Times Colonist (Victoria)
10-May-2008

By Les Leyne

Liberal MLA Randy Hawes proudly explained how clever his trap was, even as he sprung it.

It came during a period set aside for MLAs' motions, also known as Argument for Argument's Sake Time.

Up for discussion was Hawes' motion: "Be it resolved that this House support the concept of independent power projects to help achieve electricity self-sufficiency in B.C. by 2016 through continuing to support environmentally friendly run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects as it has for two decades."

It's such a clumsy piece of dogma that it's easy to get so lost you can't even see the trap. So Hawes helpfully explained it for his intended prey. "I deliberately said 'for two decades' because through the 1990s under the previous government, there was an independent power producers process."

In other words, the previous NDP government was no stranger to the independent power thrust that the Liberals have greatly expanded, to the newfound horror of the NDP.

So if New Democrats want to argue with Hawes' laboured resolution, they'd have to go against past NDP policies. They'd fall into his trap. Or something like that.

Regardless of all that, it prompted an entertaining debate. New Democrats have been losing ground on the green front. They're opposing cutting-edge climate-change legislation and vacillating on other measures. And they're being left on the sidelines while environmental groups admit that -- wonder of wonders -- the Liberals are on the right track.

But the one area where the NDP has made some headway is in whipping up suspicion and paranoia in some enviro circles about run-of-the-river power projects.

There's a segment of the population that feels every river in B.C. is going to be sucked dry by rapacious, U.S.-backed private developers who will run transmission lines the length and breadth of the province in their efforts to make -- dare I write the word? -- a profit.

Which brought Hawes to his feet this week.

It's all about leadership, he said. "Real leaders understand that oftentimes when you hold a public meeting, you will pack an auditorium quite easily with protesters ... People who are in favour of something rarely show up to a public meeting.

"Any political leader that makes their decision based purely on what is said at a public meeting is, I think, lacking in leadership."

He was referring partly to a private power project on the Pitt River in his riding that ran into trouble over the issue of transmission lines through adjacent parks.

There was a public meeting about it that apparently upset him. Hundreds of worked-up people showed up, including some NDP MLAs. But they ignored the scientific process, he said. "Obviously the (NDP) doesn't understand process. They understand two busloads of protesters advertised for and put on a bus and probably offered a free lunch to show up and protest. That's how they would form a government."

A "horrible, horrible" government, by the way.

The free lunch shot may have been a reference to a noisy downtown Vancouver protest where it was acknowledged that the main problem some groups have with small-scale independent power production is that private business is involved.

A straight ideological difference, in other words.

After Hawes' diatribe, he made way for NDP energy critic Shane Simpson. He turned out to be just as over-the-top as Hawes.

Simpson raised the spectre of 8,200 potentially problematic power projects that have "nothing to do with trying to develop a green alternative. It has everything to do with gutting B.C. Hydro.

"It has everything to do with selling B.C. Hydro by stealth."

Despite the fact the argument is about keeping the lights on, the hour of debate left me in the dark.

Personal disclosure: I'm a habitual user of electricity. I don't want to be bothered with blackouts. I like it when the lights come on and want them to keep coming on.

I doubt it will take 8,200 power projects to keep me happy or that B.C. Hydro is being secretly sold. And I doubt Hawes will get very far by discounting public consultation.

Every time you flip the switch on, you make a political choice. Most people are choosing more power, the sooner the better.

And when it comes to providing it with the least damage, run-of-the-river looks fairly reasonable, compared to the alternatives.