Walter Schultz

Campbell goes where no premier has gone in 26 years.

2009-05-13T19:00:00.006-07:00

Congratulations to Premier Gordon Campbell for becoming the fourth premier to be elected to 3 consecutive terms in British Columbia. The last premier to join the premiership 3-peat was William R. Bennett in 1983. BC has been well served during the past 8 years by Gordon Campbell's strong leadership and voters easily returned him to another 4 year mandate.

The 2009 election presented voters with two distinct options. Gordon Campbell, who stood FOR things and Carole James and the NDP, who were against all things. On election day, the voters identified more with Campbell and the Liberals FOR providing positive leadership, FOR doing something about carbon emissions, FOR native reconciliation, FOR lower taxes, FOR jobs and FOR the environment.

Thank God!

While the losers, Carol James and the NDP, could only counter the BC Liberal's positive campaign by running dirty, personal attacks against Gordon Campbell. James and the NDP spent all their time attacking Gordon Campbell because they had nothing else to offer. They were against the carbon tax, against run of river projects, against, against against. However, what were they FOR???

The 2009 election demonstrated to British Columbian's that the NDP were a party full of hate. Their supporters put up websites saying "Gordon Campbell Hates You", "Gordon Campbell tried to kill your Grandmother" and "Gordon Campbell wants to eat your children". During a speech, Harry Lali, the NDP incumbent for Fraser Nicola, told a room of about 150 supporters: "Gordon Campbell must be stopped."

In response, one supporter in the room yelled "Take him out."

Another yelled, "Shoot him."

Average British Columbians have grown sick & tired of this CONSTANT MESSAGE of HATE espoused by the NDP and their supporters. These negative, nasty and personal attack campaigns should never be rewarded by the voters and thankfully Carole James and the NDP failed for the 3rd consecutive election. Until the NDP lets go of their hate filled 1930s class warfare, they will continue to lose elections in perpetuity!

Carole James wants to steal your grandmother's pension.

2009-05-06T21:00:00.000-07:00

Over 250,000 low income earners, many of them seniors don’t pay any provincial income taxes today and others now pay between 30 and 75 per cent less than they did in 2001 under the former NDP government. Carole James and the NDP voted against these tax cuts that helped our seniors.

Protect your grandmothers and grandfathers from the NDP's taxation abuse, vote BC Liberal on May 12th, 2009.

Carole James knows CUPE but she doesn't know the Forest Industry.

2009-05-05T21:00:00.002-07:00

Forest Industry CEOs correct the record on forestry issues

The three signatories to this statement wish to set the record straight on what is occurring in our industry today and what we see as critical for it to survive and thrive in the future.

First, to those who are quick to blame the current B.C. government for the woes of our industry we can only say it is either a clear demonstration of their lack of understanding of BC’s core business, or that they are willing to play politics with the lives of the thousands of people who depend on forestry. Simply put, B.C.’s forest sector is blessed by having the world’s largest housing market as a neighbour. That also means we are heavily dependent upon the U.S.home-building market which has collapsed. That collapse is not something our governments can fix.

Secondly, the NDP has advocated opening up the Softwood Lumber Agreement and we cannot help but think that indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the agreement. To renege on that deal today would be high risk in the extreme and would undoubtedly lead to costly legal wrangling and duties at the border which in turn would further jeopardize the economic stability of B.C. companies, their employees and the communities in which they live and work.

We have modern, efficient mills today that are the result of the confidence provided by our tenure system in B.C. Without that certainty, our three companies could not have invested the hundreds of millions of dollars to build and rebuild the mills we have in the last few years. The NDP have talked of blowing up the tenure system in B.C. and we can tell you that there has never been a more powerful reminder of the lack of a strong business investment climate we had during the NDP government of the 1990s. They do not seem to appreciate the link between security of tenure and the ability to encourage the investment required to remain competitive in a global business. The NDP forestry policies of the past discouraged investment in B.C. and resulted in significant costs being imposed on our industry. Those costs damaged our ability to compete. Many of the policies being put forward by the NDP of today are just as discouraging.

Finally, we would be remiss if we did not credit Premier Gordon Campbell for being a champion for our industry. The Premier has set the course in opening up Asian markets, in developing new uses for BC wood products, in expanding BC as a showcase for the use of wood products whether it be in iconic structures like the expanded convention centre or Olympic skating oval.

For the first time in our history, our provincial government has aWood First policy that ensures B.C .government building projects first consider how best to use wood products and in that manner establish B.C. as a global showcase for the use of wood products.

In conclusion, our industry is in the midst of the worst crisis since the Great Depression. We are going to get through this and we believe there is a bright future for forestry in B.C. and for the tens of thousands of us who depend directly upon it. It will be a different industry with new products, new applications and new, growing markets. But realizing that future requires everyone working together and strong leadership.

Our entire industry and those who are employed within it have benefited from the leadership of Gordon Campbell and his team. We appreciate that leadership as being critically important to the future and sincerely hope that British Columbians will ensure it continues.

Duncan Davies, President and CEO Chair: Interfor
Hank Ketcham, President and CEO: West Fraser Timber
Jim Shepard, President and CEO: Canfor

Carole James - a leader who understands union leaders.

2009-01-11T19:00:00.008-08:00

Check out Carole James's recent YouTube video. It pronounces that James is a leader who understands the average working person and that she is going to go to bat for average working people.

What a hilarious video.

Forget the NDP spin; what do we actually see in Carole James's video?

Here she is trying to tell us that she represents the average working British Columbian. In reality she's in a video with your average BC union leader.

Surprise, surprise, she's in a video with none other than Boni Barcia.

Boni Barcia is on the Hospital Employees Union Provincial Executive serving as Regional Vice President and Third Vice President of the Union. He also ran unsuccessfully for president of the HEU in the fall of 2008 . You'll notice him at 22seconds in, and then again at 51 seconds in clapping behind her.

If Boni Barcia is in this James infomercial, I'd like to know; just who are all these other "average people" with her. I'm sure union leader Boni Barcia isn't alone. Let me know via your comments if you can spot any of the other "average" union leaders or NDP insiders in the video background.

And remember this -- the next time you hear that Carole James wants to stand up for the "average person", she'd better go find some first. Union leaders and NDP insiders aren't the best place to start.

Dog eats BCTF's homework.

2008-12-29T10:30:00.004-08:00

Last week the BCTF lost it's attempt for an injunction against Bill 42, the so-called "gag law" that will limit third-party political advertising from spending more than $150,000 in the two months proceeding a provincial election campaign and during the 28-day campaign. The BCTF argued in court that the bill imposing restrictions on third party election advertising that would unjustifiably infringe their rights and freedoms under ss. 2(b), 2(d) and 3 of the Charter.

Supreme Court Judge Frank Cole dismissed the application, saying the unions'complaints don't outweigh the intended benefits of what is still a valid law.

Cole said that to be granted such an injunction, the unions needed to prove that the public interest was better served by suspending the law than by leaving the law in place. However, he said the legislation's goals of electoral fairness serve a "valid public purpose" and suspending the law before the case is settled would disrupt the balance that the legislation strikes."

To suspend the operation of only the third party election advertising restrictions would upset that balance to the detriment of the other participants in the electoral process," wrote Cole in a decision posted to the court's website Monday."

Cole cited a case involving Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he was president of the National Citizens Coalition.

In 2000, Harper challenged federal third-party spending limits and asked for a similar injunction for that year's federal election.

However, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected Harper's bid, saying that it would be inappropriate to grant an injunction before a court had ruled on the validity of the law.

Doing so would effectively settle the issue before the court case was finished, the Supreme Court of Canada said in an 8-1 decision.

Once again, Bill 42 the so called "gag law" is about fairness.

Advertising allows third parties to send out their messages to the largest number of people who are generally not particularly interested in political campaigns. However what is very important to recognize is that people are often profoundly affected by the political advertisements. Third party advertising in election campaigns is, ultimately, aimed at persuading voters to do what the person paying for the advertisements wants them to do—that is, to vote for a particular way, which means not voting for any other candidates.

The B.C. government has defended its election advertising restrictions, saying allowing outside groups to spend as much as they'd like isn't fair to voters.

Attorney General Wally Oppal has said the law is intended to keep the focus on the candidates and political parties, rather than allowing third parties influence the outcome of the vote.

I agree with Wally Oppal. How fair is it that third parties can spend what ever they want on election advertising, even outspending political parties? Why should third parties be able to outspend political parities to influence the outcome of elections?

Here's a little homework for the BCTF as they continue their battle in court:

In Harper versus Canada the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Canada's Election Act spending limits on third party election advertising did not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The law is reasonable and is justified.

The majority concluded that the objective of the spending limits is electoral fairness. The law has an effect in creating "a level playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse, enabling voters to be better informed". In addition, section 3 of the Charter is not infringed because the right of meaningful participation in electoral process includes the right to participate in an informed manner. Without spending limits, individuals or groups can dominate the discussion and prevent opposing views from being heard.

Gas Tax is a Win, Win, Win, Win, Win....

2008-12-28T20:00:00.004-08:00

In yesterday's New York Times, star columnist, Thomas L. Friedman writes about the second biggest decision Barack Obama has to make — (the first is deciding on the size of the stimulus package) — is to increase the federal gasoline tax or impose an economy-wide carbon tax.

Only in British Columbia you say, pity!!

"Today’s financial crisis is Obama’s 9/11. The public is ready to be mobilized. Obama is coming in with enormous popularity. This is his best window of opportunity to impose a gas tax. And he could make it painless: offset the gas tax by lowering payroll taxes, or phase it in over two years at 10 cents a month. But if Obama, like Bush, wills the ends and not the means — wills a green economy without the price signals needed to change consumer behavior and drive innovation — he will fail."

"The two most important rules about energy innovation are: 1) Price matters — when prices go up people change their habits. 2) You need a systemic approach. It makes no sense for Congress to pump $13.4 billion into bailing out Detroit — and demand that the auto companies use this cash to make more fuel-efficient cars — and then do nothing to shape consumer behavior with a gas tax so more Americans will want to buy those cars. As long as gas is cheap, people will go out and buy used S.U.V.’s and Hummers."

"There has to be a system that permanently changes consumer demand, which would permanently change what Detroit makes, which would attract more investment in battery technology to make electric cars, which would hugely help the expansion of the wind and solar industries — where the biggest drawback is the lack of batteries to store electrons when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. A higher gas tax would drive all these systemic benefits."

Dealing with the root cause of homelessness.

2008-12-20T08:30:00.001-08:00

With so much attention being given to housing to the homeless I thought we should reflect on the roots of homelessness and the real solutions to this horrific problem.

First off, who are the homeless:

The homeless aren't simply Canadians down on their luck or victims of the global economic crisis or due to our expensive real estate crisis. Also, there aren't thousands of people just one paycheck away from living on the streets. The majority of homeless are there due to substance abuse, criminal behavior, and mental illness. Poverty advocates and the media neglect to tell us that seven out of ten homeless have been institutionalized at one time or another; this includes mental hospitals, detoxification centers, and prison.

The focus on housing the homeless only provides a band aid solution to the real complex and difficult social, medical and criminal issues involved. It might make for good media but housing does nothing to solve the real issues.

What the chronically, drug addicted homeless really need, is intensive medical care and drug treatment to deal with their health issues. In their drug addicted state they are currently too destructive to themselves and their surroundings to put them into independent or semi-independent housing. They require 24 hour supervised care, including health care and drug treatment.

They need more than just another hotel room.

What is working elsewhere:

Sweden has accomplished significant success with compulsory treatment and has among Europe’s lowest crime, disease, medical and social problems stemming from addiction. Recently, a UN report described Sweden’s success with their restrictive drug policy supported by all national political parties:

A compulsory care order in Sweden can only be issued if certain legal conditions are met. The two conditions are: (a) that the person is in need of care/treatment as a result of ongoing abuse of alcohol, narcotics and volatile solvents and that (b) the necessary care cannot be provided under the Social Services Act. The first option for the substance abuser is always voluntary treatment under the Social Services Act. The social welfare committee, which works on the prevention and countermeasures of abuse of alcohol and other addictive substances, acts in consensus with the individual.

As long as the debate continues to revolve around the lack of affordable housing we will continue to struggle with homelessness in Vancouver. To really deal with the issue, we need to move beyond our feelings of guilt and take some decisive action.

This isn't just a Vancouver problem; over 40% of the homeless do not come from Vancouver. However, Vancouver has become ground zero for other communities problems. Move the homeless to 24 hr -supervised care around the province, to cities like Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna, and other communities. All the services for the homeless do not need to be concentrated in Vancouver where we have the most expensive real estate in Canada.

Bad smell coming from City Hall.

2008-12-17T21:00:00.003-08:00

The Vancouver Sun's recent editorial "New mayor's 'fresh start' is first step of secret agenda", makes some excellent points and asks some troubling questions.

"The stunning speed with which Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson abandoned the high horse he rode to victory is making us nervous about what may come next."

"What's clear is that there is an agenda at play that was not discussed by Robertson during the mayoral campaign."

Regarding the firing of Judy Rogers, "Robertson justifies the secrecy surrounding Rogers' dismissal by calling it a personnel matter. But the issue here is not whether Rogers was competent at her job, it is how Robertson and the Vision council will do theirs."

Regarding the hiring of Penny Ballem, "why was there no candidate search for such a highly paid position?"

"What was the genesis of the secret negotiations that led to Ballem being hired for a job that no one else knew was becoming available?"

"If the union representing workers is running city hall, the cost of paying severance to Rogers will just be the beginning of much higher costs for taxpayers."

"Robertson's fresh start has a foul smell."

What parents want to know.

2008-12-16T21:00:00.001-08:00

Here we go again! Every year the BCTF comes out against the Foundation Skills Assessment tests given to all Grade 4 and 7 students. On Friday B.C. teachers via their union voted to refuse to give students these standardized tests, unless the B.C. Ministry of Education moves toward random sampling.

BCTF president Irene Lanzinger wrote in an open letter to Minister of Education Shirley Bond that "teachers are concerned that your government is relying more and more on a discredited American-style testing agenda instead of putting resources into the classroom to help individual students." "The FSA does not help teachers teach, students learn, or parents understand the true nature of their child’s progress."

As Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

When my two daughters were in elementary school, I wanted to know how well they were doing. In fact I can almost guarantee you that parents every where want to know how well their kids are doing in school. And parents don't want a politically motivated union telling them that testing doesn't help them understand the true nature of their child's progress." How unbelievably patronising!

Parents elect governments to run the Ministry of Education; parents don't elect the BCTF to run the education system.

What is it with the BCTF?

With all their recent political activity you would almost think there is an election just around the corner. Wait a minute - - there is an election just around the corner.

Not only is the BCTF complaining about two little provincial tests, they are also taking the Government to court seeking an interim injunction against Bill 42, the so-called "gag law" that prevents third-party political advertising in the two-month period before a provincial election in B.C.. You see the BCTF wants to get their message out. They have $3 million to spend fighting the BC Liberal government and damn it they want to spend it.

Of course BCTF president Irene Lanzinger, says, that the union's political endorsements are fair because they are decided democratically by the 41,000 union members. You can almost hear her nose grow by a foot as she spins that whopper!

The BCTF never spent millions of dollars on political advertising to fight the NDP governments in the 1990's. However in the run up to both the 2001 and 2005 provincial elections they spent millions; and they want to spend another $3 million fighting the 2009 election.

Oh yeh, and the unions endorsements are fair because they are decided by union members. What a load of crap! According to NDP insider Brad Zubyk, unions are tied the hip of the NDP!

The NDP are even recruiting former BCTF president Jinny Sims to run for them in Vancouver Kensington. Surprisingly she's replacing none other than NDP MLA David Chudnovsky another former BCTF president. Are you starting to detect a pattern here.

I wonder which riding the current BCTF president Irene Lanzinger will be running for the NDP in 2013?

All I want for Christmas is Judy Rogers severance package.

2008-12-15T21:30:00.004-08:00

I was putting together my usual wish list for Christmas over the weekend; you know, world peace, an end to poverty and the Canucks winning the Stanley Cup. However, with the global economic crisis beating the stuffing out of my portfolio and my kids draining my wallet for university, I was thinking that some sort of financial windfall would be the perfect gift to fill my stocking.

Now a GM size bailout of billions is beyond my dreams, however how about the City sending me a nice Judy Rogers sized severance cheque for Christmas?

Last year Rogers made $292,000. With fringe benefits her total compensation package would be in the $350,000 range. A senior manager like Judy would be entitled to a buy out compensation package of one months pay for every year of employment to maximum of 24 months.

Wow!!! That works out to a $700,000 cheque just before Christmas, thank you very much! Judy must be smiling all the way to the bank.

While Gregor and his Visionaries are recklessly appeasing their supporters, Vancouver taxpayers are left with a lump of coal in their stockings. What a Merry Christmas indeed!

It's pay back time!

2008-12-13T17:00:00.002-08:00

No surprise that Gregor Robertson and his Visionaries decided to fire Judy Rogers. Vision's union and activist supporters have been calling for Judy Rogers head since the 2007 civic strike. I'm just surprised that things happen so fast. I guess the call for blood from the unions and activists was too strong to resist. After all, with the boys in charge, it was pay back time.

CUPE union leader Paul Faoro said his members are looking forward to working with a new city manager to improve labour relations. "It's time for a fresh start. Labour relations have been brutal." He blamed Ms. Rogers for the strike. "There's no question, Judy dropped the ball."

But really, what was the rush, if it wasn't all about pay back time? Why didn't Gregor conduct a proper executive search to bring in the most qualified candidate to run the City of Vancouver. What, no other candidates except for Dr. Penny Ballem? Come on Gregor! Vancouver resident's aren't that stupid. This is a political appointee, no ifs, ands or buts.

With Gregor and his Visionaries in charge Vancouver resident's better get ready for 3 more years of pay back time.

Unions & NDP violating BC's Privacy Act.

2008-12-09T18:00:00.000-08:00

Following up on Vaughn Palmer's column last week - not only does it clearly describe violations to BC's Election's Act, it also describes clear violations to BC's Privacy Act. In court NDP insider Brad Zubyk really put the fox among the chickens when he explained how the unions would tap their own membership lists "on behalf of and in coordination with the NDP".

Zubyk said, "they aimed to mobilize their members as campaign volunteers, but also as potential NDP voters".

He described how the unions telephoned their members early in the campaign in an effort to identify their political leanings. Zubyk: "I know that unions came to know the political preferences of the members they called because that was the very purpose of the initial stages of the election calling campaign."

He also says: "One of the things that some major unions would do for the NDP during this campaign was to share contact information of their members with the party". "This quasi-merger of the lists would "permit more accurate and efficient use of voter identification resources and permit those [union] members to be targeted with messaging supportive of the NDP and designed to ensure that members supportive of the NDP vote on election day."

BC's Personal Information Protection Act allows Unions to gather "personal information about an individual that is collected, used or disclosed solely for the purposes reasonably required to establish, manage or terminate an employment relationship between the organization and that individual." This information may be gathered, with the consent of members, to form the union's membership lists.

What is illegal here, is the sharing of union membership lists with other organizations!

Subject to this Act, an organization may disclose personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider are appropriate in the circumstances and that fulfill the purposes that the organization discloses under section.

I would love to hear the unions explain how the sharing of union members personal information with the NDP is appropriate and that it fulfills the unions disclosure to it's members. Unions are clearly violating the privacy of their members when they share their membership lists with the NDP.

The Act clearly prohibits the disclosure of union member's names, addresses and telephone numbers with an outside organization such as the NDP!

BC's Information and Privacy Commissioner, David Loukidelis must investigate these privacy violations, so clearly described under oath in court, by NDP insider Brad Zubyk.

TILMA led to full labour mobility.

2008-12-07T19:00:00.001-08:00

On Friday December 5th, the same day that Canada's employment numbers fell by 71,000 jobs, an agreement was finally signed by all of Canada's labour and trade ministers to create full labour mobility in Canada.

With a growing global economic crisis facing our nation, federal and provincial leaders finally realized that they needed to end barriers to inter provincial labour mobility. The inter provincial free movement of people, goods, services and capital is vital to the long-term financial health of all Canadians. Protectionism was only making us poorer.

But what took us so long and what finally brought about this change?

Back in 1994 Canada's 10 provinces and 2 territories signed an Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) with the objective of reducing and eliminating, to the extent possible, barriers to the free movement of persons, goods, services and investments within Canada and to establish an open, efficient and stable domestic market. All governments recognized and agreed that enhancing trade and mobility within Canada would contribute to the attainment of this goal.

Sadly, although this agreement has been on the books for over 14 years it never met it's objective of, true labour mobility within Canada. Every province continued to hold their own professional certification body. For example a teacher in Manitoba couldn't move to BC to work with out going through an onerous recertification process. The same for a myriad of other professionals such as doctors, nurses, architects, etc.

However, in 2006 British Columbia's Premier Gordon Campbell and former Alberta's Premier Ralph Klein signed the most important economic agreement since the North American Free Trade agreement; The Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).

The leadership Premier Campbell and Premier Klien showed in signing the TILMA agreement paved the way for all Canadians to enjoy free labour mobility in Canada.

Full labour mobility between provinces was confirmed on Friday by agreement among Canada's labour and trade ministers, breaking down economic barriers and allowing Canadians and their families to move freely throughout the country, Premier Gordon Campbell said today. "Freeing up the enormous talent and enterprise of British Columbians and all Canadians by maximizing labour mobility is critical to building our economic strength, particularly during challenging economic times,"Premier Campbell said.

"Full labour mobility will allow Canadians to move freely, taking advantage of job opportunities, and helps address long-term skilled worker shortages, such as we will face in B.C. This is an important step forward, and we need to continue to work on removing similar barriers to trade and investment, so we have full trade and labour mobility across the country."Negotiated as part of Canada's Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT), the new labour mobility provisions require that, effective April 1, 2009, people with a specific professional or occupational certification in one province or territory will be recognized as qualified to practise their profession in all provinces and territories where their profession or occupation is regulated.

Unions & NDP violating BC's Election Act.

2008-12-03T19:00:00.001-08:00

Vaughn Palmer's column in the Vancouver Sun; The NDP and unions as political bedfellows: Veteran insider tells all By Vaughn Palmer

VICTORIA - The B.C. New Democratic Party's relationship with organized labour is under examination in court this month, thanks to some telling testimony from a long-time denizen of NDP campaigns.

The case involves the challenge to the election "gag law," the B.C. Liberal attempt to rein in advertising by unions and other third parties in the run-up to provincial elections.

In the effort to provide a rationale for the law, its defenders sought and obtained an affidavit from Brad Zubyk.

He's a 20-year veteran of B.C. political campaigns, mostly on behalf of left-of-centre parties.

"During the 2005 election, I was one of the senior people in the communications campaign run by the provincial NDP," Zubyk says in his affidavit. My official title was director of candidate support. This made me one of the core communications operatives in the NDP's campaign war room.

"During that time," continues the voice from the NDP war room, "the NDP ran an election campaign that was closely coordinated with the campaigns of major labour groups in the province.

"The unions' membership and spending was used as a resource to support our overall campaign and we exploited that resource to the best effect possible.

"The degree to which the unions put their resources at our disposal varied from union to union; however, the vast majority were supportive in some fashion."

He singles out the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Hospital Employees' Union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Canadian Office and Professional Employees.

The veteran backroom boy cited the myriad ways unions had worked hand in hand with the NDP, from coordinating "events and rallies" to placing anti-government advertising.

"The NDP would be advised of the advertising being run by the unions so that duplication of effort could be avoided," according to Zubyk. "This process was informal but constant. Because of the heavy advertising conducted by unions in support of the NDP in 2005, we were able to devote more of the NDP's own money to other campaign activities."

Heavy is right. A half-dozen unions spent almost $3 million on anti-government advertising in the three months leading up to the election.

Zubyk also told how the unions would tap their own membership lists "on behalf of and in coordination with the NDP."

They aimed to mobilize their members as campaign volunteers, but also as potential NDP voters.

He described how the unions telephoned their members early in the campaign in an effort to identify their political leanings.

Zubyk: "I know that unions came to know the political preferences of the members they called because that was the very purpose of the initial stages of the election calling campaign."

He also says: "One of the things that some major unions would do for the NDP during this campaign was to share contact information of their members with the party."

This quasi-merger of the lists would "permit more accurate and efficient use of voter identification resources and permit those [union] members to be targeted with messaging supportive of the NDP and designed to ensure that members supportive of the NDP vote on election day."

All this coordinated effort -- events, advertising, volunteer recruitment and voter identification -- amounted to parallel campaigns, one run by the unions, the other directly by the NDP.

"The NDP expected this coordination to permit the party's own resources to be freed up for investment in other campaign activities," Zubyk says.

"It was effectively the pooling of resources (financial and human) to serve the end of electing as many NDP candidates as possible."

He goes on to discuss the implications for public awareness of the role played by the unions.

"This represented a substantial benefit to the NDP without the unions ever having to make a formal donation to the party," Zubyk observes.

Preferable, he goes on to suggest, because formal donations "would have to be reported and would become known to the unions' members as a discrete figure."

Some union members who are not devout NDP supporters might even take exception to the size of donations.

But the main advantage was to lower the public profile of labour's assistance to the NDP.
**************************************

Not that any of this information is a surprise; we've all known for years that BC's Unions are supporting the NDP with money, staffing and membership lists. However, what is being so clearly described in court contravenes BC's Election Act.

According to NDP insider Brad Zubyk BC's unions are running a “coordinated effort -- events, advertising, volunteer recruitment and voter identification -- amounted to parallel campaigns, one run by the unions, the other directly by the NDP.

The NDP expected this coordination to permit the party's own resources to be freed up for investment in other campaign activities," Zubyk says.

"It was effectively the pooling of resources (financial and human) to serve the end of electing as many NDP candidates as possible.

If money, resources, staffing and advertising is being coordinated between the unions and the NDP, this constitutes a campaign donation and must be registered as a political donation!

Zubyk adds that "this represented a substantial benefit to the NDP without the unions ever having to make a formal donation to the party, Zubyk observes.

Preferable, he goes on to suggest, because formal donations "would have to be reported and would become known to the unions' members as a discrete figure." Some union members who are not devout NDP supporters might even take exception to the size of donations. But the main advantage was to lower the public profile of labour's assistance to the NDP.

There you have it in black and white, the NDP haven't been reporting the union donations made to them. They are breaking the law. Now that we know that substantial political donations haven't been reported, we also need to ask, is this added spending exceeding campaign spending limits?

Harry Neufeld, BC's Chief Electoral Officer must investigate!

Does the NDP's Carole James support the coalition?

2008-12-02T19:30:00.005-08:00

Premier Gordon Campbell yesterday called on all sides in the coalition crisis to cool down. "I think this a time when we want cooler heads to prevail," he said. He said the opposition parties should wait until after the federal budget on Jan. 27 before acting.

We haven't even seen the government's budget yet," he said.

"We need statesmanship, we need confidence and we need stability -- in our economy and in our federal institutions.

"Candidly, it's very difficult for me to understand how you can have a government for Canada, [where] frankly the linchpin of that government is a political party whose sole raison d'etre is to drive Canada apart."

We've now heard from British Columbia's statesman Premier Campbell on the constitutional crisis facing the government in Ottawa. However, I want to know where does the NDP's Carole James stand on the shenanigans going on in Ottawa?

Does she support the coalition of Dion, Layton and Duceppe?

Does her undying support for the NDP's Layton mean she also supports a federal cabinet whose only method of survival must rely on the support of separatists?

Is Carole James in favour of selling out the interests of British Columbia to further the personal ambitions of her NDP ideological sole mate, Jack Layton?

The world is in a global economic crisis. It is exactly the worst time to be bring down a government and replacing it with a bunch of socialists and separatists. With all the problems going on in Ottawa and the NDP's Carole James is refusing to comment on the crisis.

Her complete inability to respond speaks volumes on where her true allegiances lie!

Even Stephane Dion once understood that you can't have the NDP tinkering with the economy. Dion said, Mr. Layton "does not understand the economy," and "you cannot have a coalition with a party that has a platform that would be damaging to the economy. Period."

A choice between two very different futures.

2008-11-30T19:00:00.006-08:00

On Saturday NDP leader Carole James told the party faithful that British Columbian's face a "critical choice between two very different futures".

Yes, we certainly do face a choice!

We can choose to go back to the 1990's when the NDP were in government and British Columbia was languishing as a no growth province.

We can go back to the NDP years; a time of slumping housing prices, of rapidly climbing unemployment rates, rapidly declining business investment rates and a huge exodus of British Columbians to other provinces.

Yes, we can go back to the 1990's, where the rest of North America was enjoying economic boom years, while poor old British Columbia was suffering as an economic have not province. At one point in the 1990’s BC sank so low that it was 2nd last in GDP growth to that economic powerhouse, Chiapas Mexico.

Under the NDP, gross domestic product per capita fell from eight per cent above the Canadian average in 1992 to eight per cent below by 2001. After Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals were elected in 2001, growth started to recover.

After hitting a low of 0.6 per cent in 2001, real GDP growth has averaged 3.4 per cent, marking a return, according to StatsCan, to B.C. surpassing the Canadian average.

If the NDP could destroy the British Columbia economy the 1990’s, while every other province, state, and country was enjoying economic boom times; what would the NDP do to BC’s economy now that we are in a global economic crisis?

Yes, we certainly do face a choice!

Columnists aren't economists.

2008-11-25T20:00:00.003-08:00

Michael Smythe's column this morning had an interesting piece on the BC budget. Smythe editorializes that "the economic slowdown has ripped a $3-billion hole in his budget, which might force the government to do a little trimming of "discretionary" spending to avoid a deficit."

Ripped and forced, oh my how terrible. How could the government do "a little trimming" when so much money is involved? You would think, based on the inflammatory comments of Mike Smythe, that a $3-billion hole in the budget must mean financial Armageddon for British Columbia!

Well, the first rule of journalism is not to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Here's what BC's Finance Minister Colin Hansen actually said, "the weaker economic outlook clearly means lower revenues going forward, in excess of $3 billion over the three years of the current fiscal plan."

Yes, $3-billion is a whole lot of money. But you need to view the $3-billion in the context of the provincial budget over the next three years. It's a reduction of $3-billion over the next 3 years. It's interesting to read that Mike Smythe failed to mention that the $3-billion decline in revenues is over a 3 year period. I guess he just missed it, or is he up to something else?

More importantly, lets look at the $3-billion in comparison to the spring forecasts.

The BC Government tabled a budget in the spring that said, "total government revenue is forecast at $39.4 billion in 2007/08, $38.5 billion in 2008/09, $39.9 billion in 2009/10, and $41.5 billion in 2010/11 — an average annual increase of 1.8 per cent over the next three years."
Surprise! The province was forecasting total revenues of $120-billion over the next three years! So, what does a $3-billion reduction or ripped from the budget as Mike Smythe so eloquently puts it, represent over the next three years. It means that our revenues will decline by 2.5% over the next three years.

Here is an example to put things into context. According to BC Stats, the average British Columbian earns $41,373 annually. A 2.5% reduction in annual income would reduce their income by $1,034. You can argue that a $1,000 is a lot or a little, however 2.5% is a fraction in comparison to total income.

Yes, $3-billion is a whole lot of money. However, $3-billion over 3 years, representing 2.5% of the next three provincial budgets isn't a catastrophe.

Except of course, if you are a columnist and not an economist.

Jim Sinclair slams bailouts to Canadian automakers.

2008-11-24T19:00:00.002-08:00

The BC Federation of Labour is holding their 52nd Annual Convention in Vancouver, November 24th to 28th. Today, Jim Sinclair, the President of BC Fed, speaking to the 1,000 union delegates in attendance, urged them not to support bailouts!

Sinclair said, "if we simply write cheques to the same people who brought us this mess, they will bring us another mess. It is only a matter of time."

Union delegates enthusiastically cheered, applauded and gave standing ovations to Jim Sinclair's speech.

Hey Jim, it makes sense to me; I wonder what the Canadian Auto Workers Union thinks about your no bailouts comment?

The world of driving Miss Daisy is over.

2008-11-24T08:00:00.007-08:00

The current economic crisis is increasing the chaos in the North American automobile manufacturing sector, as millions of cars go unsold. North America is faced with a tremendous oversupply in auto manufacturing capacity that continues to grow worse.

GM, Ford and Chrysler are in Washington begging for $25 Billion from the US government or they will be unable to continue operating. Their subsidiaries in Canada are asking the federal government and Ontario provincial government for $3.5 Billion in hand outs to rescue their manufacturing plants in Ontario. The federal government has already pledged up to $450 million for the auto industry, according to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

Now, should our government continue to bail out the failing auto sector? Realistically, it all depends on what happens in Washington, but for what it's worth, here are my thoughts:

Prime Minister Harper, this isn't your daddy's little recession. Things aren't going to go back to the way things worked in the 1950's. The future of Canada's auto industry is going to change and it won't look anywhere near what it does today!

In Gary Mason's Globe & Mail column, Premier Gordon Campbell said, "he's concerned about the economic future of provinces such as Ontario because, he thinks, the tendency will be to say "how do we get back to where we were before. And there is no before any more. It's always going to have to be about the future. So [Ontario] has a big challenge and they are going to have to restructure their manufacturing plants and think about how you add value."

While that might seem a little cold-hearted, especially coming from a premier whose province has not, as yet, been walloped by the economic crisis, I take his point. Why should $15-an-hour retail clerks and $22-an-hour mill workers in B.C., or anywhere else for that matter, subsidize - in the form of a bailout - an automobile industry that pays its workers $70 an hour just so they can continue making cars and trucks no one wants?

So then, what should governments do?

First off, don't send anymore money or loans to the Canadian auto sector.

Sending money will not stop the steady decline that has been going on for over 40 years. North American car companies have for decades designed cars that people don't want. The Canadian Auto Workers Union have also added to these problems by being increasingly inflexible and unrealistic in their contract demands, which made it harder and harder for North American firms to make a good car at a competitive price. Echoing Premier Campbell's comments, why should the average Canadian worker earning a wage of $20 per hour send their tax dollars to subsidize the salaries of Canadian Auto Workers Union members earning $70 per hour?

Secondly, bankruptcy isn't such a bad option.

The Big Three will not completely disappear if they run out of cash. A bankruptcy would allow the automakers to restructure highly unproductive labour contracts and benefits packages that have made them uncompetitive. Here are the three things that would happen; The Big Three could emerge leaner and more competitive. Or they could merge and become the Big One. Or they could end up being owned by Toyota or Volkswagen. These are all reasonable outcomes, and bankruptcy would just speed it along.

Finally, there's no economic justification for a bailout.

You tell me, how does sending more cash to the Ontario auto sector make the rest of us better off?

Obviously it helps autoworkers and executives; indirectly it slows the bleeding going on in Ontario economy. But there's suffering involved when any business sector goes through a crisis. For example, BC's forest sector is being devastated by the mountain pine wood beetle, resulting in thousands of layoffs. The oil and gas industry in Alberta is being hurt by declining world commodity prices. Governments can't solve every problem and they can't subsidize every job for life. Things happen, the future brings technological and social changes; ultimately, the strong survive, the weak go bankrupt, or they merge or they're bought up or an entirely new technology replaces the old. These same things will happen to the big three automakers.

I believe that taxpayer's money should be invested into places where a failure would otherwise spill over to the rest of the economy. While the auto sector is big part of the Canadian economy it isn't the dominant part any longer. The auto sector contributes only 2% annual to Canada's GDP and employs 130,000 workers or 1.1% of total employment. Saving the automakers won't quicken the global economic recovery, and leaving them to deal with their problems on their own won't hurt the economy anymore than we are already feeling today.

At the end of the day, taxpayer's money should be better spent elsewhere.

Damn it, the sky isn't falling.

2008-11-21T21:00:00.002-08:00

Over the past couple of months we've been experience some of the most significant upheavals the world has ever seen in the financial markets. However, this "Made in the U.S.A." problem, caused by the U.S. sub-prime mortgage market, is probably not the end of the world!

Now, I know that many of you anti capitalists, anti globalization types and anti poverty committee members are really hoping that this is the end of the world as we know it, but you are all going to have to hold your breath a little while longer. As much as you're wishing for the end of all things linked to the global economic machine, our capital markets still work just fine - thank you very much. Hurray for capitalism and shame on all of you who are hoping for it's failure.

Yes, we are certainly living through some interesting times, but we are not living through the end times!

With all the negative news in the economic market place, the world has been hit by a crisis of confidence. Policymakers around the world are rapidly introducing measures aimed at restoring our confidence in the markets. Here are a few of the major initiatives aimed at restoring our global financial credit markets.

October 3rd - the US Congress approved a US$700 Billion bailout which allows the U.S. Treasury Secretary to buy up to US$700 Billion worth of troubled assets from U.S. Financial Institutions. The U.S. Government is targeting these funds to restore liquidity to the financial credit markets.

October 13th - the US Treasury presents a 5-point plan to stabilize the credit markets.

- Buy troubled mortgage-backed securities from U.S. Banks.

- Buy mortgages from regional U.S. Banks.

- Insure mortgage-backed securities and mortgages to ensure that investors don't lose money.

- Buy equity in a variety of U.S. Financial Institutions.

- Help home owners in mortgage default to stay in their homes.

October 14th - President Bush announces the following:

- Invest US$250 Billion to buy preferred shares in 9 major U.S. Banks including the four largest, Citygroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Well Fargo & Co., and Bank of America. This initiative is aimed at unfreezing the credit markets and get banks lending again.

- The U.S. Government will temporarily provide unlimited coverage on all non-interest bearing accounts that exceed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation limit.

Nations around the globe are taking similar actions to restore confidence in our financial markets.

The Canadian Government will purchase up to $75 Billion of insured mortgage pools by the end of the fiscal year as part of its ongoing efforts to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada. Here in British Columbia, Premier Campbell announced that the B.C. government is lifting the ceiling on insured deposits at credit unions. Formerly, deposits at Credit Unions were insured by the provincial government, up to only $100,000.

While I'm not entirely convinced that these measures will fix our current global credit problems, they will build back some confidence in our financial institutions over time. Once lending and liquidity in the financial markets return to a more normalized state, our global economy will return to improving the standard of living of individuals in countries all over the world.

Globalization continues to offer great opportunities for all nations. Trade must not be viewed through the distorted views of narrow interests. All efforts must be put forth to nurture globalization as it provides economic growth, employment and development for rich and poor countries alike.

"It's the economy, stupid."

2008-11-18T20:00:00.004-08:00

The above quote is from Bill Clinton's campaign strategist James Carville, who used it during Clinton's first Presidential election in 1992. The assumption being that during tough economic times, voters will vote for the best manager of the economy.

Like Bill Clinton's successful 1992 Presidential election, we are now also facing our own tough economic times. Rather than focusing on who loves BC's health care system more or slogans like the NDP's "Ax the Tax" or a myriad of other important but less relevant issues, the 2009 election will boil down to the following:

Who does the public trust more to deal with the BC economy in a time of economic downturn or uncertainty?

According to the most recent Ipsos Reid telephone poll - - 56% of British Columbian's selected Premier Gordon Campbell to lead our province versus only 34% who selected the NDP's Carole James.

We are now facing economic uncertainty in our province. The last things British Columbian's will do is go back to the economic mismanagement of the NDP. Thankfully, it still comes down to the economy, stupid.

So, in May 2009, British Columbian's will re-elected Gordon Campbell as our Premier.

The NDP's promises don't add up.

2008-11-17T19:00:00.003-08:00

The week after Premier Campbell laid out his action plan to spend $485 million over 3-years to safeguard British Columbians from the growing global economic crisis. The NDP's Carole James, trying not to be outdone, replied with an economic plan of her own. She promised the NDP would out spend the BC Liberals with $2.4 billion in spending over three years - five times more than Premier Gordon Campbell.

Imagine that - - Carole James says the NDP would spend 5 times more than the Campbell Government over the next 3 years. This from the NDP that brought you 10 straight budget deficits during the years they were the government in BC in the 1990's.

I guess the NDP also believe in the tooth fairy and unicorns.

Or maybe they believe that old Abraham Lincoln quote, that "you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time'.

But British Columbian's know, "you can not fool all the people all the time."

The provincial government has lost hundreds of millions of dollars this year due to the shrinking economy, as stated in September by Colin Hansen, BC's Finance Minister. However, NDP Leader Carole James went on television with a straight face and promised British Columbians that an NDP government would promptly spend $2.4-billion - on top of the new initiatives announced the week before by Premier Gordon Campbell.

Now that's misleading!

The B.C. government originally forecast a budget surplus of $1 billion earlier in the year, but B.C. Finance Minister Colin Hansen recently stated that that budget estimate number has not been updated since the worldwide deep market plunges. BC's overall economic growth this year is running slower than previously estimated and prospects for 2009 now appear to be softening in light of the global economic crisis.

As a result, Royal Bank Economics's forecasts for real GDP growth will be 1.2% in 2008 (down from 2.2%) and down to 2.1% in 2009 (from the projected 2.9%).

Our slowing GDP growth will have a negative effect on our budgetary surpluses over the next 3 years. You can't take the budget surplus forecasts from the spring budget and use these same estimated surpluses in your future spending plans. That is totally dishonest! The NDP should come clean on where they plan to come up with the $2.4 Billion dollars in spending over the next three years.

Or are they trying to fool all of the people all of the time?

There's always a morning after.

2008-11-16T12:00:00.005-08:00

What an exciting morning it must be for our Mayor-Elect Gregor Robertson and his new Vision council. Last night, Vision Vancouver were given a solid majority in the City of Vancouver's civic election and they will soon be firmly in control of City Hall, the Vancouver School Board and the Vancouver Board of Parks.

A clean sweep for Vision. Congratulations on a well deserved victory!

To all our civic candidates, congratulations for bravely putting your names forward to represent our community.

For our elected officials, the glow of the victory parties will soon fade and the real business of leading the City of Vancouver will begin.

I wondering what type of leadership Vancouver will be in for under Vision?

Unfortunately, all victory parties are far too short and Gregor will now be required to make some tough decisions. Our new Mayor will come under real pressure to placate some of his activist supporter’s wishes. For example, does he close a lane on the Burrard Street Bridge for cyclists?

Does he hire 120 more police and how does he pay for it?

How does he house the thousands of homeless by 2015 and where does the money come from?

Does he now cancel the Olympic Village loan guarantee? (I seriously doubt it, even though his anti Olympic supporters might want him to).

All of these problems and many more find easy solutions when you are in opposition; but now come the tough decisions and how the heck does he pay for it all! Will he govern by the wishes of his activist supporters? And if he does, when does the average Vancouver voter become disenchanted with these harebrained ideas? Will the tough decisions be avoided by laying the blame on a lack of funding by the Provincial and Federal Government?

I will wait and see, but I'm hoping for good government. The last thing I want is a return to a council that brought us the performers and entertainers before every council meetings.

We will soon find out the answers to all these questions, but just in case, maybe I should be practising my singing, juggling and guitar playing. Hey, does anyone know the words to "Solidarity Forever"?

Protectionism makes us all poorer.

2008-11-11T09:00:00.002-08:00

Europe gets it; they understand the benefits productivity brings.

Currently, 27 individual countries make up a political and economic union called the European Union (EU), which represents over 500 million citizens and generates a combined gross domestic product totalling 30% of the worlds GDP. European leaders realized that a common market increases their productivity and strengthens their collective economies, which in turn improves the standard of living for their 500 million citizens.

The Europeans created the European Union, which is a single market that provides a standardised system of laws applying in all member states, guaranteeing the freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital. Considering all the conflicts that have taken place between European states over the decades, the rewards must be immense for so many nationalist countries to break down cross border controls.

Imagine; guaranteeing the free movement of people, goods, services and capital between countries like Germany, France, Poland and the UK. Europeans understand that restrictions to movement of goods and people between counties is destructive to their prosperity.

Yet here in Canada, we have no such free movement. We have a country that erects all sorts of barriers to the free movement of goods and workers between Canadian provinces.

Canadians need to understand that the inter provincial free movement of people, goods, services and capital is vital to the long-term financial health of all Canadians. Our standard of living depends on improving our productivity and studies estimated that the cost to Canadians for inter provincial trade barriers is between $10-$25-billion of our $300-billion in inter provincial trade.

Productivity is a terrible thing to waste.

In 2006, British Columbia's Premier Gordon Campbell and Alberta's Premier Ralph Klein took action to move Canada into the 21st century. Like the EU they signed the most important economic agreement since the North American Free Trade agreement; The Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).

In 2007, Premier Campbell asked "when are we going to decide we're a country?" "When are we going to decide that the free movement of goods and people and services is something that's part of what a national identity should be?" "I think it's ridiculous that someone can be trained as a teacher in Manitoba and isn't able to teach in British Columbia,” Mr. Campbell said.

With a growing global economic crisis facing our nation, Federal and Provincial leaders must break down these barriers to inter provincial trade. It is not enough that only the provinces of BC and Alberta have signed on to the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).

Today, all provinces must commit to ending inter provincial trade barriers. Our nations economic future is dependant on improving our productivity.

Campbell keeping BC a "deficit free zone".

2008-11-09T19:00:00.002-08:00

As the growing global economic crisis continued, BC Premier Gordon Campbell addressed the Province on October 22nd with a televised public address, where he firmly reiterated his commitment to keep the province’s books in the black. "Our province is directly impacted by events beyond our control," he said. "We will not start digging ourselves back into the hole that we all worked so hard to get out of," said Premier. Campbell.

BC will not be heading back into the deficit spending years that successive NDP governments burdened average British Columbians with back in the 1990's.

The solution to solving this crisis is to keep our economies moving forward and to safeguard our savings, ease the tax burden of average British Columbian's and to maintain BC's high standard of living.

Premier Campbell listed the following actions in his plan:

Effective immediately, the B.C. government is lifting the ceiling on insured deposits at credit unions. The maximum was previously $100,000.

A new private-sector pension fund will be created for individuals currently without access to a pension plan. This defined-contribution plan will be privately financed and available to employers, employees and self-employed people on a voluntary basis.

The previously announced personal income tax cut – totaling 5% – will beaccelerated and made retroactive to January 1, 2008. This is estimated to return $144 million into taxpayers’ pockets.

Light and heavy industry will see their school property taxes rebated by 50%, saving them an estimated $155 million over three years.

The small business income tax rate will be reduced to 2.5% on December 1 from the current 3.5%, constituting an acceleration of the earlier plan of achieving that level by 2011. The rate has been lowered by one percentage point this past July. The savings to small businesses are estimated at $146 million over three years.

The government will double the commission its pays businesses for collecting the provincial sales tax and hotel room tax, representing an estimated $60 million over three years.

Capital spending on public infrastructure will be accelerated with a focus on projects with a relatively short lead time.

Premier Campbell pledged to “re-evaluate spending priorities and focus on scaling back unbudgeted increases”.

Campbell's plan is estimated to cost $485 million dollars over the next three years however British Columbia will continue to be in the enviable position of enjoying budget surpluses due to the strong fiscal management of our BC Liberal Government.

"B.C. is in far better shape than the rest of Canada," he said, adding that only B.C., Alberta and the federal government have top triple-A credit ratings. "We will not let this economic slowdown return us to the ranks of the have-nots," said Campbell.

Made in the U.S.A.

2008-11-07T20:00:00.004-08:00

Have you been wondering what the hell just happened to the global economy? Let me give you some simple insight into what has caused some of the recent financial turmoil.

Here is the most important thing to understand; when it comes to lending money financial institutions should be lending money to individuals who have these five key elements required to obtain credit. 1) character (do they have integrity), 2) capacity (do they have sufficient sufficient cash flow to service the debt), 3) capital (do they have a positive net worth), 4) collateral (do they have assets to secure the loan), and finally 5) credit (your habits in repaying your debt obligations). Unfortunately these simple rules were totally disregarded over the past 10 years.

Back in the mid 1990's civil rights groups in the USA complained that poor people had less access to mortgage money to finance home ownership than the general middle class. These so called advocates for the poor had immense political clout under President Bill Clinton. With Bill Clinton as President, legislation was passed that required banks to lend to more non credit worthy borrowers.

This new legislation also required the two large US government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to buy these lower quality mortgages from the banks, guarantee them, and sell them to the public. These mortgages were then bundled into immense pools of sub prime mortgages which were sold all over the world.

Things kept ticking along because every one thought that these sub prime mortgages would never be a problem because everyone knows that real estate always goes up in value. As long as real estate values increased any chance of mortgage default would be covered up by higher home values. If a home owner couldn't make their payments they could just refinance the mortgages for more money than they owed on the original mortgage, pay off the first mortgage and live happily in their new home. Bingo, bango, bongo...no problem!

But this mortgage house of cards was built on a foundation of sand. The sand being the premise that real estate values only go up in value! Unfortunately, real estate values did not continue to climb, they stabilized and then started to fall.

Now, when these sub prime mortgage holders could not pay off their mortgages, and when they couldn't refinance, they started to default. When a lot of these mortgages defaulted, the massive pools of bonds sold by institutions started to declined in value. During 2007 only, nearly 1.3 million U.S. housing properties were subject to foreclosure activity.

There are a number of other contributing factors to our global financial problems however the over bearing issue is poor credit policies. I'll leave the final word to Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who stated:

"The current credit crisis will come to an end when the overhang of inventories of newly built homes is largely liquidated, and home price deflation comes to an end. That will stabilize the now-uncertain value of the home equity that acts as a buffer for all home mortgages, but most importantly for those held as collateral for residential mortgage-backed securities. Very large losses will, no doubt, be taken as a consequence of the crisis. But after a period of protracted adjustment, the U.S. economy, and the world economy more generally, will be able to get back to business."

NDP running out of gas.

2008-11-05T18:00:00.007-08:00

Today's gas prices are 1.05 a litre.

We have all noticed the massive decline in gas prices over the past few months as oil prices dropped from a summer high of $147 per barrel to below $66 per barrel today. In fact we now have the lowest gas prices in BC since January.

This summer the NDP were able to score some cheap political points by capturing the public's anger with rising gas prices and attacking the BC Liberal's carbon tax. I know no one likes higher gas prices and the rapid escalation in prices earlier in the year had many motorists boiling with angry. The NDP took advantage of this and went on the offensive attacking the BC Liberals with their "Ax the Gas Tax" campaign. They did pretty well this summer; even drawing even with the BC Liberals in a number of opinion polls.

However, 4 months is an eternity in politics and with today's lower gas prices it looks like the NDP's little "ax the gas tax" campaign has quite frankly, run out of gas. Yes, they scored some cheap political points when gas prices were higher but today with the price approaching a $1 per litre; the heat in the public's anger has simply evaporated.

To be quite honest, the NDP's little campaign was completely disingenuous. The BC Liberals have the most progressive plan for climate change in the country with legislated targets, a price on pollution, and a framework for “cap-and-trade” to further reduce industrial pollution. The BC Liberal plan has been praised from a variety of sources, including Canada's leading environmentalist David Suzuki, former US President Bill Clinton, California Governor Arnold Swartzenegger and the left wing think tank the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

While the BC Liberals are reaping praise for their carbon tax, the NDP are planning to go after the big polluters with increased taxes. You know, that's Carol James and the NDP's code words for taxing the rich.

However the NDP should spend a little more time thinking about the issues rather than spewing rhetoric! Don't be fooled by the NDP's hidden taxes - taxing bigger polluters will just add addition costs to consumers. In the end you'll just pay more. Tell me, who of any standing supports the NDP's dishonest attacks on the BC Liberal's action plan on climate change?

Thankfully no one.

Gregor Robertson, is a "Fare Cheater".

2008-11-02T18:00:00.001-08:00

Former NDP MLA, Gregor "I am not a Cheat" Robertson has dumped some dirty baggage on his campaign to become Vancouver's next Mayor. The Province is reporting that the political lefts new Messiah has been outed as a Translink fare evader.

Robertson "told The Province Saturday that he has intended to use his hearing, scheduled for Dec. 4 in Vancouver, to draw attention to what he considers transit fines that are disproportionate to offences". Gregor was fined way back in June 2007 and it has taken him over 16 months to tell anyone about his fine. How interesting that it has taken a reporter to catch him on his cheating; rather than having him confess his cheating on his own.

These fines have been in place since 2005 to deter fare cheaters. Unfortunately, Gregor Robertson assumes he is above the law and hasn't paid his fine nor has he taken the trouble to let the public know of his misdemeanor! Doesn't he know that these fines are not only meant to deter cheaters but are also used provide support and services for victims of crime.

I wonder if he was ever going to tell anyone about this. Isn’t it rather convenient that his hearing was scheduled for after the Vancouver civic election. I guess he hoped no one would find out about his little episode of cheating.

Gregor's sad little secret is yet another example of the Vision Team hiding from the truth. Vision Councillor Tim Stevenson keep his dirty little drunk driving charge secret from the public for over 14 months back in 2007. Oh my god! And people are actually supporting these dishonest politicos in their quest to run the City of Vancouver.

You have to ask yourself the question; what other dirty little secrets are Gregor and his friends over at Vision hiding from the public?

The best tax is a consumption tax.

2008-07-03T22:00:00.002-07:00

Taxing consumption is one of the most economically effective methods of generating government revenues without distorting the economy. Consumption taxes create incentives for individuals to save more of their after tax income and for business to invest more in their businesses.

Consumption taxes are good taxes.

BC's carbon tax is an excellent shift in the tax mix – less tax on income and more tax on consumption – in a revenue-neutral fashion of course. Shifting the mix towards consumption and away from income taxes encourages savings, investment, and work, all the while helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the case of our carbon tax.

BC’s decision to show leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions certainly isn't pleasing everyone. Especially all the climate change deniers in the NDP.

But the carbon tax is a plan based on sound environmental and economic policy (as a long list of environmental groups and 70 economists have endorsed) and it represents a good start in tackling the problem of green house gas emissions.

The tax does a great job of striking a balance between implementing a tax aimed at altering our behavior and at the same time it provides businesses and individuals to adjust to the increased costs over time. Could you imagine the howling if the three year carbon tax increases were implemented all at once? For those of you who have either never taken economics or if you are too stupid to understand, let me be clear; consumption taxes alter taxpayer's behaviour over time!

I have always been a big fan of consumption taxes - like the GST. I love seeing it on everything I purchase. It makes you think about your consumption; you see it every day at the till. It helps you make sound choices with your after tax income. I would prefer that governments lower our income taxes and increase the GST to a rate of 10% or higher in a revenue neutral way.

The carbon tax is another good tax that will go a long way to reducing the consumption of carbon in British Columbia. I strongly support any shift that moves the tax mix away from income towards consumption in a revenue-neutral fashion.

Premier Campbell keep up the good work!

Hey stupid, it's only 2.4 cents!

2008-07-02T18:00:00.002-07:00

By the sound of it, the world ended as we know it in British Columbia on July 1st, when Gordon Campbell's BC Liberal Government instituted North America's first "carbon tax". The media is full of comments from angry consumers saying, "how dare they put a 2.4 cent per litre tax on my gas".

It's the price of gas that's making you mad - not the carbon tax. Never mind that the new tax is revenue neutral. Never mind that as of July 1st residents of B.C. earning up to $111,000 per year now pay the lowest personal income taxes of any province or territory in Canada. Never mind that we are recieving a $100 “climate action dividend” cheque.

Damn it - "Axe the Tax"! We want to drive our honking big SUV's to the corner store to pick up some Frito Lays, we don't want to pay 2.4 cents a litre more in gas taxes.

British Columbian's, give your head a shake and wake up to the reality of what you are really angry about. After all we are only talking about a few cents. The price of gas changes a few cents every day already. The 2.4 cents a litre increase in gas prices is minuscule compared to the recent market increases, and the tax is designed to move us away from a continued reliance on increasingly scarce and costly fossil fuels. The whole point of British Columbia's first carbon tax is to decrease gas consumption and carbon emissions in general.

Hmmm, what a novel idea. Make something more expensive and people will use less of it.

If you are truly upset by the increase in gas prices make some choices! Drive less, use public transit, car pool, walk, or ride your bike. Ultimately if we want people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we need to use less fuel / carbon.

NDP Style, "Tax to the Max"

2008-06-24T18:00:00.002-07:00

It's interesting to see that the political left in British Columbia are out attacking the BC Liberal’s plan to deal with climate change. They have even come out with a cute little slogan called “Axe the Gas Tax”. While the slogan has a nice ring to it, the issue highlights once again the NDP’s complete lack of ideas to deal with an issue.

NDP Leader Carole James is slamming Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals saying, “the gas tax only hurts consumers who are already suffering”. James adds, "instead of taxing consumers, the government should target major industrial producers such as the gas, oil, cement and aluminum industries".

Isn’t that a nice idea; just make someone else pay. What a great idea!

We’ll just make someone else pay. However making industrial producers pay more will only raise costs to business, and you can be sure that those costs will be passed on to you and me, the consumers.

The NDP's framework on climate action says, “Climate change is the biggest issue facing our generation and every one needs to be part of the solution”. For your information that's what the carbon tax is meant to do, make everyone part of the solution.

So the question is; are the NDP just stupid or are they just dishonest?

Big Labour hiding from full disclosure.

2008-05-16T09:00:00.002-07:00

This morning British Columbia's big public sector unions were running full page advertisements in the provinces three largest newspapers attacking the government's Bill 42 which limits third party advertisements to $150,000 and 148 days prior to an election.

How ironic that the very groups being limited for their multi-million dollar ad campaigns are defending themselves by running yet another expensive attack ad campaign. This morning they were spending tens of thousands of dollars in the print media arguing for unlimited third party spending.

What's wrong with full disclosure of how much is being spent and by who, to fund political campaigns?

Why are public sector unions trying to hide how much they are spending on political advertising from British Columbians?

How fair is it for public sector unions to spend millions and millions of dollars to defeat the government without including this under a spending limit on election campaign spending?

Are public sector unions trying to Americanize our political system, where the group who spends the most money wins?

Frankly the BC Fed - BCGEU - BCTF - COPE 378 - CUPE BC - FPSE - HEU - and the HSA's dishonesty is unconscionable!

Lets be clear, money influences voting!

BC's public sector unions are trying to influence the outcome of our elections by spending millions to fight for or against a particular candidate or political party. This participation of third parties, like candidates and all political parties, cannot be unlimited. How fair is it that the NDP and the BC Liberals have a spending limit and yet third parties such as unions can outspend political parties by 2-1? The BCTF has approved millions of dollars in election spending at their last AGM, multiply that by the nine unions participating in this dishonest little campaign of non disclosure and you have a recipe for derailing the integrity of our electoral system.

The Supreme Court of Canada was clear in it's judgment on Canada versus Harper; spending limits foster confidence in the electoral system. Limits prevent candidates or parties from circumventing legislated spending limits through third party spending via special interest groups. These limits prevent wealthy donors from derailing the electoral system and it also prevents the escalation of overall advertising spending.

British Columbia is following the federal government's legislation that has passed judgement through the Supreme Court of Canada. Our BC legislation is entirely reasonable and within the law. Third parties can not be allowed to outspend political parties and hijack the electoral process. There must be limits!

"The primary mechanism by which the state promotes equality in the political discourse is through the electoral financing regime". Bill 42 levels the political playing field and fosters equality amongst all interested parties.

One final question; Why is BC's big labour against equality?

Time in a capsule.

2008-05-15T09:00:00.003-07:00

Way back in December 1949, a time capsule was sealed behind the cornerstone being laid during the construction of the Sunset Memorial Centre in South Vancouver.

Vancouver's own two-time welterweight boxing champion of the world, Jimmy McLarnin (left centre with Sunset President Stan Thomas) sealed the 11x5 inch monel-metal time capsule preserving the history of the Sunset Community Association at the laying of the cornerstone.

The vacuum sealed capsule contained the story of the building of the Sunset Memorial Centre, newspaper clippings, material on the life and styles of 1949, a movie on the centre and also a newsreel short of Bing Crosby's historic visit to Vancouver to raise the money to build Sunset called "Bing makes a bang in Vancouver".

After the decommissioning of the Sunset Memorial Centre, the time capsule was retrieved and donated to the City of Vancouver Archives for proper handling, opening and ultimately the storage of it's entire contents. If you are interested in viewing a short clip on the opening of the Sunset time capsule you can find a link here.

Scroll down the page to:

"Vancouver time capsule documents Bing's generosity and reminds us that he was once the King."

BC Liberals set to three-peat.

2008-05-14T09:00:00.001-07:00

Most of you are aware that the next provincial election date is one year away, on May 12th 2009.

However, just a short seven years ago and you wouldn't have known when the next provincial election date was because BC didn't have fixed election dates prior to Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals being elected in 2001.

Today elections can't be called to suit the political whims of the governing party. What a fantastic idea this has been! In fact many other provinces have followed BC's example and legislated their own fixed election dates, including Ontario, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and now Manitoba.

So looking ahead to the May 12th, 2009 BC provincial election, which party is going to win?

Based on the BC Liberal's vision, experience and their leadership, the answer is obvious; the BC Liberals will handily win the 2009 provincial election.

To follow up on my bold prediction, two new polls have come out showing the BC Liberals comfortably in front of the BC NDP, one year away from the provincial election. The Mustel Group poll has the BC Liberals at 49% with the BC NDP at 31% for a 18 point lead. An Ipsos Reid poll has the BC Liberals at 46% with the BC NDP at 34% for a 12 point lead.

Any way you add it up the BC Liberals and Premier Gordon Campbell are heading for a three-peat.

Unions still too political.

2008-05-13T09:00:00.001-07:00

CUPE BC President Barry O'Neill holding hands with NDP Leader Carole James.

A new poll released by Angus Reid Strategies says, "49 per cent of respondents say unions have too much influence in Canadian life, while 25 per cent believe they have about the right amount of influence. The vast majority of respondents (72%) consider unions are too involved in political activities."

This is the second poll in 12 months asking the public if they feel unions are too politically involved. In July 2007 Angus Reid Strategies released a similar poll with similar results. You can read my comments from last summer here.

This poll is a fitting follow up to the BC Government's proposed legislation limiting third party advertising to $150,000 148 days prior to a provincial election. Why limit third party spending? Because unions are too involved in political activities. They shouldn't be spending millions and millions of dollars of their members hard earned union dues on political shenanigans.

As I said last year, unions should "stop spending the dues collected from their members on their political activities, public relations campaigns, and other activities not directly related to serving the needs of their members. Union members shouldn't be forced to fund union activities not specifically related to collective bargaining."

The sign of our times.

2008-05-12T09:00:00.000-07:00

Today it seems everywhere you go in British Columbia you see the signs of a strong economy. The skyline in Vancouver is a forest of construction cranes. For example the Millennium project on the south slope of False Creek has thirteen cranes working on that site alone. This is a far cry from the late 1990's when hardly a crane could be seen on Vancouver's skyline.

My how things have changed.

However one of the problems we face with a hot economy is the lack of workers. Anyone who wants to work in British Columbia can find a job. The problem is, we have more jobs than we have workers available to fill these positions. Today B.C. has the lowest unemployment rate it has been since the mid-1960s, and the province's job market continues to grow, according to figures released Wednesday.

In a report, published by Credit Union Central of B.C., they project the unemployment rate for 2008 at 4 per cent, down from 4.2 per cent in 2007 and the fifth straight year of decline.

Not only do we have a low unemployment rate but British Columbia continues to have a strengthening labour market that has created record high employment rates in April. Employment growth in British Columbia over the last 12 months has been above the national average, at 3.4%, while the national employment growth rate is only 2.1%.

The main drivers of B.C.'s job growth continues to be trade, construction, information, culture and recreation, and transportation and warehousing.

For young people coming into the workforce, the future holds incredible opportunity that's unprecedented in the past forty years. Young people living in this province have a pick of careers to choose from.

With a year remaining until the May 12th 2009 provincial election lets continue to build on British Columbia's strong economic foundation. Lets never again return to those dark days where our province lost more jobs than it created, where more people were leaving the province than coming here. Lets stick with a government that has the experience, vision, resolve and know how to lead our province toward a continued bright future.

Creating fairer elections.

2008-05-07T09:00:00.003-07:00

The B.C. government is in the process of overhauling election rules, including new spending limits, on third party advertising before a provincial election. Under the changes, each provincial party can spend up to $4.4 million on the 28-day election campaign, and up to $2.2 million during the 120-day period before the campaign begins.

However there will be new added restrictions on third party advertising which will see third parties limited to spending up to a maximum of $150,000 during the entire 148-day period.

Attorney-General Wally Opal said, "what we've done here is adopted what's in the federal legislation and put a limit of $150,000 on third-party advertising".

This new legislation effectively closes the door on the NDP receiving their traditional millions of dollars in third party union advertising support, during election periods.

The NDP's greatest campaign asset has been third party union advertising, targeted towards criticizing the BC Liberal Government. For years the NDP have campaigned to ban union or corporate donations to political parties, when in reality the NDP's friends in the labour movement were directly financing all the political attack advertisements themselves. Go ahead ban union donations - the unions weren't making their donations directly to the NDP anyways, they were always advertising directly on their own.

Just one example; in 2005 Provincial Election the BC Teachers Federation spent over $2 million dollars fighting the BC Liberal Government. At the recent BCTF Annual General Meeting in March 2008 the teachers passed the following motion: That $3,000,000 be transferred from the Collective Bargaining Defense Fund to the Public Education Defense Fund for the 2008 - 2009 fiscal year to support the BCTF campaign leading up to the provincial election.

In effect, the combined spending by third party union advertising was greater than the total spending by the BC Liberal Party. How fair is it that third parties can spend what ever they want on election advertising.

This isn't free speech, it's expensive speech!

Why should third parties be able to spend millions of dollars to influence the outcome of elections?

This new legislation effectively limits third parties from spending more than $150,000 from December 15th 2008 to the provincial election date, May 12th 2009. It is about time that restrictions were placed on all third parties spending so that individuals or groups can not dominate the political discussions of the day and prevent opposing views from being heard during an election.

This issue hasn't dominated the media's attention, but this little change will make the electoral process in British Columbia much fairer and more transparent. It's about time!

Monkeying with the numbers.

2008-05-05T09:00:00.001-07:00

This week the BC NDP issued a news released stating that "working families are making less under Gordon Campbell". NDP Leader Carole James said, new census figures showing that British Columbia is seeing the sharpest decline in incomes confirm that Gordon Campbell’s one-sided economic agenda has hurt working families. She goes on to say, “it’s clear that Gordon Campbell’s one-sided economic policies are benefiting those at the top, but hurting everyone else.”

What she's referring to is a recent StatsCan report on income growth in Canada between 1980 and 2005.

However the BC NDP's attention grabbing headline is in fact pure fantasy when you review what Stats Canada was comparing.

Stats Canada's report focused mainly on earnings, or employment income. It excluded retirement income, investment income and government transfer payments. That last category comprises $52 of every $100 received by families in the lowest income group. These transfers include Old Age Security (OAS) pensions, Employment Insurance, child benefits and GST tax credits. In other words, the Stats Canada numbers that made all the headlines undersell the income of the lowest income groups by a factor of more than 50%.

Another factor that negatively skews British Columbia's Stats income growth comparison is the demographic make up of our population. According to the results of the last census, British Columbia's population remains one of the oldest provinces in Canada. In 2006, 14.6% of its population was 65 years or older, compared with 13.7% for Canada as a whole.

So, Stats Canada's recent report on income growth totally ignores the vast majority of income that 14.6% of all British Columbian's seniors earn. It's no wonder the numbers looked so low.

Unfortunately the BC NDP think that the majority of British Columbians are working like monkeys for chump change; the truth is British Columbians in all income groups are doing just fine, under Gordon Campbell's leadership.

Decommissioning the Sunset Memorial Centre.

2008-05-01T07:00:00.005-07:00

The Sunset Memorial Centre official opened its doors to the public on September 25th 1950 and 58 years later, the centre was officially decommissioned on Wednesday March 12th 2008.

The Sunset Memorial Centre story doesn’t start in 1950; it actually starts 5 years earlier, way back in January 1945. That was just a short six months after June 6th, 1944 or D-Day - the day on which the Battle of Normandy began — which commenced the Western Allies efforts to liberate mainland Europe from Nazi occupation during World War II.

The decommissioning ceremony was held to pay the final respects to the “Sunset Memorial Centre” which was conceived at a time of war, when our communities thoughts were with our sons and daughters who were away serving their country. Many young men and women from our area of Vancouver South had enlisted in the armed forces. During those war years, our young high school students were not only making their preparations for graduation, but they were also preparing for the day that they would be called to join our armed forces to fight in World War II.

From our local John Oliver Secondary School alone, 98 former students died during World War II, including 64 in the air force. To add some perspective; this loss of life represented a ratio of one in every twenty five students from John Oliver who enlisted in the armed forces, died serving their country. One death for every twenty five students was an incredibly high price to pay.

During 1945 the community of Vancouver South felt greatly indebted to those who were fighting for and protecting our way of live. The community thought that the new community centre they were planning to build should be a “living memorial” honouring those who had served and those who were still serving from our neighbourhood.

In their minds they hoped that the Memorial Centre would not only pay tribute to those who had pledged their all on behalf of our way of life but that it would also demonstrate to all the residents of Vancouver the many blessings that we as free citizens, derived from our democratic system.

The building was conceived as a Memorial Centre in 1945 during the height of World War II and it has served the citizens of south Vancouver faithfully for over 50 years. Tens of thousands of people have walked through these doors over the years with hardly a thought to the dedication and sacrifice given so freely by those men and women who gave their lives for democracy.

The Sunset Memorial Centre was conceived in a time of great anguish, but it was built for a future of great promise.

In the words of Stan Thomas the founding first President of the Sunset Community Association and the champion who built and opened the original Memorial Centre in 1950:

“The barriers of race, creed and colour are down – Let’s keep it that way!

The 50% Solution.

2008-03-06T09:00:00.004-08:00

Health-care spending in British Columbia is now 43% of the provincial budget. In three years it will represent 47% of the provincial budget. B.C. Finance Minister Carole Taylor has projected in her 2008 budget that 68% of all new public spending over the next three years will be for health-care.

Wow, 68% of new spending on health-care doesn't leave a whole lot for anything else. Way back in 1998 B.C.'s Finance Minister, Joy MacPhail projected that only a massive 52% of all new public spending would be spent on health-care.

How sustainable is that?

You tell me; what priorities do you want your government to spend more money on? Housing for the homeless, more for post secondary education, how about spending on mental illness or maybe drug treatment for addicts? What about new infrastructure projects like transit, sewage treatment, or new roads or new schools. How about more money for the environment; to fight global warming or help our beleaguered forest industry fight the pine beetle infestation?

Here's the problem; no matter what your priority is, health-care is putting a big squeeze on your plans.

Being in government is about making tough choices. The problem with health-care is its voracious appetite is reducing our ability to fully deal with many of these other important issues.

On the one hand you have the reality of spending within our budgetary means. On the other hand you have the health-care special interest groups - including doctors, nurses, unionized employees all clamouring for more money. Following this clamour is the opposition NDP, led by Adrian Dix who continues to demand more spending on health-care. And the good old media are right there doing their part, by highlighting every little health-care incident where the system might have let some patient down; never once mentioning the fact that 99% of all patients receive excellent care.

Mark my words, change is coming. Health-care budgets are going to meet the reality of budgeting in the near future.

However before that happens, health-care needs to leave the domain of the political football and become an issue that our society actually deals with honestly. It can no longer remain the sole domain of political rhetoric and of political parties expressing their never-ending love of the health-care system.

Lets face it, everyone loves our health-care system! The problem is that we love it so much we aren't willing to look at it realistically.

When will we move beyond the rhetoric and have a real debate about saving our health-care system? That my friends and readers is the billion dollar question.

When will the majority of British Columbian's be willing to look at the real problems with our health-care system and engage in an honest and respectful discussion with out all the political grandstanding?

I believe the answer to that question can be found in B.C.'s recent carbon tax to fight greenhouse-gas emissions.

A few years ago there was no way a government anywhere in Canada could have added a carbon tax, without suffering a tremendous political fallout. Today Canadians strongly believe in saving the environment. They believe that man is the cause of global warming and they want someone to do something about it.

Enter the B.C. Liberals. Judging that the public was ready to address the issue in a meaningful way, they jumped ahead of all other jurisdictions in North America and instituted the first carbon tax. The net result; no back lash from the public and the B.C. Liberal government is being praised for instituting a carbon tax by almost everyone.

Why the change?

Public perception.

The public today believes there is a real and significant problem with global warming and climate change and they have accepted that governments everywhere need to do something about it.

So with health-care soon to be consuming 47% of the entire provincial budget, when will the public catch on to the unsustainability of our health-care system and when will they be willing to really deal with it?

I believe there is a public tipping point coming, when the public will finally accept that there is a real problem that needs to be dealt with. That time will come when health-care consumes over 50% of the B.C. provincial budget. Based on the rapid growth of health-care spending that date should be some time around 2013.

Fixing the sustainability of the health-care system will only happen once 50% of the provincial budget is swallowed up by health-care spending. Call it the "50% solution".

Too bad we'll waste a few years along the way.

The Health Care Conundrum.

2008-03-05T09:00:00.015-08:00

I found it interesting to read the budget speech's from successive BC Finance Minister's over the past 10 years

In 1998 Joy MacPhail said, "that health spending is increased in this budget by $228 million, the seventh straight year that health care funding has been increased."

In 1999 Joy said, "Of all the pressing tasks before us right now, none is more urgent than improving health care."

In 2000, the new Finance Minister, Paul Ramsey said, "Our universal health care system is the bedrock of family life in Canada and in B.C., health care is the top priority of today's families."

In 2001, Paul said, "Nothing is more important to this government than improving health-care. That is why no priority is higher in this budget. This budget devotes 52% of new program spending to meeting the needs of patients -- to funding doctors, nurses, hospitals and services in our public health care system."

And after the change in government the BC Liberal Finance Minister's said:

In 2002, Gary Collins said, "there is no greater priority than saving and renewing health care."

In 2003 Gary said, "We’ve all heard and seen, either first-hand or in the media, the challenges that exist in the health care system.
They are not new. They have been there for years. So what should we do about them?
Well, we have a choice to make:
We can continue to do what previous governments did — add more money but don’t change anything. But don’t be surprised if we just get the same unacceptable results — and pay more to get them.
Or we can choose a different path; a path that is more difficult; a path that requires courage, determination and hard work:
Courage to make big, structural changes to a system that needs a massive overhaul, if it is to survive;
Determination to stay the course, remain focused on patients, and not be threatened by those who think the system is there to serve them first, and patients second;
And hard work — to actually get the job done; to go in to work every day and — every day — make at least one thing better."

In 2004 Gary said, "we've also done the hard work of restructuring health care delivery and management — to make sure that more of every health care dollar goes directly into patient care."

In 2005 Colin Hansen said, "Budget 2005 includes the second-largest funding increase for health care in BC history."

In 2006 a new Finance Minister, Carole Taylor said, "we believe the balance we have struck between spending on public sector wages and spending for our children, for health, for education, for skills and training, and for other public services is fair…Fair to our workers; fair to taxpayers; fair to the people of British Columbia."

In 2007 Carole said, "the budget for health is now $13.1 billion … up more than 7 per cent from the year just ending; as the Throne Speech said, total health spending is up over 50 per cent since 2000. That rate of increase is not sustainable over the long term."

And today in 2008, Carole said, "it is the decision of this government to devote two-thirds of all new spending over the next three years to health-care. Nearly three billion additional dollars will be put into health budgets. That is on top of more than $2 billion worth of increases we’ve announced in previous budgets — for a total of $5 billion in new health funding in the next three years."

Over the past 10 years health-care spending has gone from a budget of $7,416 billion to a current budget of $13,764 billion.

The problem is, more money hasn't solved the real problem we have with health-care. The problem is health-care is swallowing up more and more of the provincial budget leaving very little for other priorities.

In 1998 health-care consumed 36% of all spending in the provincial budget. In 2008 health-care represents 43% of all spending. Like the invasive weed "morning glory" which crowds out, blankets and smothers other plants in your garden, when will health-care spending crowd out all other provincial spending priorities?

Yes Virginia, government policies do matter.

2008-03-03T19:00:00.003-08:00

People need to understand that there is a strong correlation between a government's policies and what happens in the economy.

For example, B.C. used to lead the country in GDP growth in the late eighties and early nineties. However under the NDP’s mismanagement; BC became one of only two regions in North America that was in a recession. During the 1990’s all of Canada was booming however only British Columbia was performing dismally.

During the 1990s, BC was...

Last in investment growth

Last in employment growth

Last in economic growth

One of the big factors influencing business investment is a government’s attitude toward business and the friendliness of the business climate in regards to taxes, regulations and costs. These are major factors that drive a business's decision where to locate.

What’s the difference between “the decade of the 1990’s and today? The business community in BC today has confidence that the investments they are making for tomorrow, make good economic sense today. In the 1990’s businesses decided to make their business investments elsewhere.

Look no further then to the drain of head offices from B.C.

During the 1990s the poor investment climate in B.C. resulted in a net loss of 469 corporate charters registered in B.C. between 1994 and 1999 as businesses moved their head offices to other provinces.

When it comes right down to it, one of the primary roles of government, is to create an environment where not just the business leaders but everybody believes that tomorrow will be better than today. In the 1990’s we didn't have that kind of environment by any stretch of the imagination.

Even Statistics Canada calls, “the 1990’s – a lost decade”. The reality is that Statistics Canada and the federal government determined that in the years 1999-2000, British Columbia became a have-not province.

We only have one government to blame for that....the NDP in the 1990's.

The Wonder Years.

2008-03-03T09:00:00.008-08:00

Last week I was organizing a couple of milestone anniversary events for two of my co-workers. One was for a 35 year employee and the other was for a 10 year employee. While preparing for their presentations I looked back at the historical events of both of the years in which they started working with our company. The year 1973 was a fantastic year. It was full of all sorts of interesting things that happened. The World Trade Centre opened in New York, the Watergate scandal broke, the largest Arab-Israel conflict - the Yom Kippur War started; and the issue is still around today. Elvis even made his big come back with his concert in Hawaii.

The opposite was true for 1998. Other then the elections of first time leaders like Chile's Hugo Chavez and Britain's Tony Blair, the year left us with nothing much note worthy, except for the Monica Lewinsky - Bill Clinton, did he or didn't she affair.

Running out of fertile ground, I looked back into B.C.'s history. In 1998 our Premier was Glen Clark, the first of three ill fated fast ferries were launched and the Finance Minister at the time was another women, Joy MacPhail.

I had forgotten about Joy MacPhail as B.C.'s Finance Minister. Interestingly, I was sitting on the floor of the legislature when Joy MacPhail delivered her first budget speech in 1998. I was invited as a guest by my MLA for Vancouver-Langara, Val Anderson. This being my first and only time as a guest in Victoria, it was particularly exciting to be sitting on the floor of the B.C. legislature across from Joy; on the side of the BC Liberal's of course.

Joy MacPhail's speech is humourous to read in hindsight.

First, economic growth and job creation must be a central component.

Second, budget forecasts must be built on prudent economic assumptions.

Third, we must continue to reduce the deficit and move into surplus.

Fourth, debt levels must be sustainable.

This budget continues to meet all of those principles, with economic stimulation and job creation as key priorities.

What was actually occurring in B.C. was a declining economy, growing unemployment throughout the province, and ballooning provincial budget deficits. For the first time in many years, British Columbia began to suffer from a net migration out of the province resulting in 20,984 people leaving the province to search for a better future elsewhere.

No wonder the province was in decline, what with the BC NDP driving investment out of the province with their punishing top personal marginal tax rate of 54.2%. (B.C.'s top personal marginal tax rate in 2008 is 43.7%)

British Columbia has certainly changed in the past 10 years, in large part to the prudent fiscal management of the BC Liberal government.

Schultz for Mayor?

2008-02-27T18:00:00.001-08:00

The definition of the German name Schultz is:

"A German occupational name for the man in charge of a village (magistrate, sheriff, overseer) originally derived from the Middle High German word "schulteize" meaning the person in charge of collecting payments on behalf of the lord of the manor."

Hey, magistrate, sheriff, overseer; they all sound like the German name for mayor to me. I'm made for the job of Vancouver's next mayor in November 2008.

I've even had 3 people ask me to run. First my wife, who wants me out of the house. Next was the homeless guy living at the boarded up old Dueck's building on Marine Drive who said, who do you think you are, the mayor? And finally one of my golf buddies who owes me $3 from our last round of golf we played in the fall. He'd say anything to get out of paying me money he owes me. He said, with the way you hit it the golf ball both left and right you could be mayor in the City of Vancouver.

With this kind of support, I'm made for the role of Vancouver's Mayor.

I even have similarities to the future American President, Barack Obama. He was born in Hawaii in August and surprisingly, I once visited Hawaii and what do you know I was also born in August as well. Barack has two daughters, and what do you know........I have two daughters. Barack became a lawyer and practiced law in Chicago. Well, what do you know, my sister worked in Chicago and I like arguing with my relatives. This is scary.

It's uncanny the similarities between us.

So with Sullivan, DeGenova, Ladner, Robertson, Cadman and maybe even Louie running for mayor.......why not Schultz for Mayor?

Mayor Schultz!!!! I kind of like the sound it. It's like something right out of Hogan's Heroes! It needs a little work but I can see the campaign slogan now.

"I know nothing".

Do the right thing, Gregor: Resign!

2008-02-25T09:00:00.003-08:00

So the day has finally arrived where one term wonder, Vancouver-Fairview NDP MLA Gregor Robertson, has officially announced his bid to become Vancouver’s mayor. The worst kept secret in Vancouver politics has finally become a reality. Hell, what secret? I’ve been blogging about it since March 2007, with a couple of follow ups, here and here.

I would like to know what took him so long.....indecision?

With Gregor spending so much of his time on civic issues, you probably thought he was a City Councilor rather than an MLA anyway.

It must have been a difficult decision deciding which house he was more comfortable in, the Legislature or City Hall? I wonder who he was serving the past 3 years. Was it his constituents in Victoria or his political ambitions in Vancouver? Well, no surprise, it turns out that he was only serving his own political agenda in the end.

Now that he has finally made his mad dash for the mayor’s chair public, there is one more thing that he needs to do.

He should do the right thing and resign his seat in the Legislature. He never did his MLA job very well in Victoria in the first place and it's not likely that anyone will miss him there anyways.
Gregor Robertson said he feels compelled to enter Vancouver's mayoral race. What he should feel compelled to do is the right thing and resign his seat as the MLA for Vancouver-Fairview.

Wear Pink - End APC Bullying.

2008-02-22T20:00:00.005-08:00

Tsk-tsk, those nasty anti poverty protesters have been out behaving like bully’s once again. In their misguided attempt to gain sympathy for their view that the BC Government isn't spending enough money on social housing, they doused the Premier's Constituency office windows with red, yellow and green latex paint.

Let’s face it, these violent protests frighten the public; they turn off British Columbians and they actually build support against themselves. The Anti Poverty Committee might be trying to play the victim card, however they would be much more likely to gain public sympathy, if they weren’t such bully’s.

Bullying is increasingly being recognized as a serious problem in our schools, workplaces and in society. I’m a firm believer that non violence behavior is the best way to cultivate a positive public image for any cause.

If the Anti Poverty Committee were genuinely concerned for homeless people, they would be more concerned about all people and they wouldn't be bully's.

I'm encouraging all my readers to join CKNW's "BULLYING STOPS HERE" campaign on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 by wearing pink on that day. Encourage your children, friends and neighbours to do the same! Bullying stops here.

Premier Campbell: David Suzuki approved.

2008-02-21T09:00:00.007-08:00

"British Columbia’s groundbreaking decision to put a price on carbon emissions will set the province up as a North American leader on climate change", says the David Suzuki Foundation.

Last year, commenting on leadership:

David Suzuki said, "Premier Campbell's Speech from the Throne earlier this year was very bold and painted a new vision of British Columbia as leading North America in terms of sustainability. Given how proud British Columbians are of their natural heritage, progressive environmental leadership seems like a natural fit. It will also help diversify and strengthen B.C.'s economy in the long term, and also be a model for other provinces." "Maybe I am being Pollyanna, but I think this man is capable of making this kind of shift, and I have great hopes for it. You know, the devil is in the details. I'm going to be very, very interested in exactly what the details are."

"We congratulate British Columbia on taking this visionary step,” said Ian Bruce, a climate change specialist with the David Suzuki Foundation. “This marks a real turning point for British Columbia and puts the province at the forefront of North American action on climate change.”

Premier Campbell said in last years throne speech that the BC Liberal Government would lead North America in sustainablity. This week we learned that true leadership is more than just words; leadership is about following through with action. Premier Campbell has taken British Columbia to the forefront of an environmental movement by introducing North America's first full-fledged carbon tax.

"We promised you green and today we delivered green," said Finance Minister Carole Taylor.

While the environmental movement has been heaping praise on the Premier's carbon tax, NDP Leader Carole James has said.......

Well, who really cares what Carole James and the NDP have to say?

The tale of two treatment centres: Part 2

2008-02-20T09:00:00.000-08:00

I’ve always believed that treatment is the best solution in fighting the problems of addiction on our streets. We need to provide more treatment services to get people off drugs. However while both centres are treatment facilities they are very different. The Triage facility is more about harm reduction while the Place of Refuge Society is all about treatment.

Triage is a warehouse for 30 residents. - Place of Refuge is a communal home for 10 residents.

Triage requires residents to be clean for 60 days prior to becoming residents. - Place of Refuge requires residents to be clean for 90 days prior to joining the home and to be enrolled in an AA or NA 12 step recovery program.

Triage allows substitute drug treatment such a methadone. - Place of Refuge allows no methadone treatment and is 100% drug free.

Triage will not utilize any drug testing on their residents. – Place of Refuge's clients are required to participate in periodical drug testing.

Triage is supported 100% through Government funding. – Place of Refuge receives no government funding and is 100% supported by donations from individuals and various non profit associations.

At Triage if a resident relapses and starts reusing drugs they are given a 24 hour eviction notice; however this is easily rescinded if they recommit to staying clean and sober. – The Place of Refuge follows a much different protocol. If a resident relapses they are first removed from the house on Fraser Street but if they recommit to staying clean and sober, arrangements are made for them to be placed in another treatment facility but they must first reenter an Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous 12 step program at step 1.

These are very significant differences between the two facilities. The Place of Refuge is a 100% abstinence based facility for 10 residents set up on a communal living model supported with 24 hour seven day a week supervision. Triage is based on a harm reduction approach where 30 residents are basically warehoused in individual units to prevent them from harming themselves or society.

Yes, Triage also provides 24 hour seven day a week supervision. However with 30 residents and each resident having their own individual unit, little actual supervision is being provided. I was shocked to learn how many times the Vancouver Police have been called to the Triage facility on Fraser St. to deal with problems with their residents. I don't have a comparative example for the Place of Refuge; however the communal living model seems to provide constant monitoring because all 10 residents share the facility in common along with a live in supervisor.

It is not surprising when drugs are involved that there has been a great deal of vocal opposition to both of these two drug and alcohol recovery houses in our neighbourhood. However the Place of Refuge is a facility that I can support. In my opposition to Triage, I’ve always said I’m not opposed to treatment facilities in my neighbourhood, but they should be smaller, 8 -10 residents and they should not be next door to our schools.

One more little known fact about the Place of Refuge. The rooming house they purchased was a former crack house, that was used for prostitution. The South Vancouver Community Policing Centre advised me that this local area house was well known to police.

I understand the fear that people have in regards to drugs in their communities. However I can't understand how they can oppose a treatment facility like the Place of Refuge that is a well monitored 100% drug free treatment program.

What do those opposing this facility want; to go back to an unregulated flop house being used by drug addicts and prostitutes?

The tale of two treatment centres: Part 1

2008-02-19T11:00:00.002-08:00

This past Thursday February 14th, Vancouver City Council approved a plan to allow the Place of Refuge Society to remodel a home on East 49th Avenue near Fraser Street and turn it into a drug and alcohol recovery facility. The Place of Refuge Society is a group that includes five local area churches, the Hope and Freedom Society and the Mennonite Central Committee.

In 2005 City Council also gave approval for Vancouver Coastal Health and Triage Emergency Services & Care Society (Triage) to build a transitional supported housing program for individuals with mental illness who have committed to quit using drugs and alcohol. The “Triage” facility is located on Fraser Street near 41st Avenue in Vancouver.

Being somewhat involved with both treatment facilities I thought I would give a brief overview and my impressions of the differences between the two facilities.

First off I should let you know that my brother in law, Erich Krause is spearheading the Place of Refuge Society’s project on 49th Avenue. I'm not directly involved with the project and initially I was opposed to the project. I've also had numerous arguments with him over the fact that our neighbourhood already has enough treatment facilities and that he should be looking to other Vancouver communities to start his society’s treatment centre. Well my arguments weren't successful and over the past year I've come to believe the Place of Refuge will not become a problem for the neighbourhood and be a welcome addition to our community.

Also, prior to the Triage facility on Fraser Street being given City Council approval I was actively involved in speaking out against it. I’ve been quoted in various newspapers and I also appeared as a guest on Jennifer Mather’s CKNW radio show discussing the neighbourhood issues around the building of Triage on Fraser Street.

The main points for my opposition of the Triage facility revolved around it being too close to John Oliver High School and the number of residents it would house. Our JO Parent Advisory Committee was particularly concerned for the safety and security of the students in regards to the proposed residential facility for people with mental illness and a history of substance abuse adjacent to area schools.

Our basic premise for opposing this facility was the location, which was only 345 feet away from the school and that the facility would have far too many residents at 30.I still believe that the Triage Facility on Fraser is located far too close to our area schools and it still has far too many residents. I do however support my brother in law’s Place of Refuge facility on 49th Avenue.

Both facilities are in my neighbourhood; so why am I in favour of one and not the other?

To be continued.....................

Desperately seeking attention.

2008-02-18T09:00:00.001-08:00

Recently one of my regular contributors, Chris, posted a comment on Carole James and the NDP that caught my attention.

Chris said, "I'm really disappointed with the NDP's priorities. Not one mention of convention centre cost overruns, the dismantling of Translink, or Gateway. Instead she's attacking auto-insurance rates (set by an independent board) and the gas tax (which is a great idea). "

Following up on Chris's theme, I read Les Leyne's excellent commentary in the Times Colonist on the NDP's struggles to be noticed. He writes:

"The New Democrats' search for a killer idea with which to unseat the B.C. Liberals continues. New Democrat Leader Carole James delivered the official response to the throne speech and the most remarkable thing about it was how ignored it was. The Opposition leader used to get a certain minimal amount of attention with the official reply. But the media were still roaming through all the implications in the government's agenda when James rose."

These two separate comments are a good indication of the NDP's huge problem. They are desperately trying to gain some much needed attention.

They've tried all the issues; however Premier Campbell and the BC Liberals seem to have all the policy bases covered. Yes, you can argue on the fringes of how much or how fast but there isn't a huge policy gap for the NDP to take advantage of.

The issues that they can find aren't receiving much traction from the media or the public. They've now discovered YouTube and have even started a strategy to attract younger voters to their party. At first blush, James's YouTube performance is hardly what I would call awe inspiring. Quite frankly, nothing seems to be working.

The root of the NDP's problem is that they are struggling to find any issues that will resonate with the general public. They are on, what I would call, an extended fishing trip searching for that new magical something that will translate into votes for the NDP.

Attacking the Premier always seems to be their popular approach. Vote for me - I'm not Gordon Campbell. It might be a catchy slogan - but not much else. The Convention Centre overruns, the Gateway project, the Olympics and now the dismantling of Translink are certainly popular issues with the NDP Kool-Aid Drinkers, the Bus Riders Union and the Anti Poverty Committee, however there isn't much to be gained in general voter support from fighting the BC Liberals on these issues.

I think it is safe to say that the NDP's fishing trip for any thing resembling a new idea will continue well into the foreseeable future.

What's left then for the left to do?

Maybe they should try the clown suit?

Flash: NDP discover You Tube.

2008-02-14T06:00:00.001-08:00

Opposition Leader Carol James and the NDP have recently discovered the internet and are using YouTube to attract a youth vote.

Carol James said, we can't continue to rely on our traditional base of old retired public sector workers, we need to get hooked up with modern technology and drop the average age of our voters into the 60's.

James said I'm really happy with my first post on YouTube....I think I kind of look like Hilary Swank or a younger Carol Burnett. In fact, I liked it so much I've watched it 235 times. Geez, after watching it so many times on my iPod, I was a little surprised by how many times I mentioned Premier Campbell.

Wow, I said the Premier's name 12 times in only 4 minutes. Gordon this, Premier that, Mr. Campbell this; It's making me blush like a school girl.

Two year countdown to the 2010 Olympics.

2008-02-11T20:00:00.000-08:00

Premier Gordon Campbell with three of the Four Host First Nations Chiefs, Chief Leonard Andrew, Chief Leah George-Wilson and Chief Bill Williams.

Today marks the two year countdown to the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter games. This afternoon Premier Gordon Campbell addressed a Vancouver Board of Trade event predicting that Canada will win many gold medals at the Games, and how much of a benefit BC will see from the Games.

Unfortunately, along with the Olympic countdown celebrations comes the predictable gang of anti Olympic protesters. Outside of today’s Premier's speech, some newly formed protest group calling themselves the "Native 2010 Resistance" told the gathered media that Olympic construction has destroyed native trap lines, hunting grounds, salmon stocks and sacred First Nations sites. However Campbell said there will always be skeptics, but he believes there's overwhelming support for the games, adding that four First Nations bands are supporting the games.

Who are these Native 2010 protesters? First Nations support the 2010 Olympics!

The Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games are being held on the traditional and shared traditional territories of the Lil’wat, Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations – known collectively as the Four Host First Nations. These Nations were engaged early in the process and their support and active participation was a contributing factor in Vancouver winning the Olympic bid.

It is interesting to see how little media our little gang of Olympic protesters have been able to generate. When will these same old rent-a-crowd protesters start to realize that no one is interested in what they have to say about the Olympics?

Palmer's never ending story.

2008-02-02T22:00:00.000-08:00

I'm back.....even thought I haven't actually been away but I'm back to writing on my blog this month. December and January were extremely busy with family, work and community commitments, so I took my own advice from my Protest Nothing Month post.

While I was away, I wanted to thank you all for your kind letters, comments, emails and the odd flaming arrow. I love you all too!

While I have been absent from the blogosphere, I've noticed a decidedly negative tone to Vaughn Palmer's columns toward BC's Premier. Has someone been pissing in Vaughn's corn flakes? Here are some of Vaughn's recent columns:

"Campbell's nifty list of energy buzzwords now includes, well, manure."
"The Carbon Premier sees many trees in our future."
"Fun with numbers: Campbell's emission figures look like hot air."
"Less than meets the eye, and light on details."
"Campbell & Co. retain a smugness-inducing standing in the polls."

Wow, Vaughn's definitely not your average glass is half full guy. Maybe it's the weather in Victoria and when it gets a little warmer his mood will improve. I'm not surprised by Vaughn's negative attacks on the Government and the Premier's agenda - - I know the role the Official Opposition is to “challenge” government policies and suggest improvements, and present an alternative to the current Government’s policy agenda.

I just didn't realize that Vaughn Palmer was the Official Opposition. I guess if the NDP aren't going to fill the role of official opposition, Vaughn Palmer might as well do it.

I just wonder when is Vaughn going to change the name of his little cable show from "Voice of BC" to the "Voice of the NDP"?

Sixty years ago in South Vancouver.

2007-12-20T10:00:00.000-08:00

Bing Crosby breaking ground - Sunset Community Centre, Sept. 22 1948.

With this weeks historic opening of the new Sunset Community Centre, I wanted to remind people of how the original community centre was built.

It started back in 1945 when the Sunset Community Association formed to begin working on the physical plans for a new community centre for the Sunset area. By 1947 the Sunset Community Association via its many fund raising activities, had only raised $20,000 of its goal of $125,000 to build a new community centre.

Early in the fall of 1947, the Directors felt that the time had come for the Association to take a dramatic step to put the fundraising drive over the top. The resulting decision was to send their President, Mr. Stan Thomas to Hollywood in an effort to meet with the famous entertainer Bing Crosby in the hope that he might be persuaded to come to Vancouver to stage a benefit show on behalf of the Sunset Community Centre.

You need to understand that in 1947 Bing was the number one recording star in the world, his movies sold more tickets at the box office than any other movie star and his radio show was the most popular show in all of North America. Bing was a world class star in three separate entertainment disciplines. I can't think of another entertainer today who could equal Bing's accomplishments. And yet here was Mr. Thomas the president of a small community association who successfully convinced the world's greatest entertainer at the time, to come to Vancouver to raise funds for a small community centre in South Vancouver.

The Bing Crosby radio show was held in Vancouver on September 21st, 1948 at the Forum where 9,000 fans enjoyed Bing’s benefit show and approximately $26,000 was raised for the building fund via that single performance. Bing of course was the toast of Vancouver for that week in September and every politician clamored to get their picture taken with him. Bing Crosby also visited the site of the proposed community centre and climbed aboard a bulldozer, skillfully turned a wide swath, symbolic of the first official sod turning on the Centre site. Bing even sang "Blue Skies" during the event, amid a constant Vancouver downpour, to a crowd of delighted fans.

The Sunset Community Association had agreed to reimburse all the traveling expenses incurred by Bing and his party during their trip from Hollywood; however while at the train station preparing to leave Vancouver, Bing would not accept one cent towards the cost, and tore up the Associations cheque. This generous gift is forever remembered in the erection of the original community centre. With out the generous support of Bing Crosby and the efforts of Stan Thomas the first Sunset Community Centre would never have been built. The Sunset Memorial Community Centre was officially opened, on Friday September 29th 1950 with Bing Crosby opening the building via a long distance telephone call from San Francisco. The audience heard the crooner as he talked with Vancouver Mayor Charles Thompson and retiring Sunset President Stan Thomas.

It has been over sixty years since that small group of dedicated community members, had a vision to build a new community centre in South Vancouver. Through their hard work and dedication they successfully built the original Sunset Memorial Community Centre. With the opening of the new Sunset Community Centre this month, we honour those committed volunteers along with Bing Crosby for all they gave to our community, so many years ago.

Bing Crosby and Sunset's first President, Mr. Stan Thomas.

The new Sunset Community Centre opens today.

2007-12-17T13:00:00.000-08:00

After nearly ten years of grassroots community effort and over two years of construction, the new $12 million dollar "state of the art" Sunset Community Centre opens its doors to the public today!

This new 30,000 square foot facility is over 20% larger than the original centre it replaces. The major programmable spaces includes a full-sized gymnasium which is the hub of the complex. A second-floor viewing gallery provides a direct view into the gym. A large multipurpose area is an ideal room for community meetings and passive activities. It is about half the size of the gymnasium and large enough for a gathering of approximately 300 people. The new fitness centre faces Main Street and is fully equipped with "top of the line", Life Fitness cardio and strength machines. There is also an aerobics/dance room, arts and crafts room, youth room and two pre-schools. As well, there is a new passive park space to the south of the building.

The new centre was constructed using pioneering sustainable design to achieve an over 30 per cent reduction in energy consumption. It is heated and cooled by geothermal pumps using ground source heat pumps and radiant slabs. The buildings innovative glazing system strategically uses passive day lighting and glazed skylights to allow for natural light in public corridors. Also, internal building control systems allow for the use of daylight, occupant and CO2 sensors to control the lights in individual rooms. The parking surfaces and bio-swales are designed to reduce the water run-off and control the buildings heat island effect.

Building and relocating the community centre to Main Street greatly improves the public visibility and access to the centre, which will enhance the usage by the community. The building was designed by world renowned, Bing Thom Architects and built by Haebler Construction Ltd, to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Design) standards. The new Sunset Community Centre was built through a unique partnership between the Government of Canada, the Province of British Columbia, the City of Vancouver, the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation and the Sunset Community Association.

On your next visit to south Vancouver drop by and visit this exciting new architectural landmark.

Aerial photos of the new Sunset Community Centre.

2007-12-12T10:00:00.000-08:00

These are aerial photos of the new Sunset Community Centre, located at 6810 Main Street between 51st ave & 53rd ave. They were taken in the past month.

This new Vancouver community centre is scheduled to open its doors to the public on December 17th 2007. This is the first new community centre to built since the new Killarney Community Centre in 1999 and the Coal Harbour Community Centre in 2000. Sunset shares this 9-acre south Vancouver site with the Vancouver Park Board's Nursery. I'm sure that over the years many residents travelling down Main Street in Vancouver have wondered what was behind the evergreen hedges between 51st & 53rd Avenue?

Well, the hedges have come down; replaced by the new Sunset Community Centre fronting Main Street and sharing the site with the Park Board nursery. As you can see from the aerial photos, the nursery is continuing its valued service to the City, providing healthy annual and perennial plants, bulbs, trees and shrubs for all of Vancouver's Parks.

Innovating our standard of living.

2007-12-10T09:00:00.000-08:00

What is productivity and why do we want more of it?

Canada's labour productivity is a key measure of our country's prospects for economic growth. Many Canadians mistakenly think that productivity means, working longer for less pay, when in fact the opposite is true. Higher productivity actually brings higher wages and a higher standard of living.

Simply put, productivity growth is the quickest way to increase our standard of living.

Statistics Canada reported recently that "nationally, labour productivity increased 1.0% in 2006, compared with an increase of 2.2% the year before." Well, what does this really mean?

If productivity grows by 1% per year our standard of living will double in 70 years. If we can improve our productivity growth by 3% per year our standard of living would double in 24 years. With a higher standard of living in Canada we would have a greater amount of resources to deal with many of society's problems, such as poverty, health care, and the environment.

There are really two ways that we can increase our countries productivity; one is by the more efficient use of labour and capital or two; by higher value creation through innovation.

I think we all understand efficiency gains, which relates to the volume of goods and services produced per worker hour. An increased amount of production over the same amount of worker hours equals productivity gains. This can be done by better organization, better training, and by the economies of scale. (or working longer for less pay)

The second and in my opinion the most important way, is through the creation of value or innovation. Canadians need to develop products and services that the world will beat a path to our door for and will be willing to pay a premium price for. We need more innovation. A couple of innovative producers in Canada are Lululemon Athletica and Research in Motion's Blackberry. Both of these companies have created products with a higher demand than their competitors and because of that demand they can charge a premium price for their products.

Out sourcing, layoffs and working harder are only shorter term solutions to improving Canada's living standard. However in the long term, by developing world beating innovative products and services Canada can build truly impressive productivity gains. Canadians need to work smarter and not just harder.

Working to reduce poverty.

2007-12-06T07:00:00.000-08:00

Following up on my last post, it is interesting to see how similar both Britain's left of centre Labour government and British Columbia's right of centre Liberal government are when it comes to dealing with child poverty. You could hardly call them kissing cousins, ideologically speaking. Yet both governments separated by 7,600 kilometers of geography and entirely independent of each other, have struck upon the same solution to poverty - - a job. Quite simply, they find that work is the best method in avoiding and escaping poverty for families.

Britain's Welfare Reform Minister, Caroline Flint said, "we know that more needs to be done and we firmly believe that sustainable work is the best way out of poverty." She added: "We are taking action to rip up sicknote Britain, establish a new cross-government child poverty unit and ensure more people get the skills and support they need to access the two-thirds of a million job vacancies that exist on any given day."

British Columbia's Employment Minister Claude Richmond said the government is fighting child poverty by creating jobs and easing the tax burden on the working poor. "We take it very seriously, the well-being of children," he said. "Since 2001, we have taken 111,000 people off of welfare rolls and put them back into the work force. "The fact that the economy is doing so well is extremely important. There's 370,000 jobs out there that didn't exist six years ago."

Work is a magical thing. It can benefit people in so many ways. I recently read an article by Ben Stein that I thought you would enjoy reading. Many of you know Ben Stein as a well-known actor and Hollywood personality, however he is also a lawyer, an economist and a commentator on financial issues. He writes an interesting Internet column called "How not to ruin your life" for Yahoo! Finance. In his most recent column called, "All play and no work makes for a poor life", he discuss the merits of work.

In his article he writes, "you may think this is harsh, but it's not. Hard work is the single most important thing you can learn in life besides devotion to spouse and parents. One reason people become failures and/or criminals is because they never learned to work." People who develop the habit of hard work don't become bums or drug addicts, and don't wind up in middle age with suicidal self-loathing. "Work, generally speaking, is the single best cure for any malady of soul or mind," said the greatest thinker in English history, Samuel Johnson. (I'm paraphrasing here. The exact quote is slightly different.) Work elevates the spirit, disciplines the mind, conveys self worth -- redeems life itself."

Ben Stein's sage advice isn't new, it has been with us for centuries. The basic premise is that work keeps you out of trouble. Another well used idiom is "idle hands are the devils tools". This well known expression can be traced back to Chaucer's 'Tale of Melibee' in 1386. The concept that work keeps you out of trouble, is well rooted through out mankind's development. It is a simple truism, that people are more likely to get into trouble when they feel bored and have nothing to do.

Stein's comments also reminded me of an article I read many years ago in the Economist.

"An Americans chance of staying poor is less than 1/2% if he or she does the following three things: (a) completes High School (b) gets and stays married; and (c) stays employed, even if initially only at the minimum wage. Americans who fail these three requirements have an up-to-80 times greater chance of staying for a long time below the official poverty line, and breeding sad generations there." -ECONOMIST, April 25, 1987

This quote is over 20 years old but the premise is just as relevant today. Avoiding poverty is really very simple. Anyone who develops some very basic skills and who has the discipline to work can take advantage of all the opportunities society has to offer.

1. Stay in school, finish high school, continue your education, become a life long learner.
2. Avoid having children outside of a committed relationship.
3. Take a job, any job, even if it's at the minimum wage, and don't quit that job except to take another job.

By following these 3 simple value propositions individuals are far less likely to wind up living in poverty.

Maybe it's not so surprising that the government's of both Britain and British Columbia came up with the same solution to improving the incidence of poverty statistics. Working reduces poverty.

And now for something completely different.

2007-12-04T06:00:00.000-08:00

British Columbia isn't the only jurisdiction to be criticized lately by anti-poverty activists over child poverty statistical data. Britain's Labour government is also coming under fire by poverty activists in their country. Reported earlier today on Reuters UK, tens of thousands of children are living below the poverty line, as Britain's MPs questioned prime minister Gordon Brown's commitment to eradicating child poverty.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said one in three children in the UK live in poverty and that little progress has been made in the past three years. It recommended increasing public sector pay. While anti-poverty protesters say, that increasing the minimum wage is crucial to achieving the major goal of eradicating child poverty.

Britain's official poverty line is 60% or less of the average (median) household income.

Doesn't this all sound rather familiar.

BC's child poverty rate, one in five - - Britain's child poverty rate is one in three.

Poverty activists in BC want the Campbell government to raise the minimum wage. Poverty activists in Britain are demanding the same thing, an increase to the minimum wage.

BC's minimum wage is $8 per hour the highest of all the provinces. Britain's current minimum wage is divided into three categories: (exchange rate 1 GBP = $2.067 CAD)

£5.52 ($11.41 CAD) per hour for workers aged 22 years and older.
A development rate of £4.60 ($9.51 CAD) per hour for workers aged 18-21 inclusive.
£3.40 ($7.03 CAD) per hour for all workers under the age of 18, who are no longer of compulsory school age.

It is interesting to see the three different categories of minimum wages in Britain. It reminds me of British Columbia's $6 per hour training wage; for employees who are entering their first job and only applies to employees with no paid work experience before Nov. 15, 2001.

Another thing to note on the differences in minimum wages between Britain and Vancouver is the difference in the cost of living. Since most British Columbians live in the Metro Vancouver area, I thought we would compare Vancouver's cost of living to Britain's major centre London. According to the Global Human Resources firm Mercer, London is the 2nd most expense city in the world to live in, while Vancouver is ranked in 89th position. Toronto is Canada's most expensive city, listed at 82nd while Ottawa remains the cheapest Canadian city in 109th position.

Ah Statistics; aren't they truly wonderful things to behold. I love to read statistics. They're the favorite evidence used to argue ideas or support conclusions. Every day we are bombarded with statistics on all sorts of issues, poverty, crime, divorce, unemployment rates, etc. Unfortunately statistics are sometimes misunderstood or worse, used by people and organizations to manipulate information for their own uses. When hearing statistics you need to ask yourself some basic questions: who did the study, what exactly are the statistics measuring, who was asked, how were they asked, and compared with what?

On my recent discussions on child poverty for example; is Statistics Canada saying that one in five children in British Columbia are living in poverty? No, quite clearly it is the anti-poverty activists in Canada that are saying that one in five children in BC are living in poverty? Statistics Canada has said that the low income cut off line used by anti-poverty activists across Canada is not a poverty line and it is something quite different from a measurement of poverty. But that isn't the message the anti-poverty activists want you to hear.

Just remember, statistics are an excellent source of evidence, however you need to examine them for relevance, validity and authority before accepting them as the truth.

"Political tacticians are not in search of scholarly truth or even simple accuracy. They are looking for ammunition to use in the information wars. Data, information, and knowledge do not have to be true to blast an opponent out of the water."
—Alvin Toffler

Protest Nothing Month.

2007-12-01T11:30:00.000-08:00

Friday, November 23rd was "Buy Nothing Day". Who knew? I didn't receive the memo; did any of you? I even bought something on "Buy Nothing Day". I guess I'll burn in hell.

You see, last Friday I had a few minutes to kill before my next meeting and I dropped into a men's clothing store and there it was. A beautiful new blue pinstripe Samuelson suit, size 42, at 50% off. I usually don't buy a new suit until after the Christmas sales start but I just couldn't turn this baby down. Interestingly, the store was unusually busy on Friday and the sales clerk was already serving two people ahead of me. I guess they didn't get the memo either.

In fact, Pacific Centre was particularly busy with people going about their shopping on "Buy Nothing Day". Imagine that; stores full of happy people going about there daily business, and many of them carrying packages from their successful shopping trips. Tsk tsk; right in front of my eyes, the end of civilization as we know it. It looks like no one got the memo. Maybe the folks at "Buy Nothing Day" should take a good look at how the stores do it and try some advertising? This memo thing just isn't working.

The total failure of "Buy Nothing Day" got me thinking. Why bother with all the protests and protesters?

In fact, why don't we designate the entire month of December as "Protest Nothing Month". Just think about what we wouldn't miss; anti Olympic protesters, Anti Poverty Committee protesters, anti Gateway protesters, the Bus Rider's Union protesters, the war in Afghanistan protesters, the David Emerson protesters, the security and prosperity partnership protesters, the anti TILMA protesters, anti Canadian Tire protesters, the anti Walmart protesters, the children in poverty protesters, and the global warming protesters.

The list is endless but I think you get the point. Also, let me apologize in advance if I left out your personal favorite protest or cause du jour.

Hey, everyone needs a break now and then from their hectic schedules; even our friendly neighbourhood protesters. Why not put away the megaphones, recharge your batteries and come back fresh and relaxed with your costumes and slogans in 2008?

Join me in designating every December as "Protest Nothing Month".

Mascots missed the link.

2007-11-30T07:00:00.000-08:00

By now most of you have formed your own opinions on the new Vancouver 2010 Olympic mascots. Many people seem less than enthusiastic about VANOC's choices. I'm not strongly in favour nor strongly opposed to the mascots, but I believe that VANOC missed a golden Olympic opportunity.

As we all know, Vancouver's Olympic organizing committee has been dogged by anti Olympic protesters for the past several years. Who can't fondly remember the Anti Poverty Committee's lame brained attempts to evict VANOC Board members, or their violent confrontations with police, or when they vandalized the Olympic clock? However, VANOC missed an opportunity to mend political fences with their greatest foes, the APC, by not modeling their cuddly adorable mascots after a couple of those fucking retards.

VANOC could even have named them along a Disney style children's theme; how does "Dopey", "Grumpy" & "Sleazy" sound?

What could be more representative of the Vancouver Olympics than a trio of foul mouthed assholes in stylish black balaclavas?

The underground economy is all around us.

2007-11-28T21:30:00.000-08:00

An interesting question; why has the proportion of British Columbians living in low income been greater than those living in other provinces over the past decade? In 2006 the BC Progress Board commissioned Statistics Canada to help explain why the gap began to open up and why it has increased.

The study came up with a number of key findings.

The most important factor explaining the BC-Canada gap is employment levels. The more people who are working in BC the fewer people we have living in low income. Only in past few years has their been the strong job prospects we see today, along with the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years. Our higher proportion of new immigrants than the rest of Canada was a secondary issue and there was some evidence that low income families were receiving less in government transfers.

Another interesting finding was that some portion of the BC-Canada gap can be attributed to a faster growth of the underground economy in BC versus the rest of Canada since 1995 when the low income gap began to open up. David Black, Chair of the BC Progress Board said, "all levels of government and community leaders must come to grips with BC's persistent high crime rates, with the underground economy, and the possible linkages that both of these problems have to long-term unemployment and the incidence of reported low income".

Just what are the economic impacts to our society?

The underground economy is all about unreported income that isn't captured in any statistics on low income in British Columbia. At the low end of estimates, the Vancouver police department's website estimates the total economic impact of organized crime in B.C. at $1.8-$2.7 billion a year. Simon Fraser economics professor Stephen Easton estimates the total at $2 billion a year for marijuana exports alone, not to mention local consumption of B.C. bud, plus all the other things that criminal gangs do.

Estimates on the size of the total underground economy in BC have ranged from 3.7 per cent of GDP to as high as 28 per cent. The most often used number is approximately 15 per cent. Based on BC's GDP of $180 billion in 2006 that works out to $27 billion in unreported legal and illegal economic activity. The problem for all British Columbians is that the underground sector is not independent from the ‘regular’economy. Income earned illegally spends just like legally earned money. As a result, a boom in a large underground sector is felt in the rest of the economy.

Insp. Paul Nadeau of the RCMP maintains drug money underpins much of the market for large, luxurious SUVs in this part of the country. And RCMP analyst, Kelly Rainbow says it's a major force in rising real-estate prices. Marijuana growers "aren't price sensitive," she says, noting that a few years ago, they used to rent small homes, but the profits are such that now, they often own large ones. But the consequence, she said, is that more and more honest families find they can't compete for a decent place to live.

The rapid growth of British Columbia's underground economy in the past decade has created a distorted view of our true income levels, widening the low income gap with the rest of Canada.

Exaggerating child poverty.

2007-11-26T22:00:00.000-08:00

The BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition is calling on the BC government to do something now to reduce child poverty, with almost 21 percent of kids in the province living in poverty. The national anti poverty group, Campaign 2000 set the poverty line at $21,000 for two people living in a city of 500,000 or more, and $32,000 for a family of four living in such a community. The Tyee has also commented suggesting that one in five B.C. children is poor, making the province’s child poverty rate the highest in Canada for the fourth consecutive year.

Hold on for just one darn minute.

One in five B.C. children living in poverty???

$21,000 for two people or $32,000 for a family of four is poverty????

What these three news items are trying to described isn't poverty; they're describing instead income inequality. When they use Stats Canada's low income cut off as the measurement for poverty what they are really doing is comparing how people are living relative to other Canadians. The low income cut off method has never been considered a poverty line by Statistics Canada. "Statistics Canada has clearly and consistently emphasized, since their publication began over 25 years ago, that the LICOs are quite different from measures of poverty". If a family doesn't have a colour television or a cell phone are they now considered poor?

These social activists need to give their heads a shake.

To say that one in every five children is living in poverty in British Columbia, is quite frankly - bullshit!

And what are they calling on the BC government to do to reduce this so called "child poverty"?

They want the minimum wage raised to $10.50/hour, eliminate the $6.00/hour training wage and to increase BC's welfare rates.

Well of course they do.

The BC Government in its 2007 budget already increased welfare rates for all those on assistance.
British Columbia already has the lowest income tax rates in Canada for low-income earners. In fact, those earning under $16,000 a year pay no provincial income tax.
Since 2001 the B.C. economy has created over new 370,000 jobs and we have the lowest unemployment rate in almost 40 years! (4.4% in BC and 4.1% in Vancouver)
British Columbia already has the highest general minimum wage rate of all the provinces.
BC's 2006 budget pledged $421 million over four years to strengthen supports for children.

For social activists to be constantly overstating the problem of poverty rates amongst children in British Columbia does a disservice to those who are most in need. Despite all the rhetoric and political posturing from these groups, (and when haven't these groups called on the BC liberal government to give more money to social causes?) - BC has done an excellent job of helping those who are most in need.

Only the lonely.

2007-11-21T19:00:00.000-08:00

BC Liberal - BC NDP and Green Party support

This past weekend only 650 die hard NDPers bothered to show up for their big 2007 convention in Vancouver. Poor NDP leader Carole James, she even had to comment on the lower than normal attendance by calling "it typical for conventions midway between elections."

What does she mean when she says that it is typical to have lower attendance between elections?

Look at the BC Liberals. They held their 2006 convention in Penticton, during the first week of November, and 1,100 people showed up to hear Premier Gordon Campbell speak. And they even showed up with a snow storm causing dangerous driving conditions on the Coquihalla.

If the BC Liberals can hold a convention, between election years, in little old Penticton, during a snow storm and 1,100 members bothered to show up, why can't the NDP get more than 650 members to come out in Vancouver to hear Carole James?

Maybe there aren't that many NDPers left in British Columbia?

The anti capitalist hordes at the Canadian Tire gate.

2007-11-20T22:00:00.000-08:00

Canadian Tire one of Canada's premier retailers is before Vancouver City Council, proposing to build a new 250,000-square-foot centre on Marine Drive at Ontario.

This is the old Chrysler site.

To no ones surprise, the anti-capitalist zealots have joined forces to stop this project from developing in South Vancouver. Even though it is the Canadian Tire that is currently before Vancouver City Council for a rezoning application, the real debate is actually a shadow campaign against the (perceived) evils of Wal-Mart. When Canadian Tire is approved, Wal-Mart will be the next large format retailer to come before council for rezoning for their property on Marine Drive.

The anti capitalist forces realize that council will be unable to turn down Wal-Mart's rezoning application if it approves Canadian Tire's. It can't allow one retailer and then discrimination against another one. That decision would definitely lead to litigation.

What a joke it is to hear the anti capitalist forces singing the praises of industrial land in Vancouver. What they're really saying is don't let the 220,000 sq ft Canadian Tire into Vancouver or you will have to let the 110,000 sq ft Wal-Mart come as well. And we know what that means; the end of the world as the anti capitalist view it.

From my experience, working as a commercial banker, industrial land is far too expensive in Vancouver for businesses to relocate to Vancouver. Businesses learned a long time ago, about the cost savings in moving out to the suburbs. An acre of industrial land in Vancouver would cost well over $2 million an acre, while an acre of land in Surrey is $600 thousand an acre.

Businesses that need industrial land, don't want to locate in a high land cost and high tax cost jurisdiction like Vancouver. They are looking for cost savings by relocating to the suburbs. None of my clients who currently own industrial property or who are looking to purchase more industrial land want to relocate to Vancouver. Not with Vancouver prices and Vancouver property taxes.

Another thing for the anti capitalists to chew on in their campaign to save all this important industrial land (code for- keep Wal-Mart out), if the City of Vancouver was so concerned about the loss of industrial lands, why then did they remove 126 acres from the Industrial land base, when the Weyerhaeuser saw mill closed at Boundary & Marine Drive in 2002?

This area is called East Fraser Lands and is now being developed into housing; while right across Boundary Road in Burnaby, industrial land is in high demand at $800 thousand an acre.

Don't buy the smoke screen from the same old group of protesters that they are concerned about the loss of industrial land. What they are really saying is, keep Wal-Mart out of Vancouver.

The Canadian Tire protest is simply a shadow campaign against the giant American retailer.

"No boys allowed"

2007-11-18T18:00:00.000-08:00

This weekend the NDP held their 2007 convention at the Westin Bayshore Hotel in Vancouver and not surprisingly, they spent their time gazing at their navels. Instead of dealing with the pressing issues of the day, they as usual, became bogged down in introspection.

Thinking vocally and acting socially, BC's party of the left has now voted in favour of requiring 30 per cent of all constituencies that it doesn't already hold to be designated for women only candidates. And even more significantly, if any sitting NDP MLA chooses not to run again, those seats automatically go into the women-only pool.

Hallelujah, affirmative action is alive and well in British Columbia!

What this means numerically in the 2009 election, is that the NDP will close the door to male candidates in 16 of the 54 available riding's the NDP doesn't already hold and more if any sitting NDP MLA's take a well advised early retirement.

The message to all the men on the left -- forget about running for the NDP, they only want the best women for the job. No wonder the NDP polls so poorly amoung male voters.

Once again the BC NDP have demonstrated their deep down interest in political correctness and social engineering. They have totally forgotten the most important aspect of our electoral system - Democracy.

Why don't they look at the BC Liberal Party who believe in the ability of women to succeed in provincial politics on their own. In the 2005 provincial election, the BC Liberal's elected 10 very successful women. Five of whom hold cabinet positions. Conversely the NDP could only elect 7 women.

I asked my university aged daughter what she thought of the NDP's new affirmative action plan and she replied, "how is that democracy?" "It defeats the whole purpose of elections". "It sounds kind of sexist to me".

Maybe the real problem, isn't that the NDP can't elect enough women MLA's but rather the outdated ideological policies of the NDP can't attract enough voters, no matter what the gender, minority group or sexual orientation of the candidate.

I personally don't care if my candidate is a women or a man, or if she is black, brown or purple. What I want is the best candidate possible.

The NDP have voted against democracy and to discriminate against men. Ultimately BC's voters will decide, do they want a party that panders to vocal special interest groups or do they want a party that allows the very best to succeed?

Green's Carr says, "you like me...you really like me!"

2007-11-14T21:00:00.000-08:00

Adriane Carr, Deputy Leader of the Green Party of Canada tells party members on the Green Party's website to, "mark this day in your calendar. The Green Party is nationally in third place."

The latest Strategic Council survey for the Globe and Mail/CTV News shows that the Green Party with 13% has overtaken both the NDP (12%) and the Bloc Quebecois (11%) for the first time ever. As a resident of British Columbia, I am also thrilled to note Green support in the west now stands at a strong 18%, ahead of the fourth-place NDP (16%).

As a British Columbian, I also share Adriane Carr's enthusiasm. It really is tremendous to see the continuing decline of the NDP and their hare-brained left wing thinking at all political levels in Canada.

First the media has all but dropped them from the national consciousness. When was the last time the media ran a positive news item on the NDP nationally?

And with the continued decline in NDP polling numbers it is becoming quite obvious that the Canadian public have almost completely abandoned listening to the NDP's socialist mantra of tax the rich and support the nanny state.

You know the campaign slogan, "tax the rich".

However what they are talking about is taxing you and me..... and everyone else while they are at it! Canadians do not believe in penalizing people for working hard! No one who pays taxes in this country is under-taxed. Tax the rich is wonderful left wing class warfare dogma, however it is poor economic and fiscal policy, generally having precisely the opposite effect as intended.

In a previous post I mentioned that the fat lady might be warming up her vocal chords. It looks like Adriane Carr is ready to lead the choir.

Diane Francis on Saskatchewan.

2007-11-13T20:00:00.000-08:00

Diane Francis a well known syndicated newspaper columnist, broadcaster, author of seven best-selling books, and a much sought-after speaker writes in the National Post on the positive news of a small c conservative Government being elected in Saskatchewan.

Francis writes, "Newly elected Saskatchewan Party Premier Brad Wall has pledged lower royalties and competitive taxes. He will first match, then surpass, Alberta's rates, which are the lowest in North America."

"In coming months, we will see Saskatchewan join Alberta and British Columbia in an inter provincial free-trade zone that will remove all provincial trade barriers when it comes to the transfer of capital and people. Current impediments include labour standards, professional credentials and taxation differences."

"Down the road, this troika of provinces will force Manitoba to smarten up and re-elect a pro-business, conservative government. It is wonderful to see people elect a Premier who is young, who isn't a lawyer or teacher and has actually met a payroll."

"I hope he will overturn one of the two defining policy initiatives that came out of Saskatchewan and were articulated by Tommy Douglas: universal health care and a deep, irrational distrust of free enterprise."

"Health care remains a permanent prize among Canadians, but the socialist, anti-capitalist populism in the country has been hugely damaging over our history."

"Douglas railed against foreign ownership and passed laws that made Saskatchewan the most union-friendly and publicly owned jurisdiction in Canada. These laws also made the province one of its poorest."

"But the boom in commodity prices, and Alberta's successful example, forced the last NDP government, run by Lorne Calvert, to shed much of the anti-business past. Now there is new found prosperity, with farmland and commodities prices soaring."

Hope wins in Saskatchewan.

2007-11-11T08:00:00.000-08:00

The NDP's loss in Saskatchewan's provincial election last week was a huge step forward for all of western Canada. Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party elected 37 MLA's to Lorne Calvert's 21 NDP, sweeping away 16 years of NDP rule.

This story hasn't received the national media attention it deserves. The story is - - things are fundamentally changing politically in Canada and I believe these changes will be forever.

Successive NDP parties in western Canada have run campaign's based on fear - - fear of right wing governments. Fortunately, fear didn't win out on election night in Saskatchewan, hope did. The voters in Saskatchewan voted for a new future, a future where governments run things like voters run their own lives, responsibly.

Voters recognized that after 16 years of successive socialist governments antagonizing business and entrepreneurs, that Saskatchewan actually needs businesses for the province to succeed. This is a reality that Saskatchewan voters could see in Alberta and British Columbia. Economic growth, jobs, and prosperity followed, where governments implement low taxes and pro business agendas.

The political landscape in Canada is looking very unfriendly for Canada's NDP. The country is growing older and maturing; and they are no longer being seduced by the special interest group messaging coming from Canada's left. All that is left (pardon the pun) for the NDP, is the province of Manitoba where even Gary Doer runs a more Liberal / Conservative style of Government.

I wonder, will the Saskatchewan election signal the end of the ideological left as a relevant force in Canadian Politics? I know, I know, it is early days but when I look at the left at all levels of Government in Canada I see nothing but old tired ideas, joined by young wide-eyed idealists. Hardly the needed constituencies to become an electable majority

The future looks bleak for the left in Canada. If Saskatchewan can mirror the success of what the BC Liberal Gov't has accomplished in BC, the NDP will only become electable when there is a right wing split. Is it the end? Only time will tell, but the fat lady sure looks to be warming up her vocal chords.

Worker's rights or public safety?

2007-10-21T19:00:00.000-07:00

This month the Transportation Safety Board revealed that several crew members of the ill-fated Queen of the North regularly used cannabis while on board.

The safety notice from the federal board stressed there is no evidence crew members on the bridge were impaired at the time the Queen of the North struck an island and sank off the coast of British Columbia in March 2006. But board chair Wendy Tadros wrote that ferry crews whose performance is impaired by cannabis are a clear risk to the travelling public.

The safety board also wants BC Ferries to review its alcohol and drug policies immediately and says it will monitor the company's progress as part of the investigation into the Queen of the North's sinking.

BC Ferries and Marine Workers Union president Jackie Miller would not say whether she would support drug testing, but she said the union will cooperate with the company to find out the extent of the drug use problem on BC Ferries.

"You're always going to have a percentage of those individuals that are participating in that type of behaviour," Miller told CBC News.

Yes there are always going to be a percentage of individuals who use drugs, however it should be zero percent of people entrusted with the safety of the travelling public. I thought that BC Ferry's workers were highly trained. Remember back to 1993, when Jackie Miller led her Union into an illegal strike. She said at the time that her members were highly trained workers, responsible for the lives and safety of the traveling public. So, the union logic was that BC Ferries management should recognize this high level of training and responsibility with higher wages for all their members.

Now tell me, how can Ferry Workers be so highly trained to look after the safety of the travelling public, when it's revealed that there is significant evidence of drug use on BC's Ferries?

Let me ask you; are these workers highly trained or just high?

Here again is yet another damning blow to the BC Ferries and Marine Workers Union. First we had the Queen of the North disaster, where a few highly trained union members sailed a ferry straight into a very large island and now we learn that some of our highly trained union crew members are putting the travelling public at risk by smoking marijuana on the job.

So what is the union's response to this damning revelation:

Jackie Miller said, "there are people throughout employment organizations who regularly partake in cannabis use." "This isn't just a B.C. Ferries problem so it has to be looked at in that context."

She's arguing that drug use isn't unusual at BC Ferries, since it is a reality of life in BC. In essence she's telling us "don't worry - be happy." Well, pass that joint, Jackie baby!

I don't buy her argument for a minute! BC Ferries isn't just another employment organization in the province. BC Ferry workers are responsible for the safety of the travelling public. Now is not the time for more union excuses. For Jackie Miller to say it is just part of normal life in BC shows contempt to the people travelling on BC Ferries.

BC Ferry workers are responsible for peoples lives, it's time for the Union to take this responsibility seriously.

BC Ferries president David Hahn is calling for mandatory drug testing to add some teeth to the corporations zero-tolerance policy for all crew members. But not surprising, Union president Jackie Miller said, "the union would fight mandatory random drug testing."

The BC Ferry and Marine Workers' Union's attitude towards the public's safety is offensive.

The public's safety must always trump workers rights!

Disagreeing with the faith.

2007-10-19T19:00:00.000-07:00

Do you believe in global warming?

Yes, the world is getting warmer. However, how about all the alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of the polar ice caps, and thousands of deaths due to pollution in our lower mainland even though these claims can not be scientifically proven?

Do you believe these outrageous predictions?

Lenin said, "a lie told often enough becomes a truth". In other words, marketing sells.

Let's remember that global warming is still not a fact; it is only a theory or at best an educated guess that human-induced CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels in the global atmosphere are the cause of the present global warming trend. Unfortunately science has been unable to definitively prove this theory and to some degree it has meant people have 'taken a leap of faith'.

Yes I know, global warming can be clearly documented through the geological record and contemporary temperature measurements, but it is still impossible to point to a specific cause and say, here's THE thing which is causing global warming.

The belief that human-induced CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels in the global atmosphere are the cause of the present global warming trend is only a theory, it hasn't been proven in any conclusive way.

What I find so disappointing when discussions turn to global warming and climate change is the faith based aspect in believing it. If everyone believes in it, it becomes reality. Hey folks, reality isn't defined by a majority vote!

Those who truly believe are becoming down right dogmatic in their beliefs. Like the ultra religious, these believers are trying to stifle further discussion, exploration or any meaningful analysis on anything that counters their belief system. Fortunately, it remains science's duty to probe and question beliefs without limit, no matter how fervently believers are opposed. Science must question everything! no matter how strong the myth, the superstition or the childish wishful thinking!

"Only by being objective and questioning everything, especially beliefs based on faith, can we eventually find a truth which is provable and does not require us to accept guesses as gospel."

The science and politics of our generations "Nostradamus".

2007-10-15T22:00:00.000-07:00

Is Al Gore the Nostradamus of our times?

Like Nostradamus, Gore has become world famous as a seer of future prophecies and his fame has followed the publication of his prophecies. However, like Nostradamus's prophecies, Gore's prophecies have also left the realm of science and venture out into the realm of partisan interpretation by his legions of followers.

Recently, a British High Court judge has exposed the inaccuracies in former US Vice President Al Gore's award winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, labelling it "a political film" and calling many of its claims about climate change "alarmist" and "exaggerated."

Gore's prophecy: A sea-level rise of up to seven metres will be caused by melting of either West Antarctic or Greenland ice cap in the near future. Cities such as Beijing, Calcutta and Manhattan would be devastated.
Judge says: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr. Gore's 'wake up call.' It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggest that sea-level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with scientific consensus."

In actual fact, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is projecting for sea level rises of between eight and 59 centimetres by the end of this century. That's a far cry from Al Gore's prophecy of a sea level rise of seven metres.

I'm not advocating for some opposing view on global warming. No, there is significant evidence that climate change is threatening mankind. However lets discuss this topic through the lens of science rather than through the optics of propaganda.

Science through its rituals of discovery, has extended life, conquered disease and discovered new ideas. It has pushed aside the demigods and demons of our history and revealed the truths of our world that are far more intricate and awesome than anything produced by pure imagination.

However, when did it become so politically incorrect to question the untruths of popular opinion?

Leading by consensus?

2007-10-10T20:00:00.000-07:00

BC NDP Leader Carole James was recently on CKNW's Bill Good Show discussing her position on the twinning the Port Mann bridge.

Bill Good: Did you consult your caucus on your position?

Carole James: We had a very good discussion in our caucus. We had a very good discussion, and we came out with a consensus position.

Bill Good: Why, then, did it seem to so surprise people like Harry Bains who said he didn't think you'd said what you said?

"We are not opposed to twinning the bridge," Bains told the Surrey Now newspaper.

Bruce Ralston, the MLA for Surrey-Whalley, initially refused to comment when asked about his leader's statement, saying he wanted to hear from Ms. James directly. Several hours later, he insisted his party doesn't oppose the bridge.

Carole James is fond of saying that the NDP caucus has a consensus position and then issue by issue, one of her MLA's contradicts her. I wonder if she even knows what the definition of consensus is? ("It is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.")

Here are a few more examples of Carole James's leadership by consensus:

On May 2nd, she announced, "the New Democratic Party caucus wouldn't take the proposed 29 per cent pay increase proposed for MLAs."

Later, NDP Yale Lillooet MLA Harry Lalli said, "I'm not going to be a hypocrite and speak in favour of a pension plan and a pay raise for MLAs and ask for an independent panel and then go into the house and vote against it. I am in support of this package that the independent panel has put forward. And so when I go into the legislature I will be supporting it." Consensus?

On the Tsawwassen treaty, Carole James called a press conference to announce that the NDP supports the Tsawwassen treaty and has for some time. She had initially delayed taking a stand on the treaty. Then after the Tsawwassen voted yes, she announced a caucus "consensus" in support of it. Later she was forced to suspend MLA Michael Sather for saying he would vote against it. Consensus?

From MLA pay raises, to the Tsawwassen treaty and now on the twinning of the Port Mann, Carole James has spoken of how the NDP MLA's have reached a consensus on these issues and time after time, her MLA's wind up coming out opposed to the supposed consensus.

You know, it is becoming down right comical when ever Carole James uses the word consensus in her speeches.

Death, disaster, destruction and the politics of fear.

2007-10-07T20:00:00.000-07:00

I was reading Steve Forseth's blog and these outrageous comments on his posting caught my attention:

I salute anyone who supports the rise of health care costs due to further destruction of the Fraser Valleys air quality. Who couldn't scream "HELL YEAH!" to killing more people in the Fraser Valley due to respiratory failure, or destroying crops (thus raises prices for foodstuffs). I share the joy that Walter and other Gateway supporters do in manufacturing the deaths of the elderly, the very young, those with impaired immune systems, millions of dollars in crops, rising health care costs and in the creation of ever more asthmatic children.

What a load of horse manure!!

The zealots in the environmental movement who make these outrageous comments are so blindly ideologically driven that they are even willing to accuse the supporters of the Gateway project to be killing people. Death, disaster and destruction politics. If we only listened to the environmental movement they could save us from all the evils of the internal combustion engine. My god! - the arrogance of these people!

These comments do not reflect the truth what so ever -- in fact the opposite is true. The Vancouver Metropolitan Area performs better than Regional BC on local air quality, cancer mortality rates, and life expectancy at birth. People are living longer healthier lives in Metro Vancouver and there is no evidence that supports that the public are living shorter lives due to automobile emissions. People are living longer lives in Vancouver, not shorter ones.

BC's Progress Board, states that on average, life expectancy at birth increased by 3½ months per year in the Metro Vancouver between 1996 and 2005.

Today, according to Stats Canada, of the 25 largest Metro areas in Canada, Vancouver has the highest life expectancy as 81.1 years. This is a far cry from the outrageous comments posted above on Gateway, “manufacturing the deaths of the elderly, the very young, those with impaired immune systems, millions of dollars in crops, rising health care costs and in the creation of ever more asthmatic children”. Lions and tigers and bears -- oh my!

Transport Canada also estimates that total automotive pollution in the GVRD has declined by 19% to 37% in just the fourteen years between 1990 and 2004. As newer, cleaner cars enter the market, the auto fleet will become even cleaner at rates faster than the growth in driving, so total emissions will continue to decline.

I find it absolutely ludicrous for the anti Gateway gang to say that people in favour of twinning the Port Mann are killing more people in the Fraser Valley. Check out the facts; air quality in the Metro Vancouver area has actually been improving for 20 years, it has not been getting worse. And people aren’t living shorter lives in the Fraser Valley, they are living longer.

An undeniable fact.

2007-10-04T21:30:00.000-07:00

Premier Gordon Campbell speaking to the Union of B.C. Municipalities Annual Convention.

Of all the major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, none is more important than transportation. In British Columbia 40 per cent of our emissions are from transportation. To meet the targets for 2020 we're going to have to dramatically reduce our transportation carbon footprint. That involves three core elements: improving efficiency, reducing carbon intensity of fuels and, above all, driving less and shifting to alternative forms of transportation, especially in urban areas. To that end, we'll be introducing a bill next spring to require the adoption of California tailpipe emission standards to be phased in between 2009 and 2016.

It will place an obligation on vehicle manufacturers to sell a fleet of vehicles in B.C. with ever-increasing fuel efficiency. Again, I should report back to you that at the meeting of the Council of the Federation, with all the provinces and territories, every province and territory has agreed to adapt those standards, with the exception of Ontario. That requirement is estimated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles by some 30 per cent compared to 2003 models.

That's 30 per cent by 2016. This one change alone will ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions by some two million tonnes annually. We will also be the first province in Canada to legally adopt California's low-carbon fuel content standards. That requirement will reduce carbon intensity of all passenger vehicles by at least a further 10 per cent by 2020. It will be complemented by the province's incentive program to encourage the acquisition of hybrids.

The Minister of Finance is looking for improvements to extend tax incentives on hybrid vehicles to other low-emission vehicles. My advice: the smart money's on maximum fuel efficiency and minimum greenhouse gas emissions.

Following up on the Premier's comments, Metro Vancouver reports that over the last 15 years average regional Carbon Monoxide levels have declined by about 40% while short-term peak concentrations have dropped nearly 55%. Much of this decline is attributed to improved emission controls for automobiles.

Transport Canada also estimates that total automotive pollution has declined by 19% to 37% in just the fourteen years between 1990 and 2004. As new, cleaner cars enter the market, the auto fleet gets cleaner at rates faster than the growth in driving, so total emissions will continue to decline.

While good fuel efficiency does not necessarily mean clean emissions, a car that burns less fuel generally pollutes less. It also emits less carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Choosing a vehicle with higher fuel economy will not only be likely to cause less air pollution, it will also help reduce global warming pollution, and it will certainly save you money.

Auto makers are selling cleaner cars and refineries are making cleaner gasoline--gasoline with a lower sulfur content--both of which are resulting in cleaner vehicles and cleaner air.

The Premier has some wise advice for us all; reduce your contribution to global warming by buying a vehicle with higher fuel economy, and by following these simple driving tips to reduce the environmental impact of your car today:

Drive less - combine trips, carpool, use mass transit, bike, or walk whenever possible.
Drive at moderate speeds - don't speed.
Keep your vehicle well tuned - simple maintenance improves fuel economy.
Keep your tires properly inflated - reduces the amount of drag on the engine.
Don't let your car idle for more than a minute - letting your engine idle for more than a minute burns more fuel than turning off the engine and restarting it.
Park in the shade - minimize evaporation of fuel by keeping your car cooler in the summer.

How I learned to stop worrying and love the car.

2007-10-02T20:00:00.000-07:00

Today many environmentalists seem to be part of some modern-day Luddite movement, that believes the car and its associated infrastructure is all evil. In their vision of utopia, cars will be banished from our society -- replaced by bicycles and mass transit. With out cars there won't be any green house gases, or road congestion, or a need to twin the Port Mann bridge. Society will be liberated from the pestilence of the automobile on our lives.

However, what environmentalists fail to realize, is the car allows even the average working stiff freedom. Yes freedom -- freedom to go anywhere, at anytime, and for any reason. "In many ways, the automobile is the most egalitarian invention in history, dramatically bridging the quality-of-life gap between rich and poor". "The car stands for individualism; mass transit for collectivism."

You know, I'm all for the entire membership of "SPEC", "Gateway Sucks" and "Stop Gateway", surrendering their cars; the world and our roads might be a better place for it. However their plans don't work for me and they don't' work for the majority of Canadians.

What the anti car movement fails to realize is that it rains in Vancouver, and that families have more than two kids to drive around to soccer practice and that we have to pick up more than four bags of groceries and that we need to pick up stuff at Home Depot and that workers commute long distances to and from work.

Hey folks, "people want the automobile."

For all those groups opposed to the use of cars, get over it! I'm not saying we should abandon the development of transit in our region, however people still prefer cars. No matter how hard the environmental movement demonizes the automobile, most people reading this blog either drive or they want to drive.

And for those of you who don't; stop trying to be damn "social engineers" demanding that everyone else runs their lives exactly the same way as you do.

She said, they said.

2007-10-01T20:00:00.000-07:00

I was listening to last Fridays "Cutting Edge of the Ledge" with Vaughn Palmer and Keith Baldrey on CKNW's Bill Good show and these comments grabbed my attention:

Bill Good: Vaughn, Carole James stirred things up yesterday. You heard her this morning.

Vaughn Palmer: It's a very straightforward question she faced yesterday. The question was, "Are you saying no to twinning the Port Mann," and she said, "It is the wrong bridge at the wrong time." You can't get much clearer than that. But ever since then she's been trying to say: "Oh well, you know, the party still supports twinning the bridge." I think it's pretty clear they don't.

Keith Baldrey: Well, she's been anything but clear up until now, and yesterday she was clear. But after that I found it the most bizarre situation where you had MLAs from the NDP phoning reporters afterwards in a classic example of what their leader meant to say. And once you start doing stuff like that, it reveals, I think, some trouble in the caucus again on a decision, a policy decision that's bedevilled them for some time of whether or not they support twinning the Port Mann.

Vaughn Palmer: Harcourt also made another really interesting comment. It's in The Globe this morning, the interview with Justine Hunter. I know he's said this before. He said it would be cruel to not do this project.

There is a tone in the opposition to twinning the Port Mann, and I've been guilty of it, of wanting to punish the people who've already moved out to the Valley and bought homes and have to commute every day because we want to make some kind of statement about the automobile not being the future, and we want to make a statement about climate change. I give Harcourt credit for having chosen that way to put it, that it would be cruel to those people to say: we're not going to build a bridge for you, and he's right. It's mostly people in the city who don't face that daily commute — or smug columnists who live on Vancouver who don't face it — who've been critical of this project.

Keith Baldrey: Yesterday, in the scrum with reporters, I asked her, Jim Beatty asked her, Sean Leslie finally asked her…. He said: "Now let's [be] absolutely clear here. You're in favour of the south perimeter road, but you're not in favour of the bridge." And she said: "That's right." So that was very clear at that time of day that she was against twinning the Port Mann Bridge.

Since then, the NDP has been scrambling, trying to undo what she said, to leave the impression that somehow they are in favour of some sort of bridge over the Fraser River, but what they won't own up to is that they do not favour building a new bridge anytime soon at that particular location, which means they're against twinning the Port Mann Bridge.

Carole James hates "Gordon Campbell's" bridge!

2007-09-30T20:00:00.000-07:00

Friday Sept 28th, Carole James on CKNW's Bill Good Show:

Bill Good: We begin with NDP leader in British Columbia Carole James who came out four square against twinning the Port Mann Bridge yesterday. She actually called it a dumb idea.

Carole James: Well, I've been very clear that a bridge will be needed across that river. Everybody agrees with that. Nobody disputes that there needs to be a bridge. My dispute is with Gordon Campbell's bridge and Gordon Campbell's plan, which says let's build a bridge, and then we'll get around to transit.Then we'll get around to expanding SkyTrain. Then we'll get around to planning for getting people out of their cars. It's the wrong priority and the wrong direction.

Well, she has certainly cleared things up. Huh? What the hell are the NDP saying?

Surrey MLA Harry Bains had supported a second span for the Port Mann as recently as last week. "We are not opposed to twinning the bridge," Bains told the Surrey Now newspaper.
Bruce Ralston, the MLA for Surrey-Whalley, initially refused to comment when asked about his leader's statement, saying he wanted to hear from Ms. James directly. Several hours later, he insisted his party doesn't oppose the bridge.

Carole James must be hoping that her gamble on Gateway will pay off with some much needed support in the polls. Unfortunately for Carole James and the NDP, she is once again only preaching her rhetoric to a pre-determined audience of the converted. The anti gateway gang were hugely in favour of her comments at the UBCM, but they were always opposed to twinning the Port Mann bridge. They were always firmly in support of the NDP.

I'm glad to hear her finally come out and say what her policies are on Gateway. But, the true believers are once again happy in dipper land! And she really showed that Gordon Campbell, didn't she?

But, the anti Gateway gang got what they wanted; "Carole the Conqueror" is fighting that damn Gateway!

There really wasn't much new in Carole James's approach. It was a whole lot of nothing. The NDP were always against Gateway; they were just too chicken to come out and say so. I can't see how her new approach will do her much good? There isn't a ground swell of opposition to the BC Liberals plans to twin the Port Mann; beyond the few members of the anti gateway gang.

So what has she really gained?

A few minutes of media attention?
The adoration of the anti gateway gang?
An attempt at actually defining an NDP policy?
Repairing her image as a potential premier-in-waiting?

To paraphrase what Carole James is really trying to say:

Yes we need a bridge, but I hate that evil Gordon Campbell, so I'm going to make up my own policy to differentiate myself from those "DAMN" BC Liberals.

She's saying, 'A bridge if necessary, but not necessarily a bridge; and especially not Gordon Campbell's bridge!' "Because, I know the environment is good and cars are bad. "Right?" -- 'so I don't like cars and that means I don't like bridges'. "Right"??. 'Not that I don't like the Port Mann, I just don't like Gordon Campbell's Port Mann'.

'So what I'm trying to say is, please vote for my party and I'll say what ever the hell you want me to say'. "PLEASE!!?"

The dishonesty of Carole James and the NDP is really quite shocking! Her comments might play well to the coffee shop crowd on Commercial Drive, but not to average British Columbians.

What would James do?

2007-09-27T18:30:00.000-07:00

Carole James, Leader of the BC NDP highlights transit in her annual address to UBCM.

This government's current Gateway Plan spends billions of infrastructure dollars on yesterday's solution to tomorrow's problem.

If the objective is to reduce the traffic congestion that drives commuters crazy and reduce the greenhouse gases that are ruining our planet, then transit, not blacktop has to be the priority.

Half of the people in BC live in the GVRD on both sides of the Fraser River.

They spend too much of their time stuck in traffic, breathing in exhaust – time that could be spent at home with family.

They deserve better. Instead the government is delivering more of the same.

A while back I was in Surrey as a guest of the Board of Trade. They told me that they are hundreds of buses short.

They're losing routes. There aren't enough SkyTrain cars. They told me no one in government is even thinking about Rapid Transit or light rail for the Valley.

In fact the government can't even get around to building the Evergreen line on the north side of the Fraser.

Instead the government lets fares and Park and Ride charges soar, making Transit even less affordable.

Excuse me for saying so, that's just plain dumb.

A couple of days ago they released their tolling plan for the new bridge.

Under that plan it will be more expensive to take transit across the Fraser than to drive your car and pay the toll.

That's even dumber.

Today, I'm calling on the government to get smart. Look to the future, not the past.

I'm saying to the Premier, don't wait until a new bridge is finished seven or eight years from now. Invest in transit today. That's the way to reduce congestion and move goods now.

More buses. More fast buses. More bus routes. More SkyTrain cars. Lower fares. An expedited Evergreen Line.

And I'm saying to the Premier, if you really want to plan for the future, start work on a transit line to serve BC's fastest growing communities in the Valley.

Above all, I am saying to the Premier, think ahead.

If the Premier's serious about helping commuters on both sides of the Fraser, if he's serious about reducing greenhouse gases, then he'll start making investments – not sometime down the road, but in the next budget.

And if he's serious, local government will have a real voice in the decisions and plans he makes.

Running rough shod over local governments to push through plans devised in Victoria, Campbell government's plan to take away your authority over transit is wrong and New Democrats will fight it in the Legislature. is not on.

If Gordon Campbell doesn't take those steps history will judge his climate change plan as empty rhetoric and the people of BC will pay a heavy price.

*********************************************************************

Finally, Carole James has stepped out of the shadows and announced SPEC's ideological agenda as her very own. What took her so long?

She tells us quite correctly that people are fumed with sitting on both sides of the Fraser River, stuck in traffic. Her solution, more buses, more faster buses, more bus routes, more Skytrain cars, lower fares and an expedited Evergreen line.

However there is a problem with James's adoption of SPEC's agenda of a transit only solution. It isn't a solution - it doesn't work!

James like her friends at SPEC, thinks all we need to do is add buses. However, independent studies from the Ministry of Transportation and TransLink all say the same thing: a transit-only solution is not a solution.

Why isn't it a solution?

Because it doesn't answer the most fundamental issue -- which is that there have been no buses crossing the Port Mann Bridge since 1986. There hasn't been a public transit bus cross the Port Mann for over 20 years because quite simply it is so congested, they can't even keep a schedule.

Here we go again, with the same old ideas from Carole James and SPEC, more buses, more transit. However, how do you get them across the Fraser River without more blacktop?

You, and me and GHG

2007-09-26T21:00:00.000-07:00

According to BC's Ministry of the Environment, transportation is the single largest source of green house gas in the province, accounting for 42% of the total emissions. With crisis comes opportunity.

Since our largest single source of GHG comes from transportation, British Columbian's have a marvelous opportunity to reduce our emissions. We have the science and technology right now to reduce our green house gas emissions by up to 30%. How do we do it? By making smarter vehicle choices.

What you drive and how you drive will have the greatest effect on your GHG emissions.

Future developments in automotive technology will continue to increase fuel efficiency and thereby further reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact Canadian car makers have already voluntarily agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars in Canada; so that by 2010, annual emissions reductions will reach 5.3 mega tonnes.

Yes I know that hybrids currently make up less than one per cent of total new car market right now, but sales are growing exponentially. We can all do our part in reducing green house gas emissions by simply buying a more fuel efficient vehicle.

SPEC or Span.

2007-09-25T21:00:00.000-07:00

The anti Gateway gang continue their campaign against the expansion of Highway 1 and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. The myopic view of their campaign is that Gateway will result in more air pollution, including more climate changing emissions, and more danger from increased traffic in neighbourhoods.

First off, on increased traffic; you can't stop the increase in our population growth. The Port Mann was built when our population was only 800,000 - today we have a population of 2.3 million and growing. Our population will continue to grow and we will need alternatives to move people around the region. Expanding the Port Mann and expanding Highway 1 is just one of the options we will need to move people around the region.

Secondly on the issue of pollution and climate changing emissions; we aren't living in a static world. Has no one thought about a future with more efficient vehicles? The future of vehicle emissions could look dramatically different in a few more years.

Take a look at Toyota:

"Ten years after introducing the world's first mass-produced hybrid vehicle, Toyota Motor Corp. announced yesterday it has sold more than one million of its hybrid vehicles worldwide, with Canadians snapping up 16,000 of the environmentally conscious cars."

I am convinced that Canadians will make fundamental changes in the way they deal with their personal transportation once convenient, reasonably priced alternatives exist.

One example is the increased sales of fuel-efficient, low-emissions hybrid vehicles. Additionally, future advances in science and technology will do more for improving our air pollution and climate changing emissions levels than trying to force people out of the convenience of driving their cars. We could soon be living in a world where near zero emission vehicles are driving around our region.

I see a bright future for our region - a region with more Span and less SPEC!

Here and going nowhere fast.

2007-09-24T19:30:00.000-07:00

It is interesting to note that the Port Mann bridge was built in 1964 when the population of the GVRD was only 800,000. Today we have the same 43 year old bridge and we now have a population of 2.3 million. Did they build the Port Mann bridge in 1964 to meet the needs of the lower mainland for the next 100 years?

Not likely!

At our current rate of population growth, the GVRD is projected to hit a population level of 4 million by 2061. It is obvious that our current transportation infrastructure built in the 1960's was never meant to handle the needs of 2 million residents let alone a projected population of 4 million.

Former Premier Mike Harcourt makes some interesting comments on the lower mainland's traffic and transportation issues.

About Gateway he says, "Why punish people in cars?" Harcourt says peoples' fears that more roads will create a flood of sprawl in the valley ignores reality.

"Those people are there already," he says. Now planners have to figure out how to make their lives easier.

He does emphasize that for Gateway to add to the region's success story, and not detract from it, that means doing it right. That means making a huge investment in transit.

"I think we should go big and bold and quick -- proceed with the Evergreen line this fall and get it built by 2011, do the Millennium line by 2013, proceed with the extension of the Expo line, get a fast bus to Cloverdale and Langley."

And it also means using the new capacity for many modes of transportation. Yes, some for the car. But not just the car.

The problem for the zealots in the anti gateway gang is the only answer they have to our lower mainlands traffic issues resides in one single approach, more transit. You can't solve the issues with just new transit options. For an example:

How do you run a bus system over the current Port Mann Bridge?
How do you add a transit line over the current bridge?
How do you add in a West-Bound HOV lane over the bridge?

The answers to our problems are in providing a mix of transportation improvements. You can't make improvements to transit without twinning the Port Mann bridge.

That's why the previous NDP government planned to twin the Port Mann bridge. And that's why Mike Harcourt has come out in support of the twinning of the Port Mann. There are 2.3 million residents in the lower mainland and growing, they're here and they aren't going to move away.

Who will be BC's next senator?

2007-09-20T19:00:00.000-07:00

Prime Minister Harper recently appointed Steven Point, a judge and native leader, as B.C.'s next lieutenant-governor. Since Prime Minister is starting to make appointments in BC, when will he fill another BC vacancy, senate seats?

With Senator Jack Austin's retirement last year and there is now one seat vacant of BC's six senate seats. And in February 2008 Senator Ross Fitzpatrick hits the mandatory retirement age of 75 and he will automatically retire from the Senate. So Harper might have up to two BC appointments to the Senate prior to the next election.

Now, I know all about Prime Minister Harper's desire to pass a bill to elect our future Senators, however there is no way in hell that he can get his bill through Parliament or the Senate before the next election. So with an election coming sooner rather then later, I think Harper just might have to appoint some Senators in BC or face the fact he might lose the opportunity to appoint friends of the Conservatives to the upper house.

If he loses the next election you can rest assured that the Federal Liberals will waste no time in making their own Senate appointments.

The question then is, who might Prime Minister Harper possibly appoint? And what qualities must this new Senator possess?

It should be..........

Someone who is well known to the Prime Minister.

Someone well known in Federal Conservative circles.

Someone with friends in senior positions within the Conservative party.

Someone who has contributed years of service to public life in British Columbia.

Someone with a resume that includes exceptional contributions to Canadian society.

And finally, someone who is also willing and able to leave their current position to become a Senator?

Who do you think has the right stuff to become British Columbia's newest Senator?

Should Public Sector Unions be political?

2007-09-17T06:00:00.000-07:00

On July 31st I posted an interesting poll by Angus Reid Strategies that said, 70% of Canadians think labour unions are too political, and almost half (48%) think unions have too much influence in Canadian life.

Most of you are aware that along with public sector unions being political, they also contribute heavily to pro union candidates seeking political office at your local school board, city hall, provincial legislature, and the Canadian parliament. Lets take a closer look at the inherent conflict of interest that arises from this relationship.

If these union-backed candidates are successfully elected, they may wind up supporting policies that benefit government employees at the expense of citizens and taxpayers. In effect they wind up in a position of bargaining with themselves.

A classic example for the ages was former BC Premier Glen Clark, who gave BC's public sector unions in 1998 a three year raise that was advertised as zero, zero and zero and within the framework of the established wage guidelines. In reality however it turned out quite different. Glen Clark our union backed Premier, cooked up a little secret wage increase that actually cost BC taxpayers an extra $1 billion per year in public sector wages. He bumped all unionized public sector workers up a job grade, which in effect gave them significant wage increases.

Most British Columbians do not fully understand the pervasive influence that public sector unions have on BC politics. Looking back at our most recent 2005 provincial election, the labour movement spent over $10 million fighting to defeat the BC Liberal Party and trying to elect their pro union friends in the NDP. Is it right that public sector unions through third party advertising, can out spend the BC Liberal Party during an election campaign? It seems highly inappropriate to me.

It is not only money that public sector unions supply during an election campaign. Government employee unions also have extensive networks of supporters through their membership lists that they effectively rally during any election campaign, making sure that partisan politics are the number one priority.

Another example of how citizens and taxpayers can be harmed by the political activities of the labour movement, is the unions’ categorical opposition to privatization, where by government
services such as trash collection, janitorial services or road maintenance is contracted out to a private sector firm. There has been significant savings of tax dollars and improved services in the privatization of some government services.

However, most unions strongly oppose privatization because it can mean unionized government employees will be replaced with private, non-union workers. Union-backed politicians also strongly oppose any efforts to privatize, and effectively eliminating more efficient, non-union competitors, which end up driving up costs to taxpayers. These union-backed politicians also have an incentive to keeping more government employees on the payroll, increasing their political support come election night.

The time has come for unions to stop spending the dues collected from their members on their political activities, public relations campaigns, and other activities not directly related to serving the needs of their members. Union members shouldn't be forced to fund union activities not specifically related to collective bargaining.

I agree with the majority of Canadians who think that unions are too political.

Absenteeism, a theft of time.

2007-09-15T13:30:00.000-07:00

In the 17 years I have worked for my current employer I have missed a grand total of 3 days due to illness. And I missed those 3 days consecutively this year. My work place attendance is highly unusual, as the average number of sick days taken by Canadian workers is 9 days per year.

Now, I'm a fairly health guy; I run 3-4 days per week, I lift weights, I try to eat 5 servings of fruits and vegetables, I don't smoke, I drink moderately and I try to get enough rest. By the way, I hate stretching, I don't eat tofu and my wife has to nag me me to eat my vegetables. Other than that, I'm just an average healthy guy, no more, no less.

What I can't understand is why the average Canadian worker misses so many days from work each year? Until that is, I read this research paper from Statistics Canada.

Statistics Canada calls, absenteeism, a term used to refer to absences that are avoidable, habitual and unscheduled, and a source of irritation to employers and co-workers. Such absences are disruptive to proper work scheduling and output, and costly to an organization and the economy as a whole. Although absenteeism is widely acknowledged to be a problem, it is not easy to quantify.

Estimates from the Labour Force Survey show that both the incidence and the number of days lost for personal reasons (illness or disability, and personal or family responsibilities) have shown a rising trend since 1997. Several factors have contributed: notably, an aging workforce; the growing share of women in the workforce, especially mothers with young children; high worker stress; and more generous sick- and family-related leave benefits.

In an average week in 1997, excluding women on maternity leave, about 5.5% (484,000) of all full-time employees holding one job were absent from work for all or part of the week for personal reasons. By 2006, the figure had risen to 8.2% (896,000). Total work time missed also rose steadily, from 3.0% of the scheduled week in 1997 to 3.9% in 2006. Extrapolated over the full year, work time lost for personal reasons increased from the equivalent of 7.4 days per worker in 1997 to 9.7 days in 2006.

Full-time employees in the public sector (more likely unionized or female) lost more work time in 2006 for personal reasons (about 13 days on average) than their private-sector counterparts (8.8 days).

Absences from work can be costly for an employer. Direct costs include reduced productivity and output as well as the need to bring in replacement of labour, while indirect costs show up in reduced staff morale and lower quality of output. Absenteeism creates additional stress on workers who must act as replacements and do additional tasks. This affects the team environment of the workplace and creates a perception of unfairness.

While "Personal Illness" was the leading single reason for unscheduled absences (33 percent), two out of three absences were for other reasons.

An increasing number of employees missed work at the last minute because of "Family Issues" (24 percent) and "Personal Needs" (21 percent) – with Personal Needs keeping people at home nearly twice as often in 2000 as in 2006, when it was only 11 percent. Stress accounted for 12 percent of employee absences, and finally "Entitlement Mentality" 10 percent. This, "hell, I deserve a day off mentality" has become an ingrained entitlement in many workplaces. When did sick days change from being used when you are sick to simply another day off, to take when ever you feel like it?

Two job factors significantly influenced an absence: having medical or disability insurance coverage through an employer (indicating paid sick leave) and being in a unionized job. The first variable suggests that unless they are very sick, people without insurance may stay on the job, since the alternative may result in lost wages. The second—being in a union— alludes to job protection and higher levels of compensation while off work. Another factor in personal-illness absences is job permanency, indicating job security and reduced fear of reprisal.

Employee absenteeism is a costly issue facing all employers in Canada. It is estimated that employee absenteeism is costing Canadian employers $16 billion each year. With only 33% of all absences caused by actual sickness, employers need to find a way to tackle the issue of employee absenteeism in Canada.

Absenteeism, is really a "theft of time" and it shouldn't be condoned!

Stopping the decline.

2007-09-13T22:00:00.000-07:00

The causes of the decline in unionization are much more complex, than just changing some law or changing who is in government in Vancouver, Victoria or Ottawa.

Unions have in many instances, simply lost touch with the wants and needs of modern-day workers. And quite frankly, they don't know how to win them back. Changing the laws or changing the governments simple can't stop the continuing decline in unionization.

Having union friends in office in Ottawa, Victoria or even Vancouver City Hall might make a difference in the short run but the problem at the core of the union movement will likely doom them in the end, unless they can make a fundamental shift in how they operate.

As an example, early in this century, unemployment insurance, disability insurance or even pensions didn't exist, so unions provided them. Employers did not extend health and life insurance to workers, so unions did. Today, like in the past, unions need to find the right “niche” and provide some positive benefit to employees and potential members that isn't currently being provided by someone else.

Unions must learn once again to earn the support of their members through effective representation.

Unfortunately, unions continue to spend the dues collected from their members on a number of different things, including activities that exceed the realm of representing workers. They are forcing members to pay for their union’s political activities, public relations campaigns, and other activities not directly related to serving the needs of their members.

For example CUPE continues to spend their members union dues on an anti Israel - pro Palestine agenda. Is that what the average rank and file CUPE member wants their union to be doing on their behalf?

Come on, give your head a shake; Union members shouldn't be forced to fund union activities not specifically related to collective bargaining. Union's need to stop their political activism and focus their attention to the needs of their members.

Unions should also abandon their outmoded adversarial model of labour relations and instead try to find ways to co-exist with management. The modern workplace needs employers and employees to work cooperatively to solve problems that will lead to improving our national productivity and growing our economy.

Unions should cease their outdated harassment tactics against management and should focus on winning back the hearts, minds, and loyalties of workers, and stop playing the us versus them mantra from another era.

In a word, unions need to once again be relevant in the lives of workers!

Union's perception of their decline.

2007-09-12T20:00:00.000-07:00

Union leaders in the labour movement consistently state that the two greatest causes for the continuing decline in union membership are the anti-union attitudes of employers and the weaknesses in our labour laws, that make organizing new workers difficult and labour laws that favour the employer.

However, when you take a closer look, the principal cause of labour union decline is not so much employer attitudes or our countries labour laws, but rather a lack of worker support for unions.

It is true that there are anti-union employers, but they represent a small fraction of the overall business community. Today we also have strong legal methods in dealing with companies or individuals who violate our labour laws. And our unions will continue to target employers where employees are unhappy with their employers attitude, policies or behaviour.

Most employers, however, obey the law and prefer to operate directly with their employees, without an intermediary. Unionism is a choice for employees, not for employers and employers today are well informed in their knowledge of labour law and their rights and obligations in the workplace. Yes, that's right, employees make the choice to join a union and more often today they have made the decision to not join a union.

We all know that in today's job market we have a labour shortage.

Any employer with an anti employee attitude will be crucified in the marketplace as employers compete to recruit and retain good employees. Today most employers’ have pro-employee human resource programs that greatly benefit the employee and further discourage unionism.

Maybe it is time for unions to stop being so quick to label everyone that questions their actions as "anti union" and to take a hard look at themselves and ask why are workers are rejecting their appeal.

Unions, Public vs Private.

2007-09-11T21:00:00.000-07:00

As the Vancouver civic strike drags on into its eighth week, I thought I would highlight the important differences between unions in the public sector versus unions the private sector.

In the private sector consumers have choices, and they can avoid high prices or poor service by patronizing other businesses. This competition forces private labour unions to be reasonable in their demands or face the risk of losing employment for their members by bankrupting the business.

However, unlike in the private sector, citizens cannot easily choose a better provider of government services. With government services there isn't competition, versus the private sector where the consumer has other options.

Currently there is forest-industry strike on the BC coast, that has been going on for as long as the CUPE strike, but it has received virtually zero press coverage. The Innovative Research Group did a poll recently that found barely half of British Columbians are even aware of the forestry strike, compared with 98 per cent awareness for the civic workers strike in Vancouver.

In British Columbia, forest industry strikes were big news at one time. Unfortunately not today.

The 7,000 coastal wood workers represented by the United Steelworkers Union couldn't attract any attention even if they walked the picket line naked. However the CUPE strike continues to draw all the press because Vancouver residents have limited options for the services being withdrawn. If the city picks up your garbage or your children are enrolled in programs run in city facilities, you are aware of the strike. A BC resident buying lumber from his local hardware store hasn't noticed anything out of the ordinary due to the forest industry strike.

But what avenues of relieve do citizens have with government services?

If a government negotiates costly and inefficient union contracts with its employees; citizens and taxpayers have no alternatives. Well, maybe they can pack up and move to another province, but citizens have no direct way to drive on lower cost roads, or otherwise seek options for the services they receive from their governments.

Citizens who do not or cannot move are forced to either continue to pay higher taxes or else spend their time, energy, and money lobbying their elected officials for change, which most of just cannot afford to do. Nor would they want to.

Unlike in the private sector, citizens cannot easily choose a better provider of government services. That is the central reason why public sector unions experience little external pressure to moderate their demands. The near monopoly over services is the reason why salaries and benefits for government employees are routinely higher than salaries and benefits for private-sector employees. And don't forget, it is not only the salary component; it is also the extraordinary benefits, such as fewer hours of work, generous vacations, flexible work weeks, and other benefits that quite frankly most private sector employees could only dream of.

Considering the near monopoly of services the government provides, I wonder if collective bargaining continues to be an appropriate method for setting wages and benefits in the public sector?

Unionization in decline.

2007-09-10T18:30:00.000-07:00

Since the early 1980s, the proportion of Canadian workers belonging to a labour union has declined considerably. Even today, in spite of several years of solid economic growth union participation rates continue their decline.

Statistics Canada reports, "the proportion of unionized employees fell from 38% to 31% between 1981 and 2004. A fairly small portion of the decline occurred during the 1980s (2 percentage points) while most took place between 1989 and 1998 (5 points)." Since 1998, the percentage of unionized employees has declined relatively moderately from 31% to 29.7% in 2007.

The most interesting break down in unionized employees, is the difference between the public and private sector. Of the 29.7 of Canadian workers who belong to a union; 71.7% belong to the public sector and only 17% are in the private sector.

Canada's labour landscape is continuing to change and the data shows the slow but steady decline of the union participation rates as a percentage of "market share" over the past few decades. Looking back to the hay days of the union movement in the 1970's, approximately four in ten workers were union members, compared to only three in ten today. Unions have seen a 25% decline in their participation rate.

Looking ahead, it is highly likely that the percentage of unionized employees in Canada will continue to decline for years to come. In the next few days I will have further comments on the decline in unionization in Canada.

Carole James wants to be perfectly clear.

2007-09-09T19:00:00.000-07:00

Carole James's wants to be perfectly clear on her parties stance on the Tsawwassen Treaty. To make things perfectly clear she announced on Friday the temporary suspension of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows MLA Michael Sather for the legislature's fall sitting over his opposition to the Tsawwassen first nation treaty.

You see, Carole James wants the public to have a perfectly clear understanding of what the NDP's position is on the Tsawwassen treaty.

Well, exactly how clear has Carole James and the NDP Caucus been on the Tsawwassen treaty?

First she promised to tell us her parties position once the spring session of legislature started in early February.

Then she said she would take a position some time during the spring session.

Then she said that the New Democrats would not take a position until after the vote.

Later she came out and said, "Whether we come out with a position before the Tsawwassen vote or after, we'll have our position and people will know it when we're ready with it and we'll be up front with it."

James also said, "We haven't decided as a caucus yet, but we'll have a position when it is ready."

Finally, Carole James called a press conference and announced that the NDP supported the Tsawwassen treaty and has for some time.

And why did Carole James wait so long to clearly tell British Columbians the NDP's position?

Because she thought it would be disrespectful to the Tsawwassen First Nations people to tell them the NDP's position before they’d voted. However two minutes later she was quite willing to support the Maa-nulth Treaty that was voted on later that week. if it was disrespectful to the Tsawwassen people to announce ahead of time your position on that, why isn’t it disrespectful to the Maa-nulth to announce your position before that?

Carole James said, "oops, I shouldn't have said that".

Well now, doesn't that make everything perfectly clear? I wonder if there are any other positions that the NDP would like to be perfectly clear on? (Gateway perhaps?)

You know, I think Carole James and the NDP have been making things perfectly clear for British Columbians for some time. Clear as Mud!

CUPE in Toronto question the lowest bid.

2007-09-07T19:30:00.000-07:00

Questions were raised at Toronto's city hall yesterday about how a waste-disposal firm managed to undercut its closest competitor by a whopping $88-million with its bid on an eight-year city contract to haul garbage from more than 5,000 apartment buildings.

The contract, which would start next year and last until 2016, consolidates three existing waste-collection contracts into one. The new arrangement covers the entire city and includes new services such as picking up organic waste and recyclables. Yesterday Mr. Brewer argued that, since his firm had one of the previous contracts, it better understands the costs involved.

CUPE the union representing the city's garbage workers - which has naturally argued against the contracting out of services to the private sector - also urged the city to reconsider the winning bid.

Brian Cochrane, president of Local 416 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, said in a letter submitted to the committee that the union was "very skeptical about the proposal ... as it appears to be a loss leader in hopes of securing further work for the City of Toronto in the future."

Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker, the committee's chairman, said awarding the contract to the lowest bidder was good for the city: "We're saving taxpayers a lot of money. We should be proud of ourselves."

The winning bidder, he said, was interviewed and its bid scrutinized. City staff are satisfied that Miller Waste, a large firm in the industry that has had other city contracts, can deliver on this one, he added.

It looks like the City of Toronto is getting a fantastic deal on some of their garbage collection. However CUPE isn't very happy with the winning bid. What's the problem, is Toronto saving too much money?

Maybe they should speak with Barry O'Neill the President of CUPE BC; he can tell Toronto how they may also want to consider cutting some of their costs and the need to do some trimming of municipal budgets!

Barry O'Neill makes an interesting offer.

2007-09-06T21:00:00.000-07:00

Councillor Peter Ladner says an agreement with a 17-point-five percent wage increase over five years with CUPE could cost homeowners $300 dollars more a year, and businesses up $3,300-dollars extra.

CUPE's Barry O'Neill says he understands if people object to such increases, but the City may then want to consider cutting some of it's costs, "And I think that if Mr. Ladner actually says there needs to be some trimming, yes, perhaps there does.

Yes, Mr. O'Neill fiscal responsibility is a good idea.

However,the largest single expenditure in the City of Vancouver's budget is Wages, Salaries and Benefits?

On page 21, note 12: Wages, Salaries and Benefits represent 51% of the entire annual budget.

The most prudent approach to reducing costs in the City of Vancouver is to make reductions in the wages, salaries and benefits section of the City's budget.

What a good suggestion.

I hope you take the time to pass along your cost trimming suggestion to the City in your current round of contract negotiations!

Ready-or-Not

2007-09-05T20:00:00.000-07:00

A few of my regular readers have weighed in on the Vancouver civic strike debate with calls to bring in ubermediator Vince Ready to mediate an agreement. Mediation is an option, however the strike impasse can still be broken and I don't believe it's time to call in Vince Ready.

Any bargaining process calls for both parties to provide a certain amount of give and take. From what I’ve read, I haven’t seen any willingness from CUPE to do any of the giving up in the bargaining process. During this round of bargaining CUPE has rejected the City's offer of private mediation, opted out of mediation at the Labour Relations Board, initiated a strike, rejected eight employer offers, and twice walked away from critical settlement opportunities in order to stage media events (after all this is "Sam's Strike").

What seems to be holding up any agreement in Vancouver is CUPE's unwillingness to accept the other agreements settled around the GVRD as the floor and the ceiling in any settlement. Yes, CUPE is willing to take the 17.5% over 5 years, but they have added many other labour rules that are not part of those other agreements. There will never be a settlement until CUPE stops asking for more from Vancouver than they received in other municipal agreements.

The agreements that have been reached around the GVRD must be the ceiling that the City of Vancouver will not settle above and it must also be the floor that CUPE will not settle below.

As for Vince Ready, let's remember that the City of Vancouver is charged with the responsibility of negotiating a fair agreement with their employees, on behalf of City taxpayers. Why should the City abdicate this responsibility by bringing in a mediator when CUPE has shown little willingness to give up anything in its negotiating positions?

This strike is far from ready to bring in Ready!

The City has moved their position over the past six weeks; when will CUPE do the same?

Money for nothing.

2007-09-03T17:00:00.000-07:00

I see CUPE is demanding another restrictive labour rule in their most recent counter offer to the City of Vancouver. They're asking for no layoffs due to contracting out between now and 2012 . Nice perk if you can get it, but "no layoffs" isn't a realistic bargaining position in today's real world. But what layoffs in the City of Vancouver are they actually talking about?

CUPE Local 15 members already have 4 levels of job protection in their current collective agreement.

These are:

Priority Placement
laid off employees receive priority placement into positions for which they are qualified,

Bumping Rights
laid off employees have the right to to “bump” less senior employees in equal or lower level jobs providing they are qualified to do the work,

Recall Rights
laid off employees maintain the right to be recalled to vacant positions in their job classification for up to one (1) year after being laid off, and

Severance Rights
laid off employees are able, at their option, to buy out their recall rights.

So, CUPE 15 wants even more and they are now asking the City to guarantee that there will be no layoffs due to contracting out between now and 2012. This means that the City would have to maintain the job and pay of an employee even if there was no work available for them.

That is like giving a redundant employee money for nothing.

The City has continued to offer and not to diminish any of the four levels of job protection, including priority placement, bumping or recall rights of employees. Along with the above, they are offering to increase the current severance entitlement to four (4) weeks plus one (1) additional week for each year of service to a maximum of 26 weeks.

Wow, now that's a pretty good deal that you don't see in many other work places.

It's time for union members to think clearly about this restrictive "no layoffs" labour rule. Is this really worth being on strike for six weeks for?

Considering that, over the past decade, in a workforce of 3,500 CUPE Local 15 employees, the City has only laid off approximately 10 employees. So what are CUPE members so worried about; if only 10 employees have been laid off over the past 10 years?

Is this really worth losing six and going on seven weeks of pay for?

Very few CUPE member jobs have ever been lost to layoffs in the City of Vancouver. Compare that to what is going on in the private sector and CUPE workers might come to realize how few worries they have when they don't work in an environment where profit and losses actually matter.

To add some perspective, take a look at this news item on CAW members who are in shock after GM decided to eliminate 1,000 jobs in Oshawa.

Power for the people!

2007-09-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

I'm all for workers getting good pay and benefits, however what is CUPE really talking about when they say they want a "Fair Agreement"? It seems to me that they have a pretty fair and reasonable offer in front of them?

The City of Vancouver has offered a template agreement almost identical to contracts signed by other lower mainland municipalities.

They have the standard offer of a 17.5-per-cent wage increase over the next five years.

Workers already have a medical, dental, life insurance and extended health-care plan, that is the envy of almost every worker in the private sector.

The city isn't asking workers to make any concessions on benefits.

Workers already get on average 51 paid days off a year, 18 of those days accruing thanks to a compressed work week. (for all inside workers who spend an extra 31 minutes a day on the job for a total of 37.5 hours a week). That 51-day total doesn't include 20 allowable sick days but does include all stat holidays the city mandates as paid days off.

Maybe there is one thing missing in the negotiations for our municipal workers -- and that is more power. Yes, that's right, they need more power!

More power for individual civic workers over their union leadership!

I'm in the camp that believes the City of Vancouver made a huge mistake in July, when they forced CUPE 15 (inside workers) to vote on a "final offer". The outcome was predictable, however only 56% of the members voted, rejecting the offer by 85%. (a 56% turn out isn't what I would call "a huge show of democracy".)

However, today after 6 weeks on the picket line, if there was a vote on the City's most recent offer, the result could be dramatically different. Unfortunately for the workers, that vote will never take place, until the union leadership agrees to it. And don't hold your breath waiting for that vote to ever happen. There isn't a mechanism to allow the union membership to force their union leadership to put a contract offer to a vote. Individual workers need a democratic way to express their views, rather than being forced to accept the views of only the highly motivated. They unfortunately lack the power to do so.

In speaking with union members, I believe that if they were given the opportunity to vote today on the North Vancouver District or the City of Richmond agreements as is, they would vote in favour.

However, CUPE continues to hold up any settlement by adding seven additional restrictive labour rules to their most recent offer. For example, they've added rules that would allow the union, through seniority to control promotions, scheduling and basically award work according to some outlandish union pecking order instead of basing things on the individual skills and merit of the employees.

These rules might make perfect sense from the standpoint of the union. However, the City wants the ability to match the available work to employees based on skills, qualifications and experience (merit). This union demand also fails to ensure that the clients, who pay the fees for many of the programs staffed by auxiliary employees, are provided with the service by those staff most qualified to do so.

Also on hiring, the City wants the option on a handful of the most specialized positions only, to see if there are more qualified outside candidates before automatically handing a job over to someone simply based on how many years of seniority they have.

No surprise -- that's how things work in the real world every day.

CUPE's leadership continues to simply ignore the wishes of its members, whose dues go to pay their salaries. What's really needed to end this strike, is more power for the individual workers to impose their will over their union leadership.

Who’s winning the Vancouver civic Strike?

2007-08-30T18:00:00.000-07:00

According to the Globe and Mail’s Gary Mason, “maybe it’s Sam Sullivan’s opponents”.

“Public-sector disputes always become public relations battles, with both sides trying to win the hearts and minds of the common citizen. In this case, the city, and Mayor Sam Sullivan in particular, have been getting creamed by a vastly more experienced team of Canadian Union of Public Employees negotiators and PR staff who could sell a strike blindfolded.

CUPE has brilliantly pinned the blame for the entire affair on the city's beleaguered mayor - it's now "Sam's Strike" - while somehow persuading people its motives are not at all political. The fact that CUPE reportedly donated $276,000 to political opponents of the mayor in the last election year is irrelevant, the union says.

It would never sacrifice its workers for crass political gains.

But that's exactly what they're doing”.

Mason adds, “City workers are going to get a 17.5-per-cent wage increase over the next five years.

Unfortunately for them, it's being eaten up with each passing day as the union drags the strike out in an attempt to damage the mayor politically.

Do Vancouver’s CUPE members want to be used by their union leadership to fight a political battle for control of City Hall?

Is that why they're on strike?

Union rhetoric and political agendas.

2007-08-29T22:00:00.000-07:00

Carrying signs that read "Stop Stalling, Start Bargaining!" and "Don't Dictate, Negotiate!" about 1,000 protesters marched to city hall on Cambie Street, with union members vowing to topple Mayor Sam Sullivan in the next municipal election.

An unidentified man was seen slashing the tire of a city truck, the CBC's Jeremy Nuttall reported from the scene. No arrests were reported. (Too bad)

The discord for Sullivan, and a selection of other city officials, carried throughout the day. During the rally, many workers wore placards bearing the now familiar slogan: "Sam's Strike." (clearly blatant political messaging)

In yet another attack on the mayor, one man proudly waved a drawing of Darth Vader sitting in a wheelchair that was placed below the words: "Managing from the dark side." (getting nasty)

During the speeches, union leaders also took aim at the mayor.

"Why the hell, Sam, does your civil city not include pay equity?" Alex Youngberg, president of CUPE, Local 391 said, referring to a major issue in the negotiations among Vancouver's striking librarians.

On CKNW, Councillor Peter Ladner commented, "that something disturbing jumped out to him in the rally".

He was unhappy with the comments from one of the union speakers, who spoke of a political agenda to unseat the mayor. He says, "it is very distressing that a political campaign like that, should be allowed to disrupt the services in the city and the life of the workers of the city.

Also, on the continuing strike impasse, the union's job security provisions "go far beyond what exists in any other lower mainland municipality".

Once again, this strike will never be over, until the union stops asking for more from the City of Vancouver than the negotiated settlements they reached with all the other lower mainland municipalities.

More wanted.

2007-08-28T18:00:00.000-07:00

CUPE local 15 representing striking inside workers has rejected the two proposals put to it last week. The North Vancouver District agreement was not enough to allow workers to go back to their jobs.

The union hand-delivered to the city its own counter-offer and has asked the city to come back to the bargaining table - with the help of a mediator if necessary.

This is from today's Globe and Mail:

One obvious change the union made to the city's offers was to include a clause that would prohibit the city from laying off any CUPE 15 employees as a result of contracting out, something that has been a sticking point throughout the negotiations.

The union also included an Olympic partnership agreement in its counter-offer, which Mr. Faoro had previously said his union would only discuss after all the other details had been ironed out. Keith Graham, CUPE 15's chief negotiator, said the Olympic agreement the union has proposed is basically the same as the one the City of Richmond reached with its civic workers, with a few key differences.

So CUPE 15 is asking for no layoffs for 5 years, even if some of their jobs are contracted out. How could anyone realistically agree to that?

The City of Vancouver offered the North Vancouver District settlement almost completely as is. Now CUPE 15 has countered with what they called the City of Richmond's agreement, however it contains several very expensive differences.

The devil is always in the details!

"What we're asking for in the Olympic agreement is that our members, who normally work at that site, be given first opportunity to continue to be scheduled at that site, doing their normal work, before volunteers and VANOC employees are called in," Mr. Graham said.

This is from the Vancouver Sun:

Chief union negotiator Keith Graham said the union wants to ensure the city cannot lay off existing employees simply to make way for contract workers doing the same job. He added the union wants to move certain auxiliary positions into regular part-time or full-time ones. He said the union also wants to see auxiliary workers get shifts based on seniority.

City spokesperson Tom Timm said this seniority-based proposal causes problems because it limits the employer's ability to match workers' skills with the jobs that need to be done.

"There are differing skill sets in terms of what the curriculum is at a community centre or at a swimming pool," he said.

"The city has wanted to be able to schedule people based on their skill sets and on how well their programs are received by the customers rather than who has the most seniority in the area," he added.

Timm said the city also wants the right to consider external candidates when hiring for certain job categories.

I've said it before and I will continue to say; the City of Richmond's agreement should be the ceiling that the City of Vancouver will not settle above and it must also be the floor that CUPE will not settle below. There will never be a settlement until CUPE stops asking for more than they received in other municipal agreements.

If CUPE wants the Richmond agreement; do they also want the highest level of contracting out in the GVRD? That's what Richmond has, the highest level of municipal services contracted out in the GVRD. Why do you think they also have the lowest number of muncipal employees in relationship to number of residents in the GVRD?

This labour strike is turning out to be less about wages and benefits and more about who runs the show. Is it the union, or city managers?

Are we there yet?

2007-08-26T20:00:00.000-07:00

Anyone travelling with children during a summer vacation has heard them whining from the back seat of the car, "are we there yet?" Well, with my summer vacation just about over I also want to know; will this latest offer from the City of Vancouver get us there yet? Let's get our community centres open, let's allow our children to attend preschool, let's get the ice in to allow hockey practices to start and finally let's get all our hard working civic workers back on their jobs earning a pay cheque!

This strike has dragged on for far too long. I posted way back on Monday July 30th, "The Vancouver civic strike is over."

Unfortunately, for everyone involved, the strike wasn't over by a long shot. Here we are on August 26th and we still haven't reached a settlement. I believe it has finally reached crunch time and CUPE must either respond positively to this most recent offer from the City of Vancouver, matching the North Vancouver District's settlement or we're in for a really long and protracted strike.

I've always believed that the City of Richmond's agreement should be the ceiling that the City of Vancouver will not settle above and it must also be the floor that CUPE will not settle below.

However, CUPE can't expect to negotiate more out of Vancouver than it has settled for with all the other Municipalities.

The City of Vancouver has offered CUPE 15 the North Vancouver District's settlement, including a 17.5-per-cent wage hike over five years, reflecting earlier deals reached by other municipalities across the Lower Mainland. This offer from the City of Vancouver hasn't taken away any benefits and actually adds benefits that were not in the North Vancouver settlement.

The agreement even says,

"All of the terms of the 2003-2006 Collective Agreement continue except as specifically varied below by paragraphs 2 to 9, both inclusive."

CUPE negotiators are still asking for more, saying, the offer doesn't address issues, such as job security, that the union wants to still negotiate.

Enough already!

If CUPE's negotiators reject this offer, it only confirms all the suspicions that this strike isn't about wages and benefits and that it is all about power politics and who controls City Hall!

Right way for the wrong party.

2007-08-25T18:00:00.000-07:00

The Mustel Group has released a poll showing public support for the BC Liberals remains strong over the summer. After the difficult issue of dealing with MLA's salary increase, voters still prefer the Liberals (50%) over the NDP (32%). We need to remember that this poll is only a snap shot of the public's voting intention between August 8th - August 20th and we are still a long way from the May 12th 2009 provincial election.

However, what must be disconcerting in the polling numbers for the opposition NDP, is their continuing decline in popularity.

They have dropped from a high of 42% of voters support achieved in the May 2005 election and they now sit at a lowly 32% support. This is a decline of 10 points or a 24% decline in their support from election night high. These results aren't too surprising following the NDP's bungling of the 29% MLA's pay increase and their ineptitude in not dealing with the Tsawwassen treaty and then dealing with the Tsawwassen treaty.

However, what can the NDP really do to improve their popularity?

It will be interesting to watch the NDP as they go into the fall session having to now vote on the Tsawwassen treaty, which they are neither for, nor are they against.

Carole James has said, "there is no room for dissent on the treaty - the caucus is expected to vote unanimously in favour when it comes before the legislature some time this fall". But some of her MLAs have said, "they cannot support the proposed settlement, which would remove 200 hectares of active farmland from the protection of the Agricultural Land Reserve".

The other big issue coming up in the fall, will be the NDP's provincial convention.

So, what about Carole James's leadership? I'm sure the grumbling will continue; however it's not like the NDP's poor performance can be blamed on James's leadership. This bungling and ineptitude goes to the ideological core of what the NDP believe in and it can't be blamed on one individual. (Even though I'm sure there are many NDPer's who would love to blame her) The NDP's policies and what they stand for is what drives voter support.

Surprisingly, James's numbers continue to hold strong with 40% approving of her leadership versus her parties approval of only 32%. Hey, wouldn't it be easy if all the NDP had to do was shoot their leader once again to improve their popularity. However a change in captains won't stop this Titanic from sinking. It's not the captain of the ship that is broken -- it's the ship that's broken!

With no new ideas or just old ideas, it leaves the NDP with very little support beyond their ideological core of believers. The big problem for the NDP, is their lack of ability to expand their tent of support beyond their core of supporters. The majority of British Columbian's aren't interested in their ideological views or their politics of special interest groups.

While the NDP continue to fall on their swords, the BC Liberals continue to hold a steady line in voter support. This latest poll shows them with a lead of 18 points or a 36% separation in voter intentions from the NDP.

This result is remarkable given that most governing parties suffer in the polls between elections. Governing takes leadership and leadership requires making difficult decisions that are not popular with everyone. Sooner or later you piss off almost every voter with some decision that the government has to make. That's why they are called tough decisions. Who can't make easy decisions? Yet, here we are 28 months into the current mandate and the voters support for the BC Liberals remains high at 50%.

Keep up the good work Gordo!