The Elephant in the Room

‘The elephant in the room’ is an expression used to refer to an overarching issue that is ignored while minor issues are debated with gusto. No one will talk about the elephant because it is assumed that nothing can be done about it, so we invest our time on the minor issues that we believe we can control while we carefully walk around the elephant.

The elephant in BC Politics is voter apathy expressed in low voter turnout. The recent by-election is a great example. Even when the Green Party had a chance to win a seat, there was only 43% turnout. This was something that should have rallied their supporters en masse as well as their detractors. But very few voters seemed to care, particularly among the younger demographic who could have turned the tide.

And this is not limited to by-elections, which are typically low turnout events. In the last provincial election there was only 52% turnout.  And many of those who voted did so out of duty and not because they believed it would make a difference.

This cannot be blamed on the voters. All the parties have beaten them down by scandals, lies and arrogance. We are at a point where the general public flips a coin to see if they will bother to go and vote for the scoundrel they distrust the least.  Even the slight rise in fortunes of the Liberal party of late has likely less to do with people trusting them again than it does with the voters not believing in any of the parties. Because we accept as fact that whoever forms government will abuse their power, we resign ourselves to the choice of evils

I have pondered this over the last year, trying to find a way to encourage the young adults to get involved and to restore public trust. I visited the Occupy camp in Vancouver and wondered how to reengage those people into our democracy when they openly mistrust and despise the political system that it has created.  So, can we talk about the elephant or is it best to not mention it? Can we really do anything to change it?

The BC Conservative Party of course says that they will bring open and honest government and they have proposed a few changes to bring it about.

·       Increasing the resources for the office of the Auditor General to help with fiscal accountability.

·       Free votes for their MLAs so that they can put their constituents first before the party.

These are some of the things that have drawn me to run for the party, but they are clearly not enough to reengage those who feel burned by the past 2 decades of abuse.

I believe I have a solution however.  I intend to change how we do politics. Not sometime after May 14^th and only if I am elected. In January I will unveil my plan and at that time, I will deliver tangible change and significant reason for hope to discouraged BC voters.  It is time to talk about the elephant!

Small Communites Need Doctors

The Shuswap, like many areas in the province, is facing a growing crisis in doctor availability. Enderby used to have 6 GPs to service the community and is now down to 1. Sorrento used to have 1 but no longer has access to any doctors. There are many reasons for this and therefore no single solution.  Our healthcare system is under considerable stress and we must reverse this trend. It will only become harder the longer we wait to address it.

Two issues are:

1)      Doctors that are trained in BC are moving to other provinces where they can do better than they can here.

2)      Doctors that stay in BC, don’t want to move to the smaller communities in spite of the incentives that are offered to do so.

The first thing I see is that we are competing for health care professionals between the provinces and we need an inter-provincial policy to level the playing field. This will be difficult to achieve and will require a premier that is willing to sit down with the other provinces and not leave the table for a photo-op.

As we work toward this long term strategy, there are some steps that can be taken immediately. BC Doctors are paid based on a huge set of fee schedules. These are complex and due to the speed of advances, they become outdated quickly and hard to keep updated. The result is that doctors are paid far too much for some procedures that have been simplified and far too little for others where more expensive procedures have now become available. To manage these, we need to start doing comparative reviews between all the provinces to see what is being paid for similar procedures in each province.   This would identify large differences and set the priorities for review.

The second issue, of doctors not wanting to live in the small communities, is related.  Since they are not paid a salary as such, but get paid based on these fee schedules, they do not have the same opportunity for wages in a small community. More than that, they also do not have the same variety of work since people will go into the major centers for complex health issue and therefore the smaller communities do not offer the same challenges as the larger centers.  No one wants to get trapped on a dead end career path so understandably they are concerned.  The incentives currently offered do not address their concerns adequately.

Most politicians are not health care professionals and so we need to work with the doctors to address these issues.  A few ideas I am starting to discuss with the medical community are:

1)      Tie the fee schedules to an adjustment so that in the smaller communities the fees are adjusted up.

2)      Look at salaries for doctors in small or remote communities rather than fees.

3)      Work with the smaller communities and the doctor's to find ways to make them attractive as a step in a career plan. This could include help with business set up or other benifits.

I am dedicated to working with our communities and our doctors to find solutions that meet everyone’s needs.  I have some starting points but what is needed is the hard work to craft a solution. I am dedicated to do just that.

I have begun discussing these ideas with our local doctors and will be solidifying an approach in the months ahead to help bring doctors back into our communities.

I would ask that any health care professionals that would like to join this conversation please contact me with your input. Together we will meet the needs of the Shuswap and create a framework that can be used througout the province.

Youth and Government

We are coming toward Rememberance Day and I was thinking of what our fathers and grandfathers fought for.

I had the privilege today of addressing a social studies class at the Salmon Arm Senior Secondary School. They had just been reviewing the political spectrum (right to left) and I was able to give them my understanding as the BC Conservative candidate.

Most of all, however, I told them that they are our future and politics is nothing more than how we govern ourselves. If we don't get involved, then someone else will do it for us, but in doing so, we will lose our freedom. I encouraged them to join a political party and learn what the issues are.

The Canadian government commissioned a French version of Flanders Fields which was completed by Major Jean Pariseau. I left them with my translation of the final French stanza (I didn't read them the French but include it here for those who would have just had to look it up).

À vous jeunes désabusés,
À vous de porter l'oriflamme
Et de garder au fond de l'âme
Le goût de vivre en liberté.
Acceptez le défi, sinon
Les coquelicots se faneront
Au champ d'honneur.

It is for you, young and disillusioned
It is for you, to carry the banner
and to keep in the depths of your soul
the craving to live in freedom.
Accept the challenge, for if not
the poppies will fade
from the field of honour

The challenge is to govern ourselves in a way that will continue to give meaning to those who risked it all and lost their lives to give us a democracy so that we could govern ourselves.

As we move toward Nov 11th, let us remember that wearing a poppy is respectful, but building our communities together is what makes the poppies grow.

Why Would Anyone Join a Political Party?

I haven’t posted much lately. That is because, for the last 6 weeks, I have been focused on calling and meeting people one-on-one to invite them to join the BC Conservative Party. I will be continuing my primary focus there for the next few weeks as well. It is an extremely encouraging process.

The question I get most frequently, is:  “With so many people disillusioned with all parties, why would anyone join one?”  This is my response.

1)      In a democracy, our strength comes only from our people. We live in a democracy only to the extent that our citizens are involved with the parties and candidates/representatives.

2)      Being a part of a party allows you to have greater input into the guidelines, policies and platform of your party. Ideas are brought in by the local members, debated and moved up to the provincial level and the good ones, eventually become policy. Even if you have no ideas to suggest, you can listen to and evaluate others and be part of what pushes up the line.

3)      Particularly now, when nominations are in full swing, being a part of the party of your choice allows you to have direct input into who will represent your party. Win or lose in the election, your party’s representative has the most influence during an election to shift people’s thinking. It is critical to ensure that the right person is in place to bring your platform to the public.

4)      All of the above combine to make active party membership a wonderful way to serve your province and/or country and to ensure that we remain a democratic society.

The next question that I get asked is, “Do I have to donate?” No. beyond the meager fee to sign up, you do not have to donate. However, you should consider it because.

1)      No party can win an election without the means to advertise. That means that each candidate needs a minimum of $50,000 to mount a credible campaign.  The main party needs hundreds of thousands or more to manage the provincial coordination.  This is just the way it is.

2)      In BC, our parties run largely off corporate and union donations. This is something that we would like to stop, so that the party that is elected does not owe anything to its large sponsors. This would also reduce the money required to campaign as no party would have access to large sponsorship. However, it means that individuals must step up to the plate as much as they can.

3)      Until such time as corporate and union donations are banned, they look at the personal donation levels to determine the strength of a candidate and whether or not they are worth supporting. So, personal donations multiply because they attract larger sponsorship.

4)      A large amount of a political donation in BC is returned on your taxes (75% of the first $100, 50% of the next $450 and 33% of the next $600 for a total possible return of $500 on a donation of $1150). The reason this is done, is to encourage public participation.

Not everyone can donate but most people can give $100, especially knowing that they will get $75 back and so it only costs them $25 to support their party in this way.  200 members, giving $100 = $20,000. That is enough to kick start a campaign and drawn in corporate sponsorship to make it viable.

I am humbled by the response of the people in the Shuswap to the BC Conservative Party. We are succeeding in drawing the members and donations we need and I give my thanks to our membership.  I would encourage everyone to consider how they will participate in our democracy. 

Helping Bring Alberta Oil to Market

Why we need to bring Alberta Oil to Market

I am 100% in favour of helping Alberta move its oil to market. BC is part of Canada and we cannot simply tell our neighbouring provinces that we object to their resources and so won't help them. At a high level, we must help them because:

1. Canada has people and natural resources, these are our greatest strengths. But we can't realize their value without a market for our resources and jobs for our people.  
   
2. Currently the USA is our greatest market. This is good as long as they remain strong, but if the USA fails, then, because we are tied to them, we will fall with them. They have not failed yet, so we think they never will. This is foolish. The US economy is showing signs of cracking and their debt has exceeded their GNP. Due to the size of their economy we have a number of years yet, but if they do not take steps to correct the problems they have, they will collapse.  In light of this, Canada MUST diversify now. We have time to do it but we don't have time to do nothing.  
   
3. BC is part of Canada. We cannot ignore the needs of the rest of the country without consequences. Even if we do have options to oppose pipelines through our province, what good would an inter-provincial economic conflict do for our nation? Many people think that because they are personally opposed to oil (even though they still use it every day) that they can hold our country hostage to their agenda. Maybe they can to some degree, but the result of that strategy will be to impoverish Canada and in so doing impoverish BC as well. Just as a rising tide will lift all boats, a falling tide will leave us all stranded on the reef.  
   
4. The only way to protect our environment is from a fiscally strong base.  As our economy weakens, our ability to manage our environment weakens. How many third world countries make environmental protection their top priority?  Environmental protection is a luxury of the rich. We need to protect our land and our sea but it must be done hand in hand with our economic growth. A move to limit our ability to grow our economy is ultimately a move to destroy our environmental protection.

How we proceed with environmentally sensitive projects

However, that does not mean that we should be in favour of a pipeline just because it promises prosperity. We must make sure that it is being done sensibly and with environmental protection in mind.  

• A large part of any assessment should be a review of the corporation that is proposing it. A good plan in the hands of a sloppy corporation equals a bad plan.   
  
• Also part of any assessment should be the route. The route should be selected so that the risk is minimized.   
  
• Also we need to evaluate past assessments. We have a moratorium on oil tanker traffic off the central and north coastline. We must evaluate the reasons why that was put in place and how the current plan mitigates those concerns.

I believe we must work with our counterparts to find the right way to move ahead rather than finding reasons to stop. But it must be the right way or else we will be forced to stop until something changes.

This is the fundamental difference between the BC Conservative position and the NDP position. The BC Conservatives are looking for how we can proceed and the NDP are looking for how we can stop.  The BC Liberal’s still have no position. For them the development is ‘take it or leave it’, whichever way the wind is blowing.

What we need to do in the specific instance of the Northern Gateway Pipeline

So, to move ahead, how should we work together to find the correct way to bring Alberta’s oil to market:

1)  We should have been involved in the environmental assessment process instead of deciding to only take intervener status. This was done so as to avoid taking a public stance but it meant that we had NO INPUT into the

• “Successful completion of the environmental review process.”
• putting in place of “World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.'s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments”
• putting in place of “World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines”
• process whereby “Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project”

We could have been involved but we sold out our rights on those 4 areas. 

2) Even as intervener we could have raised the issues. We should have done this before the Dec 22, 2011 deadline or before the Jan 2012 extended deadline.  But again, we sat on the sidelines and said nothing.

3) We should not have made the first 4 demands that are already being addressed in a process that we chose not to participate in. At this point we should go behind closed doors with our concerns on these 4 points and apologize for missing the deadlines and ask to be heard anyway. Let’s quit embarrassing ourselves on the national stage. I believe we could get the rules bent if we tried and still be allowed to be involved in a meaningful way in the ongoing process that to date we have snubbed.

4) Early on, we should have engaged the parties involved, (Enbridge, Alberta, Ottawa) to negotiate benefits for BC like; Sharing the right-of-way; training British Columbians; export taxes; maybe even refining in BC, etc. We should have known what we wanted and collaborated to ensure

• “British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers.”

We are off to a very bad start but we can still engage in a collaborative discussion on this one.

5) We should not however, pick a fight with Alberta over royalties to pretend to achieve the 5^th demand!   This position has dubious legal ground to stand on. It appears to have only been done once, in 1969 when Quebec put the screws to Newfoundland and Labrador over their Hydro project. That only worked because Ottawa looked the other way when they could have stopped Quebec.

The BC Liberal position was NOT taken to get BC its fair share. It was done solely to provoke a fight so that the BC premier could be seen as championing the rights of British Columbians. We should stop the games and back out of that as gracefully as possible. Then engage in some real negotiations.

MLAs and Community Development

Some people in Salmon Arm have asked me to comment on the situation of the Smart Center coming to Salmon Arm and I believe my attempts to clarify my position have not been completely successful. I have decided to lay out what I see as the process. This involves many aspects and levels of government and what I believe my role would be at each step, if I were your MLA. I will go through the process in general but use the Salmon Arm Smart Center as my example.

I am pro business and development in general, but when an opportunity for new business presents itself to a community, I see 3 stages that must be gone through before it can become a reality.

1. Democratic Decision:
   

   Does the plan fit into the vision that the community has for itself? I affirm the community's right to self determination and would govern my actions with that foremost in mind.
2. Regulatory Approval:
   

   Does the plan conform to all social regulations? I support the regulatory process to ensure that business is conducted in a responsible manner.
3. Legal Challenge
   

   Does the plan negatively impact anyone who would contest it in court? I support the right of any individual or group to bring their case to court.

In general, at each of these stages, I would comport myself the following ways:

1) Democratic Decision:

In order to affirm the community's right to self determination, as an MLA I would not insert myself into a community's decision making process and indeed I believe that even if I live in that community, as I do in Salmon Arm, it would be wrong to use my provincial influence to attempt to direct the outcome of a community visioning process. I am pro business and will seek to bring business opportunities to the Shuswap but I would do so in accordance with the local community plans. If, as an MLA, I was able to encourage a specific business to come to a community in my riding, I would facilitate talks with the local government there to present the opportunity. I would then back out of the process until the community had decided if they wanted it or not.  This is primarily why I have not given my opinion on the Smart Center, because I affirm the community's right to self determination.

There are a number of ways that we elicit input to the democratic process including public hearings, referendums and elections. In the Smart Center case, we did have a long set of hearings and we did have an election where the community voted for leaders that were clear on what they would do in this regard. The result is that the city of Salmon Arm has approved the Smart Center plan as fitting into the vision for the city. I support this decision 100% as a democratically arrived at local vision.

This brings us to the regulatory stage.

2) Regulatory Approval:

In this stage, I would support the regulatory process to ensure that business is conducted in a responsible manner. The plan is looked at to determine if it meets the broader regulations that we as a society have chosen to adhere to. This includes zoning, safety, environment, etc. and will likely hit on municipal, provincial and federal jurisdictions.

Regulations and assessments are a 2-way contract. They are a contract with the people of British Columbia that the government will manage their land responsibly. But they are also a contract with the businesses seeking to work here. They promise that if a business meets the standards then they will be allowed to operate within our province. If we do not honour this then no company would invest in BC. Why would they spend millions to meet our codes only to be told that the public doesn't like it so they can't continue. The average business spends 15% of the start up costs to get to the green light. That is a lot of money to risk without a concrete goal line. However, if the plan does not meet regulations, then it cannot continue until it is adjusted to do so, period.

As an MLA, I would work to ensure that the process was allowed to proceed without being unduly delayed and without unfair interference from either side to skew its outcome (both sides may have input but without interference). And I would uphold the outcome of a fair process, whatever decision was made. This is also why I would not give an opinion. I support the process and the decision it comes to.  I would be more than happy to help in any way possible to find solutions, if a proposed plan could not met the regulations (i.e. find ways to adjust the plan, not ways to adjust the regulation), but in general, the process should be allowed to run its course.

In the case of the Smart Center, the process worked fairly smoothly. All assessment permissions, permits and zoning have been given with the only thing outstanding being a permit with the ministry of transportation for the design of the off ramp. I support this outcome 100% as showing that the Smart Center Plan is compliant with the regulations in our community, province and country and should therefore be allowed to move to the next stage.

3) Legal Challenge:

In order to support of the right of any individual or group to bring their case to court, once a plan is in place and the regulations have been met, I would not stand in the way of any legal action.  Individuals or groups that believe that the proposal will negatively impact them in some way have a right to seek legal recourse. If there was an opportunity to negotiate an out-of-court settlement of any issues, I would aid that any way I could, but if that is not forthcoming, I would wait on the legal process to run its course and uphold its ruling.

This kind of action generally arises near the end of the regulatory process because it is not relevant if the project is re-directed during that process. As frustrating as this is in the delays and costs that it entails, we are a people that govern ourselves by the rule of law and that is more important than any given business opportunity.

As an MLA, again, I would not insert myself into a legal case once it has begun, though if I had relevant information and was called on to participate I would do so within those limits. It is up to the courts to listen to the evidence and decide what the correct outcome should be. A legal challenge may be used by those who do not like the decision made in the regulatory stage. They may argue, for example, that the environment will indeed be damaged. That is their right, although they would have to prove that there was some reason to disbelieve the results of the assessment process. 

Currently, the Smart Center is in this stage and as an MLA I would not interfere with the due process of law. If the courts uphold the findings to date, I will be among the first to welcome the Smart Center to Salmon Arm. If the courts find that the Neskonlith band has or will suffer harm, then I hope, as I would for all such cases, that a workable solution can be arrived at. I trust that the Smart Center, which the City of Salmon Arm has said they want and the Regulatory process has affirmed, will be able to move forward soon, in a way that upholds the final decision that the courts will make.

Summary

I believe that the principles I have outlined here are integral to how an MLA should comport themselve and I will strive to act in this way on behalf of the people of the Shuswap.

• Affirming  the communities self determination without influencing the direction it takes.
• Upholding our regulatory process for the protection of our land and the encouragement of investment and development.
• Upholding our legal system and courts so that all people have access to justice.

Why I still care about the BC Rail Scandal

Just before all the details of the BC Rail sale were about to come out, the 2 men on trail changed their pleas to guilty and 6 million dollars were illegally paid to cover their costs, they were given house arrest rather than hard jail time and put under a gag order to not say anything ever about what happened.  Since then, enormous effort and additional money has been expended by the government to keep all the details buried. 

I think a 10 year old can figure out the plot here. If there is nothing to hide then you don’t waste effort hiding things.  Anybody who cares to look at this knows that it stinks. If Christy Clark and other Liberal leaders are not guilty, then who are they protecting? The only thing we don’t know for sure is the details and who is being protected?

I have talked with a few dozen people about this and I have only heard 2 opinions. Most of the time, I hear that we must have an inquiry, get the details and move on. Sometimes however, I talk with people who say there is no sense because all politicians and parties are corrupt and we just have to accept it.  I have never met anyone who thinks there is nothing to hide.

This resignation to accept that our government cannot be held to account is why I believe we MUST have an inquiry. This is not a vendetta against any person or persons involved. It is much more important than that. An inquiry is required to restore voter confidence in our democracy and public process.

Clean Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

In my May 10, 2012 blog I noted that I didn’t think the LNG goals being touted by the BC Liberals were realistic. Although I didn’t go into all my reasons, I note in general that we are not ready to expand quickly enough to achieve what is being presented. Primarily, we do not have the infrastructure in place, nor has the government presented any plan for how we would create that infrastructure. 

It comes as no surprise to me that we now have an announcement that Natural Gas is being redefined to be clean energy. Our BC Clean Energy Act requires 93% of our energy to be clean.

There was no way we could power the LNG plants from our existing grid. For them to work, they must be self sufficient by creating the vast amount of electricity they require from a portion of the natural gas they are buying. This would not be legal under the existing Clean Energy Act unless the natural gas they use was exempted from the Act. To do that, it must be determined to be a clean source.  So we are creating a new category. Basically, dirty energy is clean if it will replace even dirtier energy.  

I believe this must have been the plan since the beginning as I don’t want to believe that the governance of our province is in the hands of people who didn’t think about how to power a plant before deciding to build a set of them.

I am not opposed to the logic of the change. If we really are enabling China or Japan to stop burning wood and coal and use LNG then we should be able to justify LNG as a transitional energy source. I am completely in favour of finding ways to make smooth transitions to cleaner energy.  However, I would argue that the way this is being done is not above board. If we truly want to use that logic, we should re-examine the Clean Energy Act and correct it so that we have a clear definition of transitional energy and how we will measure it.  We don’t need more slight-of-hand politics to avoid thought-through, debated legislation.

And while we are thinking about the infrastructure needed for the LNG industry we are being promised, have we really considered how we will deal with the growth in other areas. The BC Liberals are promising 1 million new jobs with six or seven hundred thousand immigrant families to help staff them. In her heart, Christy Clark would see our province grow around 25% in a decade. What about housing, police, schools (including significantly more assistance for non-English speaking students and ESL for adult students), hospitals, roads.  Is there a plan to manage the growth or not? Or will it just come out when the government thinks the public needs to know?

Supporting the right team

Although we in the Shuswap had hoped to be able to select our riding's candidate before summer, we have been asked to wait until the fall. For me, this was somewhat disappointing initially but I am actually very glad that the BC Conservative party it taking this stance.

We are moving carefully so that before any candidates are selected, we will have the support in place to help them in their approach to their campaign. Our party values the grass roots and independence of our candidates. We are the only party in BC that insists that our MLAs must put their riding constituents first before the party. But that doesn't mean that we don't share a common focus and are not working together to improve the life of British Columbians. Having our party organized to support us is exactly what we will need as we move toward the provincial elections next May.

I am glad to see that our party and its leader, John Cummins, has the good sense move at a pace that will best prepare us all and protect us. The calibre of the men and women coming forward to run for candidacy is exceptional and we will be fielding an excellent team into the next election for BC.

Liquified Natural Gas in BC

The scene is the Dragon's Den and a new prospect has just walked in.

Hello Dragon's, I am Christy Clark, the leader of the British Columbia Liberal government and I am looking for a $50 billion dollar investment for a 15% share in the BC Liquefied Natural Gas industry (LNG)

The questions start:

Dragons: That is a $600 Billion valuation of your product.  Do you have a plant or any sales?
CC: Why yes we do. We have a plant at Kitamat that is ready to start production in 2015. We have some purchase agreements and should be ready for 5 mmtpa (million metric tonnes per annum)

Dragons: LNG worldwide sells about 300 mmtpa (or $200 Billion) and is anticipated to grow by another 200 mmtpa (or $135 Billion) by 2020. What percentage of that new growth do you expect to capture?
CC: We are ready to capture 15% or $20 Billion a year, with 30 year agreements to make up the $600 Billion valuation.

Dragons: Currently you appear to be on track to only capture 1/6th of that with your Kitamat plant. And $20 Billion/year is more than your entire oil and gas industry currently produces. How do you intend to increase production to the point where you will be able to take 15% of the growth in the market from the existing players who are also vying for the same industry increases?
CC: That is where your $50 Billion comes in. We need to double the size of the Kitamat plant and built at least 2 or 3 other plants.  Of course we only need $7 or $8 Billion up front and then the rest as the gas purchase agreements are signed.

Dragons: So you need $7-8 Billion to do the ground work in order to make the sales so that you can expand this industry to a size larger than you entire oil and gas industry to date and do it all quickly enough to capture 1/6th of the new growth in an industry where the other producers have been working for decades and have close ties with all the clients you are hoping to sign up?
CC: Yes, I am confident because I believe in jobs and this will make thousands of jobs.  It is a staggering number but we can do it if my government is given another term.

Dragons: This is a great opportunity that needs to be aggressively pursued but your valuation is at least 5 times over inflated, so I am out.

The numbers that Christy Clark is glibly throwing around ($600 Billion over 30 years) represent 10% of our province's GDP. Those numbers apear to be for re-election consumption only. This is a growing industry to be sure but we are late adopters. If we can capture 5% of the growth in this industry we would be doing exceedingly well and would likely be at the highest capacity that the Kitamat plant can be expanded to handle. (10 mmtpa). That would be only $6-7 Billion/year or $200 Billion/30 years. Even this would be an enormous goal.

I am not saying that we shouldn't strive for this and more, I am just saying that the numbers don't appear realistic and I would like to see the plan to reach them. Otherwise, this is just massive exaggeration to sell a government that is in desperate need of some good news. I know I wouldn't want my performance evaluation to be tied to hitting those targets.

short list of sources reviewed to find the math behind the promises:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Clark+embarks+second+trade+mission/6595365/story.html
http://www.kitimatlngfacility.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Files/5fba2481-01e9-4579-83d3-6b6c6c1c15c8/BCGDPbyIndustryCurrentDollars.xlsx
http://armiesofliberation.com/archives/2010/06/19/yemen-natural-gas-sold-at-one-third-of-market-price-193ton-vs-689ton/

Success of Nazinga Game Reserve

The Nazinga Game Reserve is just south of Ouagadougou, where I worked in Burkina Faso, West Africa. It was founded by 2 Canadian brothers, Clark and Robert Lungren. They believed that when human prosperity is generated through sustainable management of natural resources, both people and environments win.

The wildlife in the area had been decimated by poaching and drought. So they built dams to maintain the water supply and roads to access the area. Then they hired the best poachers as game wardens. Even before the herds began to recover, they started culling them and selling the meat in the local markets.

By providing jobs to the local villagers and allowing hunting, they got the cooperation of the local municipalities and with the large amount of meat becoming available at reasonable rates in the markets they effectively put the rest of the poachers out of business.

Although they took a lot of criticism for the dams, roads and culling of the herds (including elephants), this is what allowed them to manage the resources and make them profitable. The result was that within 10 years the herds had increased ten fold including 800 elephants and 5000 warthogs. The local communities also benefited and the children were healthier due to the better meat supplies and reduced poverty.

The success of the Nazinga Game Reserve demonstrates that if we want to preserve our natural resources, the best way is to develop them. When they are profitable, they can be protected. If they are not profitable, they will be neglected.

The BC Conservative Party believes in managing our natural resources through environmentally sensible development. This will provide jobs for British Columbians, taxes to support our social structure and value that will allow our natural resources to be protected in perpetuity.

Liberals Are Ready to make nice

The BC Liberals are ready to deal and put it all on the table to bring back the BC Conservatives. Well maybe not all, but they ARE willing to change their name!

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/354699--change-bc-liberal-party-name-conservative-stalwart

I am more insulted than I have words to express. They at basically saying that I must be willing to topple the current government simply because I don't want to be called a Liberal. Excuse me!  I am amazed they are seriously floating this rubbish in public. 

The BC Conservative party was revitalized by a flood of members after 

1. The BC Liberals continually refused to answer allegations about corruption in their highest levels. The sale of BC Rail is the biggest example of this but by no means the only one and more keep coming. 
2. The BC Liberal leadership proved themselves to be inept. Look at the BC Place name embarrassment for an example but more flood in weekly and sometimes daily
3. Then as a final straw, the BC Liberals moved substantially to the left and abandoned their conservative base

We had absolutely nothing left to stay for and we have nothing to come back for either. 

But now they are ready to change their name for us. Thank you but I am not that void of purpose. They may keep their name and I will keep my BC Conservative party

BC Conservative Next Steps

Congratulations to the NDP candidates Joe Trasolini and Gwen O'Mahony. They ran good clean campaigns and had solid wins. 

Last night, we made great strides too and captured 10 times the share of votes that we did in the last election. However, the BC Conservative party was not able to frame our position in such a way so as to capture enough of the voters who have been fleeing the Liberal party. Many have gone to the NDP or just stayed home. We must reframe our position so as to better connect with the public.

I believe that one area we have to control is our dissatisfaction. Lets face it, we have many people joining our party because they are angry about:

• the HST
• the carbon tax
• Smart Meters
• The BC Rail scandal
• Hydro increases that go to general taxes
• add your issue here

In short, we have a portion of our party that are a conglomeration of various protest votes. We must pull in these edges and allow our unified voice to speak about how we would govern and take our province forward rather than focusing on what we would fix from previous mismanagement. 

I believe in what our party stands for more than what we stand against. I am more convinced than ever that we are the right choice and I will work at reframing our position. 

Liberal Internet Suggestion Box

The BC Liberals have started a suggestion box on the internet.  You can check it out at:

http://www.ideaslab.ca/

I did, and the first thing I saw was the question, "What would you like to see in the BC Liberal 2013 Campaign Platform?" Although this sounds good at first blush, I am not a fan for a few reasons.

1. I would have thought that any credible party would be offering a vision of where they want to go rather than begging for a vision. 
    
2. The suggestions that are dropped off cannot be properly refined through debate, nor can they be defended. 
    
3. This is gimmicky rather than being genuine. It has to be, because anyone can post anything.
    
   For example, one person posted that the BC Liberals should keep the HST. Now, regardless of whether that is a good or a bad idea, we have had a referendum and the government CANNOT keep the HST. They must rescind it. If they what to bring it back later they can do that, but they have no choice but to get rid of it first. So suggestions may come in from well meaning people that simply cannot be acted on.
    
   Also, conservatives and socialists may post suggestions. Here, the BC Liberals will not be able to act on the suggestions AND maintain their distinction as a liberal party.
    
   So I believe this is gimmicky because they do not intend to use any suggestions that do not come from intelligent liberal sources, nor should they.

The real way to garner this input already exists and every party does it.

• We seek out like minded people to join the party.
• Then the local party members put forward their suggestions and they are debated and refined.
• Then the ones that stand the test are brought forward to the AGM and further debated at a provincial level.
• The ones that make it through that process are now worthy of becoming party platform and they are brought full circle to the public in the next election.

This is a far more effective approach and I encourage everyone to join the party of their choice and participate in it. The ideas website is more window dressing and is just for show to make a beleaguered party look friendly.

Bonuses Don't have to be bad

Should government or crown corporations pay out bonuses?

The point of a bonus should be to hold back a portion of an employee's salary and then pay it out plus a little more if they do a good job. For example. Instead of giving a salary of 100,000 with no bonus, a bonus structure would offer a salary of 90,000 with an opportunity to make an additional 20,000 in bonuses. 0 if you under perform, 10,000 if you do average and 20,000 if you exceed expectations.

Therefore, not getting any bonus is actually a cut in pay for poor performance and if you miss more than 2 years in a row you should be fired too.

I am in favour of that kind of bonus. Unfortunately, bonuses have often been used as a cash cow to allow already overpaid positions to load up the trough one more time. 

I would not move to do away with bonuses. Rather I would go to the root of the problem and insist on a full review of all salary and compensation packages for all senior positions in gov't and crown corporations.

If the salary and benefits are brought in line first, then a bonus to incentify excellence can be a good accountability tool.

What Makes a Party Legitimate?

This has been a tumultuous week in BC politics and it has been all good for the BC Conservatives. 

• high profile Liberal supporter Rick Peterson said he will run for the BC Conservatives
• John vanDongen crossed the floor and joined the BC Conservatives as our first MLA
• Kevin Falcon and  George Abbott say they don't think they will run again for the BC Liberals

People are saying that this gives legitimacy to our party. They have it backward.  Our party has legitimacy and that is why these things are happening and will continue.

People are coming to our party because they ate starving for something to vote for. They are tired of supporting a party they don't believe in just to prevent an NDP win.

The BC Conservative Party is the the only legitimate free enterprise party in the province and we will see a landslide of likeminded people coming home.  People who have been bullied by the Liberal's NDP fear mongering for too long.

We offer fiscally responsible, honest, transparent government. 

• Government that will support job growth in our province by actually supporting investment and businesses by controlling spending and lowering taxes. 
• Government that will address the problems with our court system. 
• Government that will support our natural resources while protecting the environment.

Our policies and our integrity are what give  us legitimacy.  What we see now is that British Columbians understand this and people are re-aligning with where their beliefs have always been.

Not so Smart Meters

First we are asked to believe that the $930-million investment to install smart meters for 1.5 million customers ($620/customer) will pay for itself through cost savings and not a rate increase. BC Hydro gross sales are roughly 4 billion/year, but of that, only 9% is profit that can be re-invested into the infrastructure or about 1 million/day and that is pretty much all spoken for in real upgrades. You know, things that actually create electricity and protect the environment, etc. So we are to believe that they will find another 3 times that much by laying off meter readers.

http://bit.ly/GPfKh0

Next we are asked to ignore any misgivings we have about health concerns.  Now I don’t personally have any concern about the emissions that the smart meters will put out, but I stand by the rights of people who do. They should not be railroaded into accepting something that they are not comfortable with.  There has been no serious attempt to study this or any reasonable about of time given for others to do so either.

Next, we are asked to accept that the thousands of customers who are complaining that their bills have jumped 50% or more since the installation of the smart meters are just using that much more electricity. And the 1000 meters that were taken back off were not suspected of being defective either. No really, they are fine, it was always part of the plan to put them on and take them off again! (do I smell a cost overrun?)

http://bit.ly/H14k9i

Honestly?  I have seen this before with water meters. New smart water meters were put on in Atlanta, GA recently and bills soared for some residents. In the end, people were forced (at their own expense) to install secondary third party meters to track the real usage in order to fight the bills.

Perhaps when the smart meters are installed the old meters should be left on as a double check against the accuracy. Then there would be no doubt and no need to take the new ones off just to test them.

I am all for keeping up with technology but when an extremely costly upgrade is pushed through as fast as this against the will of a significant proportion of the people and without regard to a mounting number of accuracy complaints and with no clear means to pay for it other than a promise that it will come out of cost savings that cannot be demonstrated... Well what can I say? Higher taxes and cost of living; reduced rights of individuals; governmental arrogance; it’s all par for the course in BC under the current government.  

Good Citizens

Good Citizenship is not talked about much anymore. It requires us to

• ask only for what we need;
• give back all that we are able to give;
• and help those around us that need help;
• not expecting everything to come to us from the government. 

To be sure, it is the government’s job to take care of the at risk segments of our population. But the government will never be able to meet every need of every person. We must step up and do our part.

This is something that I love about the Shuswap. This region of our province is full of great citizens. Look how we came in 3rd in Canada for total giving on the 'Coldest Night of the Year' in support of the homeless. Taken as per capita giving we were so far out in front of the rest that no one could touch us. We also had almost 1500 people involved. What is phenomenal for most, is just business as usual in the Shuswap. Look at the Rotarians and the CT scanner; the annual holiday train; the list goes on and on.

This is exactly the kind of support that a government needs in order to bring together public and private efforts. This is how, in the end, we will be able to meet everyone's needs.

As an MLA, I would work with local organizations to coordinate government assistance with community support. I am proud to be a resident of Salmon Arm and the Shuswap and I believe that we can stand tall as an example to the entire province of how a community works together.

Thank you

Who decides if Jumbo is a good risk?

The idea to build the Jumbo ski Resort started 22 years ago and has followed a long and divisive path. However, they have completed all environmental impact assessments and mitigation plans according to the existing standard, with 195 environmental committements that they have to meet. There is no reason for development not to go ahead. What those who are opposed are really saying is that the current government sanctioned environmental protection levels are not good enough and even though the Jumbo Resort meets the standard, they still don’t want to see it build under any circumstances.

Don't get me wrong. If it is bad for the environment that is an issue, but then the problem was with the government standard that was defined. It is too late after everything is met to change the rules.

We simply cannot do business that way. If the standard is not good enough, then lobby to have it changed. However, until it is, if a business has proven that they meet the current standard, they must be allowed to continue doing business. If that were not the case, we would not see any investment in our province at all. Why would anyone risk investing in an area that will change the rules once you have met the requirements?

To say that the economics aren’t currently as good as they were and so the environmental impact is not worth the investment may sound good but it is not. In a free market, the government DOES NOT dictate production, industry does. If the current reduction in tourism makes this less attractive then it will not attract investors, which seems to be the case. However, they must be allowed to make that decision for themselves. The government does not know if having this resort won’t increase tourism. If it doesn’t, and this resort has to compete for the existing clients against other resorts like Whistler, then the consumer will win with cheaper ski packages. That is the way it is supposed to work.

The real issue here is that it took 2 decades to come to a decision either for or against.

"the project had passed all necessary regulatory and environmental hurdles, but stalled on final provincial approval"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/03/20/bc-jumbo-glacier-approval.html?cmp=rss

We must not ignore the environmental concerns, rather we must put the right safeguards in place. Then we must abide by them in a reasonable timeline. Surely 22 years is long enough for everything to have been reviewed.

What to do with a skinny cow

I remember seeing Donny Osmond in “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat”.  You remember the story; how Pharaoh had a dream of 7 skinny cows eating 7 fat cows. Joseph interpreted it to mean 7 years of plenty were coming that would be followed by 7 years of famine. Joseph slapped an immediate 20% tax on all produce for 7 years so that they would be ready to survive the time of famine.

This is a great strategy that governments should follow today. Save in good years to help us get through the economic downturns without having to mortgage our future.  We may not have foreknowledge of the coming of the skinny cows, but we do know that bridges will need replacing and the economy goes in cycles. So why don’t we ever implement this ancient commonsense instead of borrowing and slapping tolls on once free bridges?

It is because Pharaoh was a monarch and everyone had to do what he said. We, on the other hand, rely on the good will of the people and we have lost too much of that. No government believes that they would survive an election if they were taxing the people enough to be able to put aside tens of millions of dollars for the next rainy day.  AND, we cannot lay blame at the feet of our citizens for this. They know full well that the chances of that money not being wasted or worse, raided and given to inside government supporters and cronies would be very slim.  If we want our people to be good citizens then we must give them a government that they can trust.

The BC Conservative Party believes we must foster good citizenship in all areas. We will achieve this first and foremost by delivering to the people responsible, impartial and transparent government. We will earn back the trust of British Columbians.

Coming Home

(or why some Federal conservatives don’t get it yet)

In British Columbia, since the CCF party (the precursor of the NDP) first showed enough strength to win, we have had a coalition on the right. This was the Coalition from 1941-1952, then the Social Credit until 1991 when the Liberal party took on the role of the coalition on the right.

This decision in 1941 led us into a period where liberals and conservatives alike had to sacrifice voting for a party that reflected their ideals and rather vote for a compromise party. Sometimes it was more liberal and sometimes more conservative. We put up with it because the advantage was a united front against the NDP.

 However, over the last few years, the BC Liberal Party has abandoned their conservative base and is currently window-dressing to appear to be continuing as the voice of the coalition, but only so that they will regain the conservative vote. Their policies and actions are no longer anything of the sort.

I for one am glad for this change. For 70 years we have been voting for a coalition that we only partially endorse, in order to block a party that we totally disagree with.  Now, both liberals and conservatives have the opportunity to vote for a party that they fully believe in. I am absolutely certain that voting FOR a party we totally believe in instead of always voting AGAINST the NDP will appeal to many more people who have become disillusioned with our previous choices. I am not afraid of the NDP party and I do not want another 70 years of compromise within the party that I support.

However, not everyone has made the leap yet to the new political order in BC. It is clear that the BC Conservative party does not intend to take on the coalition role. Meanwhile, the BC Liberal leadership is still pretending that they will. So those who still fear that only a single party can defeat the NDP, are putting their support behind the BC Liberals, even though they do not agree with their policies. This includes some members of the Federal Conservative Party of Canada. They will catch up to the rest of us in time. For now we need to hold to our ideals and wait. Time is proving us right.

Bill 22 is not in Good Faith

I have never particularly appreciated the tactics of the BCTF and I think that independant MLA Bob Simpson has a very good understanding of what is going on from all sides in his note on Politicizing Education

http://www.bobsimpsonmla.ca/politicizing-education/

However, I find myself in the unexpected position of needing to support the BCTF at least somewhat. While I believe they need to let go of their demand for any wage increase, I do not see how Bill 22 is in anyway treating them with respect. The full bill can be read at:

http://www.leg.bc.ca/39th4th/1st_read/gov22-1.htm

Section 5 of the bill says that “the parties must continue or commence to bargain collectively in good faith”. The bill is not structured to encourage this however. Apart from the wage demands that I agree must be relinquished, section 13 of the bill on the “restricted scope of bargaining” basically lists off all the other issues that the teachers have and moves them off the table. Then section 7 on “Offences” prescribes fines that would see teachers paying something like 2 times what they earn in fines ($475/day) if they didn’t fill out report cards (breaking section 3.1.c “every employee must continue or resume his or her full duties”). Finally, section 24 defies any court ruling in the last 10 years and any that may be made in the future (is that even legal?) by redefining the teacher’s collective agreement since 2002.

Honestly, does this really set up an environment in which bargaining can be done in good faith?

The result of this bill will undoubtedly be continued animosity during the “cooling off” period, followed by a legislated contract at the end of August. If that is the goal, then why not just legislate it now and stop the pretence of bargaining.

While the BC Conservatives may not see eye to eye on everything with the BCTF, we will bargain with them in better faith than this. As John Cummins pointed out, the Bill should have dealt simply with ending the strike and not throwing all these issues into the mix.

Envision Occupy Economics

I received an email ad for a conference in Kelowna next week on "Envisioning Occupy Economics".  This is being supported by the Green Party.

They note that governments need to regulate the production of food and energy so that we will have enough to meet demand. Among suggestions being presented is one that says that since it takes 15 times more water to produce meat than it does plant food, we should reduce our meat production and increase our grains, etc.

While I agree that there are some good ideas within this group, the idea that GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONTROL PRODUCTION is NOT one of them. Governments and production quotas have been tried and failed over and over again.  Look at where that got Russia last century. 

Environmental ideas need to be brought forward into a free market where they can succeed in their proper time. Good ideas will catch on and bad ones will drop off. Government meddling in what is produced will be disastrous to our freedoms, our economic health and ultimately to the environment as well.

Look at the GM Volt for example. An electric car is a good environmental idea. It isn't perfect however and it needs time to be tried and adjusted and improved. Production was being encouraged by the US government but now GM has stopped it because they have too many. What would happen if production was not just encouraged but controlled by government? The negative impacts on the car industry would be significant.

We must take care of the environment rather than using it to intimidate people into giving up their freedoms.

Honesty first and foremost

“We [British Columbians] live in the most corrupt province in this country,“ said Mr. Tsakumis today

http://bit.ly/yBQaqU

If his article is true, then his statement is likely true as well. This must stop!  I posted about transparency 2 days ago but I had hoped that the next election would be primarily about policy. However, if it needs to be about corruption as well, then so be it. We have a generation that is giving up on our democracy. The Occupy movement should have woken us up to that if we were still sleeping. It is time to bring honesty back into politics.

Governing should not be about money or power. It is a service to give back to the people we live with and love.  Should I be given the privilege to serve the Shuswap in this way, I will strive along the BC Conservative party to bring back trust in our MLAs and our democracy.