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.

Transparent Government

We have lost the trust of a large number of our citizens. They do not believe that any party or politician is honest or altruistic. I believe that this is partially due to dishonesty but it is also due to a closed door policy that is much harder to address.

In a world of instant access to information there is very little time to check the facts before a story hits the media. So to protect themselves from responding to every rumour, I believe the norm has become to cover up everything until the last possible moment. Then, hopefully, the facts will be a little clearer.

This is understandable on one hand, but counterproductive in the long run. For example, wouldn't it be much better to make a statement like,

We don't know the facts about the RoboCalls but we are 100% committed to
finding out and taking the strongest possible action against anyone involved
whether they are associated with our party or not.

Then, keep all the rhetoric down to a minimum while publishing the facts as they are known.  In the end, do what we said we would do and eventually the public will have enough trust to allow time for the facts to be clarified.

It is a slow process to change a culture and this cannot happen overnight. People still want to get all the news and make their decisions based on their friend's Face Book posts. However, if we are committed to transparent government and we take obvious steps toward making it happen, I believe that people will start to allow time for reflection before arriving at the conclusion that every story is just more proof of corruption.