Addressing the Real Provincial Shortfall

When it comes to the provincial budget shortfalls, we need to admit how big the problem really is. The budget showed a little less than $1 Billion deficit for 2012-2013.  In the end it turned into between $1.5 and $2.25 Billion depending who you talk to.  BUT, the debt increase was budgeted at just over $6.6 Billion and it likely ended up at about $7.5 Billion.  So what is going on to turn a $1 Billion deficit into a $7.5 Billion debt increase?

The issue is that we hide debt all over the place. So the $23.6 Billion that are borrowing over the 4 year budget plan includes the deficit + the borrowing on un-funded capital projects + the borrowing to pay previous debt. Then, there is the increased debt that was off-loaded on crown corporations like BC Hydro. That doesn’t even show up at all. (The General coffers takes dividends from crown corporations even though they are losing money and thereby transfer debt over to them).

Another thing that does not get noticed is the increased commitments to buy services in the future that are already weighing down the budget for decades to come. I am not saying that all commitments are bad. If we lock in good rates for services that we know we will need, that is wise. However, we seem to often lock in high rates and buy services in advance that we don’t know if we are going to need.

So if we look at the total shortfall this year and include crown corporations, it is close to a $10 Billion shortfall on a $44 Billion budget.  Make that your household budget and it is like earning $44,000 after taxes but spending $54,000. Some is a personal loan and some is money you borrowed from a friend so it doesn’t show up on your net worth and some is credit card debt and some is capital expenses like a car loan. But rather than work the monthly payment into your budget, you pay everything with a second credit card that you later plan to bury in your mortgage when it comes due.  You can get away with it for a few years, but not for long before it will catch up with you.  

Provincially, we have a major spending problem and by focusing only on the operational deficit we are pretending that we have almost balanced the budget!

In truth, we have to either increase income or decrease spending by close to 20% in order to stop adding to the provincial debt.  Until we admit the full scope of the problem, we will not get serious about fixing it. The BC Conservative Party is dedicated to reducing the debt and not just playing games with how to hide it.  We will address the deficit, we will reduce the borrowing for unfunded capital projects and we will reduce the bleeding at BC Hydro and ICBC and BC Ferries, etc. In short, we will put the province on track to getting to a place where we can reduce the debt.

This will not be an overnight solution but we will address it by:

1)      Making the fall session of the legislature into a governance session where we manage the budget that is put out in the spring so that we don’t have overruns and we review the crown corporations so they don’t go crazy like ICBC has done in hiring dozens of managers making over $200,000/year (remember how they recently went from something like 17 to 53 and the government never noticed).

2)      Continually reviewing all ministries for overlaps and inefficiencies and getting rid of the waste. There are significant gains to be had by doing this.

3)      Increasing revenue by being open to investment in our province. For example, the carbon tax is decimating the cement industry and high paying jobs are being lost because we cannot compete with companies outside BC that do not have to bear this cost. That is a double hit. When a job is lost the government loses revenue (taxes) and gains expenses (social services).  We need a job plan that believes that responsible development is possible in BC and that we can build on our foundational industries without destroying the environment (those being primarily forestry, fishing, mining, oil and gas).

We are not looking at cutting services but cutting waste. And we are not looking at increasing taxes but increasing high paying blue collar jobs.

Check out article 4 of our policies and guidelines http://www.bcconservative.ca/media/2012/10/2012-Policy-adopted-Sept-22-2012-final.pdf

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.