive voices in dismissive tones that confused me.

Tell me in three or four decades when the crack cocaine revenue stream is gone what is going to pay for the social services?  Tell me how this industry can be well regulated when government has less inspectors now with more wells?  Tell me who will pay the families compensation for the inevitable increases in cancer rates among people who will receive no direct benefit from the wells?

And tell me again how helping the poor can only be done through destroying the province and funnelling money through the coffers of multinational oil companies?

Here is a link to an "extremist" website and Ben says it better than I can.  Your bullshit that the shale oil process can be done without seriously harming the ecology and the people of the area is mindless corporate propaganda.  

Quote:

Early last year, an army of workers at a remote natural gas operation in northern British Columbia set a world record for hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” a procedure that is rapidly becoming the norm in the global gas industry.
 
They pumped nearly 400 Olympic swimming pools worth of water along with 500,000 kilograms of sand underground to fracture deeply buried shale rock, thereby releasing its trapped gas.
 
As fracking becomes more common, people living in natural gas-rich northeast BC are increasingly alarmed over the associated public health and safety risks.
 
The pressure at which water, sand and undisclosed chemicals is pumped belowground is so intense that it triggers tiny earthquakes. In using such brute force, unforeseen and unwelcome problems can — and do — surface elsewhere, problems that may include dangerous releases of gas containing hydrogen sulphide, also known as sour gas.
 
Long before fracking arrived on the scene, the health threats posed by chronic exposure to sour gas with low levels of hydrogen sulphide were well known and ran the gamut from irritated eyes to miscarriages. But it was the uncontrolled releases of gas containing 300 parts per million or more of hydrogen sulphide that filled people living in BC’s Peace River region with dread. Such releases killed or seriously injured industry workers; caused deaths, birth defects or miscarriages in cattle; forced people to abandon their homes by dead of night; and led at least one school district to station buses outside an elementary school in case sour gas escaped from a nearby well site, forcing an emergency evacuation.
 
These and other uncomfortable realities of living in the heart of BC’s natural gas development zone recently prompted a local citizens group — the Peace Environment and Safety Trustees Society (PESTS) — to call upon the provincial government to launch a formal inquiry under BC’s Health Act to delve into the health risks associated with sour gas. The justification for such an inquiry was laid out in chilling detail with the assistance of Calvin Sandborn, at the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Clinic, and Tim Thielmann, an environmental lawyer.


 

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/fracking-oil-no...


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Roscoe wrote:

'Progressives' never want to discuss the fact that without the productivity oil products like fuel and fertiliser have created, 40% of the world's population will starve.

Just because I'm not an extremist  or a muser of  abstract circular theory without even a modest effort at finding solutions does not mean I don't have a progressive interest in poverty reduction, affordable housing, equality or a host of other progressive issues.

I guess it is your language throughout many of your posts that talks of other progressive voices in dismissive tones that confused me.

I talk to those who misrepresent and twist my words in dismissive tones Misrepresentations like: "Your bullshit that the shale oil process can be done without seriously harming the ecology and the people of the area is mindless corporate propaganda".

Tell me in three or four decades when the crack cocaine revenue stream is gone what is going to pay for the social services?  Tell me how this industry can be well regulated when government has less inspectors now with more wells?  Tell me who will pay the families compensation for the inevitable increases in cancer rates among people who will receive no direct benefit from the wells?

And tell me again how helping the poor can only be done through destroying the province and funnelling money through the coffers of multinational oil companies?

Here is a link to an "extremist" website and Ben says it better than I can.  Your bullshit that the shale oil process can be done without seriously harming the ecology and the people of the area is mindless corporate propaganda.  

Ben's bullshit sensationalises data without any attempt at relevance in order to fearmonger to the uninformed. Similar to his phony 2920 olympic swimming pools of water bullshit.

Quote:

Early last year, an army of workers at a remote natural gas operation in northern British Columbia set a world record for hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” a procedure that is rapidly becoming the norm in the global gas industry.
 
They pumped nearly 400 Olympic swimming pools worth of water along with 500,000 kilograms of sand underground to fracture deeply buried shale rock, thereby releasing its trapped gas.
 
As fracking becomes more common, people living in natural gas-rich northeast BC are increasingly alarmed over the associated public health and safety risks.
 
The pressure at which water, sand and undisclosed chemicals is pumped belowground is so intense that it triggers tiny earthquakes. In using such brute force, unforeseen and unwelcome problems can — and do — surface elsewhere, problems that may include dangerous releases of gas containing hydrogen sulphide, also known as sour gas.
 
Long before fracking arrived on the scene, the health threats posed by chronic exposure to sour gas with low levels of hydrogen sulphide were well known and ran the gamut from irritated eyes to miscarriages. But it was the uncontrolled releases of gas containing 300 parts per million or more of hydrogen sulphide that filled people living in BC’s Peace River region with dread. Such releases killed or seriously injured industry workers; caused deaths, birth defects or miscarriages in cattle; forced people to abandon their homes by dead of night; and led at least one school district to station buses outside an elementary school in case sour gas escaped from a nearby well site, forcing an emergency evacuation.
 
These and other uncomfortable realities of living in the heart of BC’s natural gas development zone recently prompted a local citizens group — the Peace Environment and Safety Trustees Society (PESTS) — to call upon the provincial government to launch a formal inquiry under BC’s Health Act to delve into the health risks associated with sour gas. The justification for such an inquiry was laid out in chilling detail with the assistance of Calvin Sandborn, at the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Clinic, and Tim Thielmann, an environmental lawyer.


 

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/commentary/fracking-oil-no...

Here's a direct quote of what I do have to say from post 3 above:

"I'm not making any judgement whether it is good or bad, merely pointing out that the use of misleading optics does not lend legitimacy to criticism of the issue." For a chap that doesn't appreciate others putting words in his mouth, you don't seem to have the same reticence when it is you doing the creative revisions.

The residents of the Peace are well aware of the dangers associated with sour gas and of the unknowns of frack water usage. We are also aware of how the provincial government under G. Campbell has undermined local government and provincial ministries in their ability to manage hazards. This does not automatically translate into the fearmongering generalisations of Ben Parfitt.


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Roscoe wrote:

I see you have foregone consensus in favour of the royal 'we'. I am not surprised.

Ok, insults to me are one thing, but injury to the vernacular is over the line. "Foregone", if it means anything, means "gone before", as in "foregone conclusion". Doing without, or abandoning something, is spelled "forgone", by monarchs and commoners alike.

Get thee to a nunnery! Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?


contrarianna
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2006

Roscoe wrote:

Ben's bullshit sensationalises data without any attempt at relevance in order to fearmonger to the uninformed. Similar to his phony 2920 olympic swimming pools of water bullshit.


"Bullshit" is something untrue, which it isn't; at worst it is opening  polemic designed to spur greater public interest via a popular magazine--and is a small part of the article's content.

As an industry shill, your polemic is opposite, designed to shut down public concern by attacking the messenger:"nothing to see here, folks, the writer is over the top"

Your mere posturing claim for informed even-handed consideration of the issues is betrayed by your focus on "swimming pools". You have choosen to attack  the "hook" of the story rather than focus on other issues raised, let alone Parfitt's documented paper delivered at a University of Toronto:

http://www.powi.ca/pdfs/groundwater/Fracture%20Lines_English_Oct14Releas...


Northern Shoveler
Offline
Joined: Feb 17 2011

Roscoe weasel words inserted once and a while do not change your opinion into a balanced one.  You are shilling for the oil industry and you are defaming progressive academics.  This is your finish to the weasel words in #3. I can read and comprehend very well and your message is clear.  

Quote:

Don't kid yourself that anything in BC is 'free'. When one extracts sand and gravel from one's own land, the province charges a royalty. In this case, however, the netback to government from industry in the form of taxation, royalties, drilling rights sales and economic growth measures in the billions.

This is the economic engine that pays for government services like health and education. Considering the exponential growth in funding future services, BC should be thankful for the bounty in natural resources we have and our proximity to markets.

 


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

Unionist wrote:

Roscoe wrote:

I see you have foregone consensus in favour of the royal 'we'. I am not surprised.

Ok, insults to me are one thing, but injury to the vernacular is over the line. "Foregone", if it means anything, means "gone before", as in "foregone conclusion". Doing without, or abandoning something, is spelled "forgone", by monarchs and commoners alike.

 

Ah! the grammar police. Mea culpa. A spelling error to be sure. My intent was the use of forgone as the past participle of forgo.

Get thee to a nunnery! Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?

 

Shakespeare or Python?

 

Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrow of outrageous fortune or Your mother is a hamster and your father smells of old elderberries.


Northern Shoveler
Offline
Joined: Feb 17 2011

Your arguments not only smell like sour gas emanating from the oil industriy's propaganda machine your style is insidiously toxic just like the inevitable consequences of fucking fracking.


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Roscoe wrote:

Ah! the grammar police. Mea culpa. A spelling error to be sure. My intent was the use of forgone as the past participle of forgo.

"Intent"? INTENT!!??

What a lame-ass excuse. You "intended" good, but lo and behold, you inadvertently did evil.

I imagine the "Devil" made you do it?

And you think you'll get away with a slap on the wrist from the grammar police!?

Pshaw!!!!

This is clearly a case for the Spanish Inquisition!

Say hello to eternal perdition, heretic.

 


contrarianna
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2006

The Shale Game:
The prime function of our neoliberal governments is to sustain the illusion that people are governed by democracy  rather than corporate interests.
The bigger the corporate interests, the more comically  thin the mask can become:

Quote:
Published on Thursday, March 31, 2011 by ProPublica
Pennsylvania Limits Authority of Oil and Gas Inspectors
by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica

Oil and gas inspectors policing Marcellus Shale development in Pennsylvania will no longer be able to issue violations to the drilling companies they regulate without first getting the approval of top officials.

That’s according to a directive laid out in a series of emails received by the Department of Environmental Protection staff last week and leaked to ProPublica. The emails say the new edict applies only to enforcement actions related to Marcellus Shale drilling and that failure to seek prior approval “will not be acceptable.”....


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/31-1


contrarianna
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2006

The Shale Game:
The prime function of our neoliberal governments is to sustain the illusion that people are governed by democracy  rather than corporate interests.
The bigger the corporate interests, the more comically  thin the mask can become:

Quote:
Published on Thursday, March 31, 2011 by ProPublica
Pennsylvania Limits Authority of Oil and Gas Inspectors
by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica

Oil and gas inspectors policing Marcellus Shale development in Pennsylvania will no longer be able to issue violations to the drilling companies they regulate without first getting the approval of top officials.

That’s according to a directive laid out in a series of emails received by the Department of Environmental Protection staff last week and leaked to ProPublica. The emails say the new edict applies only to enforcement actions related to Marcellus Shale drilling and that failure to seek prior approval “will not be acceptable.”....


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/31-1


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

Unionist wrote:

Roscoe wrote:

Ah! the grammar police. Mea culpa. A spelling error to be sure. My intent was the use of forgone as the past participle of forgo.

"Intent"? INTENT!!??

What a lame-ass excuse. You "intended" good, but lo and behold, you inadvertently did evil.

I imagine the "Devil" made you do it?

And you think you'll get away with a slap on the wrist from the grammar police!?

Pshaw!!!!

This is clearly a case for the Spanish Inquisition!

Say hello to eternal perdition, heretic.

 

OMG!!!! You finally got something right, even if only accidentally.  I confess to heresy and also deviant lack of religiousity in the form of atheism.

Try to keep your biases straight, the next time you start on about christians, eh.


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/chinese-group-makes-billion-dollar-bet-on-bc-coal/article1964073/

 

Quote:
A Chinese group is making a $1-billion bet on coal in British Columbia to secure a key raw material for its steel making industry, the latest in a series of moves this year by international companies to stake a claim on Canadian resources.

A consortium of Chinese companies, including Shougang Group, one of the country's top steel makers, plans to develop three underground coal mines in northeastern B.C., a region rich with coal that fell on hard times in the 1990s but is now booming again.

 

They have the fiscal resources already in place to do it," said Mr. Bell, who met with executives at Shougang and other consortium partners in Beijing this week on a trade mission to the country. "It's a very big deal."

Shougang's move to take a direct position in Canadian mines represents a new chapter in the push among the world's steel makers to secure long-term supply of the commodities that go into making steel. The strategy is to lessen dependence on mining companies, especially as commodity prices rise.


Northern Shoveler
Offline
Joined: Feb 17 2011

Is that BRIC being sold again?  I never did send in for my share.


Centrist
Offline
Joined: Apr 7 2004

North East BC natural gas production is now venturing into the big league....

Quote:

As the decade progresses, British Columbia will surpass Alberta's natural gas production, thanks to its massive Horn River and Montney reservoirs and vast areas of undrilled land for conventional gas production.

"B.C. is largely undrilled. In Alberta, we will be running out of drillable locations," Howard said.

Alberta's gas production is currently about 10 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d), but that will slide to eight billion bcf/day over the next 20 years. B.C. will double its production to surpass that during the period.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Slow+recovery+expected+energy+royalties/4501411/story.html

Quote:
The Asian market is the world's largest LNG customer, with South Korea's state-owned Korea Gas Corp., which has a monopoly on domestic gas sales, reporting that its 2010 LNG purchases surged 26.6 percent to 31.20 million metric tons.
Quote:
On a smaller scale, a U.S.-based partnership has become the second contender to export LNG from the British Columbia.

BC LNG Export Co-operative filed an application with the National Energy Board to initially convert up to 125 million cubic feet per day of natural gas into 900,000 metric tons of LNG annually, with shipments starting in 2013 to a variety of Asian countries, including Japan. The proposal allows for a doubling of capacity by at a later date.

The export point would be in the Douglas Channel of northern British Columbia, close to a planned Kitimat LNG terminal.

The new project would be operated by Douglas Channel Energy Partnership which is indirectly owned by LNG Partners, a closely held Delaware limited liability company based in Houston.

 

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/415742062.shtml


Centrist
Offline
Joined: Apr 7 2004

BTW, I'm also a Dan Miller New Democrat:

Quote:
VICTORIA -- The New Democrats engaged in a courtship with the oil and gas industry back in 1998 when they announced some major incentives for development and exploration.
 
Government had been taking the sector for granted for too long, conceded then-premier Glen Clark. "Clearly we can do better."
 
He offered reductions in royalty rates of up to 40 per cent, aimed at encouraging the industry to drill new wells.
 
Subsidies? Giveaways to big business? Not at all, explained Dan Miller, then energy minister. "Incentives."   The discounted royalty rates would act as a spur to development. Additional production would boost provincial revenues by more than the cost of the incentives, Miller predicted.
 
Spot on. The provincial take from natural gas royalties has increased 10-fold since the New Democratic Party government cut the rate to encourage development.
On the eve of the last provincial election, party leader Carole James reminded the Fort St. John Chamber of commerce how the NDP laid the groundwork for the current boom in the industry.
 
"It was the New Democrats who really kicked off the oil and gas sector in the northeast of this province," she declared on another occasion.
http://dogwoodinitiative.org/media-centre/news-stories/ndpCriticHeadsVpalmeronoilandgassubidies

Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

KoGas is one of the first JV participants in BC gas and also joined Kitimat LNG Partners with a 30% option on pipeline capacity. Apache Canada and EOG Resources have bought all of Kitimat LNG and all of the Pacific Trail Pipeline (EnCana has joined them recently - Apache as operator @ 40%, EOG and EnCana 30% each), leaving the KoGas and Spanish National Gas Co options in the air.

The Haisla Nation are very astute. They backed Kitimat LNG and provided land for the terminal and plant in return for an interest in the venture. When Apache and EOG bought K LNG out, the Haisla sold out their shares for $50 million. In turn, they committed to a Texas good ol' boy private company in the LNG business to set up their own LNG export venture.

This venture is still in doubt because they may not have committed pipeline capacity to supply them and they also intend to put their facilities on a barge, rather than on land. I believe they are planning to handle and liquify gas owned and shipped by others, rather than buying and selling gas themselves. Long term deals with the likes of KoGas are promising.

The concern with this venture is that all the construction and infrastructure jobs will be offshored in Asia, the Haisla will be silent partners with the Texans and revenue streams to government will be diminished. Its a small plant but it will provide some jobs (and high-tech training and tech transfer to Haisla employees) plus a steady revenue stream to the Haisla.


Northern Shoveler
Offline
Joined: Feb 17 2011

Centrist wrote:

BTW, I'm also a Dan Miller New Democrat:  

 

That is a close relative of a Dosanjh New Democrat. I'll bet my bottom dollar if you voted in that leadership campaign Ujjal was your man.


Roscoe
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2010

Centrist wrote:

BTW, I'm also a Dan Miller New Democrat:

Quote:
VICTORIA -- The New Democrats engaged in a courtship with the oil and gas industry back in 1998 when they announced some major incentives for development and exploration.
 
Government had been taking the sector for granted for too long, conceded then-premier Glen Clark. "Clearly we can do better."
 
He offered reductions in royalty rates of up to 40 per cent, aimed at encouraging the industry to drill new wells.
 
Subsidies? Giveaways to big business? Not at all, explained Dan Miller, then energy minister. "Incentives.".....    
...."It was the New Democrats who really kicked off the oil and gas sector in the northeast of this
Yeah. The Dan Miller Dippers ( I think the NDP government got a real education during their term which brought a lot of the powerful party types onside for economic growth) did BC a great service by halting the winter season exploitation by Alberta companies and allowing the BC service sector to grow. The biggest problem we have in BC gas is Alberta companies hopping across the border with their equipment and employees and then hopping back, paying no BC taxes and providing no economic benefit to BC. Its too bad the current Dipper leadership contenders are tripping over each other to condemn private industry. I suppose they have been out of power too long to understand the realities of governing. The prevailing attitude appears to be taking 9 out of 10 cookies and then telling the unions that private industry took their cookie. ( with apologies to whomever dreamed the cookie metaphor up).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments