Gordon F D Wilson » Wilson’s Weekly

It is somewhat ironic that the very successful initiative campaign undertaken by former Premier Bill Vander Zalm may actually provide Campbell and Hansen a second chance.

Gordon — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:56:49 +0000

No one should be surprised to learn that discussions between the provincial and federal governments on the merits of the HST were well underway months before the last provincial election and continued during the election period. It would have been grossly irresponsible for Ministry of Finance staff to have not maintained a dialogue with their federal counterparts on an issue of this magnitude, particularly in light of Ontario’s decision to adopt the HST.
What is surprising is Premier Campbell and Finance Minister Colin Hansen’s continued assertion that the prospect of the HST was not on the radar before the last election. That simply cannot be true, and the recent release of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act shows that discussions were not only underway but there was an active negotiation about a more flexible program.
I suppose Premier Campbell’s personal radar may have been obscured by the 2010 Olympic Games to the point that he simply wasn’t paying attention to what was going on it the rest of the country, notably Ontario. And I don’t doubt Mr. Hansen’s sincerity when he claims that no decision to introduce the HST was taken prior to the last election, but asking us to believe that negotiations on possible HST implementation scenarios were not well advanced is a real stretch, although I am prepared to accept that the province has been reactive in these discussions rather than proactive.
It is really unfortunate that the Campbell government missed a wonderful opportunity to engage British Columbians in a serious discussion over tax reform. The Campbell government has become so entrenched and insular that they paid little attention, we are told, to the senior bureaucrats who were heavily engaged in formulating strategies to fundamentally change our tax system.
The collapse of the world economy that took place in the final months of 2008 and throughout 2009 provided a perfect backdrop for a serious discussion on tax reform in British Columbia and Canada, and clearly senior federal and provincial bureaucrats seized the opportunity and were engaged in just that. But the general public were not informed about those discussions, let alone being invited to present options and opinions for tax reform or the impact of new tax structures, and this has resulted in many individuals and businesses being negatively impacted by the decisions taken.
It is somewhat ironic that the very successful initiative campaign undertaken by former Premier Bill Vander Zalm may actually provide Campbell and Hansen a second chance. The petition is now accepted and despite a court challenge, it will be sent to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives chaired by Liberal MLA Terry Lake. Ostensibly, the role of the ten member committee of six BC Liberals and four NDP is to decide whether a draft anti-HST bill is presented to the Legislative Assembly for a vote or if a province wide initiative vote should be held.
I seriously doubt they will agree to the latter, which leaves the introduction of the HST Extinguishment Act to the Legislative Assembly, controlled by the Campbell Liberals, as the only option. I don’t doubt that the existing text of the bill will see first and second reading, but if Campbell has any sense at all he will break the bill out in the committee stage, call for public submissions and build in amendments clause by clause.
Such a move will accomplish three things. First it will buy his government time in the hope that this will heal some of the wounds in his base of supporters. Second, and most importantly, it will demonstrate that he has listened to the people and learned his lesson, assuming the process is meaningful and not just window dressing. Last, the passage of specific legislation may also unplug the constitutional challenge that is advancing in the courts.
We have all witnessed how well Campbell can publicly apologize and how easily the people of this province forgive him his abuses. So a well-worded speech given by a chastened Gordon Campbell about how he wants the people to have their fair say in amending the Bill, and how proud he is of the people for exercising their democratic rights, will give him the necessary excuse to bring in needed changes to the structure of the tax and mitigate the hardship HST has caused those in his core base of voters. Hell, before he is finished he could have you believing that he was the one who took it to the people in the first place!
The hapless NDP, who frankly have provided no leadership in the HST debate, will be left wondering how it is possible that the Campbell Liberals will have once again solidified their base of support and will again stand poised to form another majority government.
The only wrinkle in the plan is the proposed recall campaign that Bill Vander Zalm promises will get underway in the fall. If the government wants to derail it, MLA Terry Lake had better take his role as Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives seriously. Speedy action by this committee is crucial on two counts. First, Terry Lake, having won his seat by a 510 vote margin is amongst the most vulnerable MLAs to a recall campaign, and second, Campbell needs to take control of this issue if he is to survive as Liberal Leader.
A lack of commitment to process now will almost certainly cause the Liberals to lose government by default to the NDP, which, given the current leadership and direction, is about the only way they can win.

Share and Enjoy:

I suspect we will see the rise of a party that dominated politics in this province for four decades.

Gordon — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 01:22:45 +0000

Let’s face it, the Campbell government has run its course. Not only is it a government bereft of any new ideas, but it has introduced a string of policies that have deeply offended virtually every interest group within the electorate that actually votes and organizes during elections.
This should come as no surprise to any who have been following British Columbia politics. The fact that Campbell has survived since 2001 is more a reflection of the inability of the NDP to inspire confidence and motivate the voters than a testament to the well being of the province under Campbell’s leadership. Indeed, the province is arguably much worse off economically now than when the Campbell Liberals took office.
The list of atrocious Campbell government policies and the negative impact they have had on the general well being of British Columbians is a long one. The sale of BC Rail, the elimination of Tourism BC,the reduction of and increased cost of ferry service, the move toward greater privatization of health care, the closure of schools, the reduction in seniors’ services, the rise in the number of working poor; the list is too long to list here, but does make one wonder what exactly the people have received for the massive increase in taxpayer-supported debt that we are now responsible to pay off.
In 2000/01 the total provincial taxpayer supported debt sat at about $34.4 billion, and has over the nine years of the Campbell government risen to over $47.7 billion and is projected to rise to a staggering $55.8 billion, by the time the next election comes around in 2013.
That figure will not be explained away easily, particularly in light of this government’s record of truthfulness. In the last provincial election, for example, we were promised that the annual deficit would not rise above $495 million. As one might expect, Premier Campbell used the global economic crisis as the reason why his deficit exceeded the $495 million by over a billion dollars. I suspect that the real reason he felt confident to make such a promise was because he knew what the rest of us didn’t, namely, that the province was about to receive $1.6 billion from the federal government for the introduction of the HST.
If Campbell did know about the federal money, and the fact that they deferred $500 million from this year’s budget to be received closer to the next provincial election suggests that he did, then add that deceit to the growing list of mistakes this government has made over the introduction of the HST; mistakes that Campbell will not recover from.
The reason that the introduction of the HST will likely be the straw that breaks this particular camel’s back is because there is a well-orchestrated province-wide campaign growing in momentum against the unpopular tax. If this were a young government then there would be some fight and resolve to win the day, but I suspect that is not the case.
Too many of the government MLAs who form the core of the Campbell government have been around for more than three terms. Campbell himself has been in Victoria since 1993. They have made very good money over the years, they have their pensions, and I suspect some are tired of public life and will not run again. Others will not be prepared to take the risk of winning an individual riding only to end up as an opposition MLA. So the government’s hold on power is fragile.
Add to this reality the recall campaigns that are likely to get underway this fall, and the dynamic for this government’s political collapse becomes very real.
The magic number is six.
Given the current breakdown of seats held by the Campbell government, a shift of six MLAs will spell disaster for his government. Two members already sit as “independents”: Vicky Huntington, who was pushed out of a Liberal nomination race and was later elected as an independent, and Blair Lekstrom, who quit the BC Liberal caucus, citing his opposition to the HST as the reason. It only takes two more to form a party in the House, which would cause the entire political dynamic within the province to shift. Add two more to the four and Campbell loses control of the majority of the MLAs in the house, which means he may not be able to pass his next budget and we would then be into a provincial election with three parties in the race.
Given the success of the anti-HST campaign spearheaded by former Social Credit Premier Bill Vander Zalm, well-run recall campaigns in six vulnerable Liberal ridings would defeat the Campbell government. In fact the threat of a campaign may be enough to draw four MLAs off the Liberal benches into a ‘pro-business’ political party that could go to the polls on an anti-HST campaign with a real prospect of forming government.
Those vulnerable ridings exist.
Burnaby North, Burnaby Lougheed, Kamloops- North Thompson, Maple Ridge-Mission, Vancouver Fraserview and Saanich North and the Islands are all ridings where the numbers signal great vulnerability for the sitting Liberal MLA.
All incumbents in those ridings won with fewer than 800 votes. In the case of Maple Ridge-Mission, as few as 68 votes separated the winner from the runner up. All of these ridings had sufficient Green vote that, taken in combination with the NDP, these votes would defeat the incumbent, and all of these MLAs attracted the support of less than a third of the eligible vote. Given the success of the initiative campaign against the HST, there is a high probability that recall campaigns would be successful.
All of this would give momentum to those who are calling for a new political party in British Columbia. Certainly the recent polls show support for the BC Liberals slipping, and yet support for the NDP has remained solid only with their core supporters. Clearly the BC voter is not rushing out to embrace the NDP under Carole James, who runs the risk of thinking that she and her party are the natural choice for government if the Campbell Liberals fall. They aren’t.
If Campbell’s days are numbered, and I think they are, the province may well see the rise of another political party, but I doubt it will be a new one. I suspect we will see the rise of a party that dominated politics in this province for four decades, from 1952 to 1991, governing for thirty six of those forty years. It will be a party that can maintain the unspoken coalition between the liberals and conservatives and not split the right wing vote to the benefit of the NDP; it will effectively be the Social Credit Party. What better party to campaign against the HST, given their well-documented policies on monetary reform? Certainly with all those names gathered against the HST by former Social Credit Premier Bill Vander Zalm in every riding of the province, he has the lists from which to recruit his troops. He also has populist appeal and charisma, and is great with sound bytes.
Campbell is done, but unless he leaves soon enough to give the BC Liberals time to elect a new, popular, populist leader with time to change the course and ‘brand’ of the party, I suspect events will overtake the BC Liberals.
Of course, the NDP could wake up; develop a realistic and principled set of policies for the majority of British Columbians, who are moderate voters, with a vision for the province that addresses the issues hurting most of BC’s residents. This would also require a new dynamic leader. That might change events, but given the current commitment to stay the course by the party leadership, busy congratulating themselves on polls that show them more popular than Campbell’s government, that scenario seems the least likely to unfold.

Share and Enjoy:

The average amongst us is wrapped in a foetal sack of ignorance and disinterest, firmly attached to the umbilical cord of commerce.

Gordon — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:50:14 +0000

There is absolutely no point in trying to address the growing environmental crisis, regardless which of the veritable smorgasbord of critical issues most concerns you, with top down political and economic solutions. The reason that there is no point is because there is about as much chance of those solutions making a difference as there is getting on a Barcelona bound train in Madrid and expecting to get off in Paris.
The poor, weary souls who really do give a damn about trying to save the planet are trying to convince the rest riding on the Barcelona bound train that if we all get up and walk to the back of the train, somehow we will delay our arrival long enough to actually change our destination.
Despite our high speed connectivity and remarkable scientific achievements, the human race is less “fit” to make the changes necessary to save our sorry souls today than we were fifty years ago. The reason for that is because there are too damn many of us, and we all want to have a say in what the solution should be.
In 1960 the world’s population was slightly over 3 billion. Today it is over 6 billion and expected to reach 7 billion by the end of next year. Despite declining population growth worldwide, census projections put the World’s population at 10 billion by 2060.
It is illogical to consider that the exponential increase in population, along with our unbridled leap forward in technology, is not directly connected to the exponential decline of our global ecosystems, and yet I repeatedly hear politicians and economists tell me that the solution to our problem is improvements in technology and the application of more money to more programs.
In the 1960s an American plant pathologist named Norman Borlaug advanced an idea that came to be called the “green revolution”. The original goal of the Green Revolution was to increase efficiency and boost the yields of cereal grain crops. Since populations were topping 3 billion, it was thought that if we produce more cereal grains we could decrease global food insecurity. The way to do that, Mr. Borlaug contended, was to genetically modify (GM) seeds to condition them to germinate in shorter periods of time and despite adverse climate conditions. The idea was good enough to win Mr. Borlaug a Nobel Peace Prize.
Backed by the money from the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, along with huge financings from the World Bank and American government, research commenced on the development of GM plant species, many of which were heavily pesticide dependant, and these “new world” seeds were shipped abroad to farmers who stripped their land of the rich plant diversity and moved toward a mono-crop culture. Within a short time the pesticides had ruined the soil, killed the good bugs as well as bad, had contaminated the farmer who had little or no training in the application of these poisons, and had bankrupted communities who couldn’t afford to pay for these expensive plant drugs. In short, it was a disaster!
Yet, even today we continue down that path, following those who cry out for us to hitch our fate to the wagon of technology, scientific advancement and international financing through the World Bank. Those are the voices that have convinced the politicians to let them drill for oil deep in our oceans without the capacity to halt a catastrophic disaster that results from a blow out. Similar voices have convinced Obama to once again roll the nuclear dice for domestic power production, risking far more than the ecosystem of the Gulf States. And they can do so because the average amongst us is wrapped in a foetal sack of ignorance and disinterest, firmly attached to the umbilical cord of commerce.
The prophets of the 1960s, like E.F. Schumacher, Amory Lovins, Rachel Carson and Donella and Dennis Meadows all put forward thoughtful and visionary approaches to solutions within their various fields of endeavour. Sadly, their good works were co-opted. Their ideas infused within the populus vox vocis played to us through the instruments of the state. We all climbed aboard a train bound for Barcelona, told by those who run it, “next stop Paris”.
Don’t look to the politicians, and certainly don’t look to science or technology to fix the problems. It is up to us to get off the train. In order to do that we need to pull the brake cord on our race toward the global madness of unlimited consumption, and learn the lessons so patiently taught us in the mid-twentieth century. Limits to growth economic models are not only ok, they are imperative if we are to survive the demands of the growing number of people who now and will soon roam this earth.

Share and Enjoy:

Banks sell the wealth of the people for profit

Gordon — Tue, 18 May 2010 22:37:24 +0000

The International Monetary Fund is calling on the G20 governments to impose a new bank tax to help pay for the bailouts and deficits caused by the global financial crisis. Our Finance Minister Flaherty is rallying Canadians in support of the banks as though we should be defending against an assault on our national hockey team.
While Canadians might all agree that a tax on Canadian banks as suggested by the International Monetary Fund is unwarranted, let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that these massive public corporations shouldn’t pay their fair share in domestic tax. The banks are not benevolent citizens looking out for the welfare of average Canadians, although they spend millions in advertising each year to have you believe otherwise.
Canada’s big five banks, the Royal Bank, CIBC, Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, and TD Canada Trust, are the largest corporations in Canada if one uses asset value as the measure. They control 70% of all our money on deposit in Canada. They determine 80% of small business lending and hold over 80% of the assets in the investment brokerage industry. They own all but two of the large trust companies and the majority of consumer credit and mortgage lending.
Like any corporation, management’s only concern is to provide a good return to their shareholders. But that is where the similarity with other corporations ends.
Most corporations are built upon a base of shareholder investment, but not our banks; they use your money. In fact, the hard earned money of over 20 million Canadians and the majority of Canadian businesses makes up 95% of the total capital base of the banks. Shareholder investment totals only 5%.
Ironically it is the fact that the banks control so much of your money and hold so much of your debt that has put them into the “too big to fail” category. So if poor business practice causes one or more of them to falter, your tax dollars will make them whole, but certainly not you. Even in good times, banks do little to help the average Canadian family or small and medium size business.
Consider that most of the consumer credit is owned by the banks, and then take a look at the interest rate they are charging on your credit card. Add that to the service fees they charge for virtually every transaction, and then try to secure a small business loan. In truth banks don’t lend you money, they sell you access to your money. The terms will always be in their favour, the price is a premium, and they take little or no risk. They certainly do not invest in you, your family, or your home or company despite what their advertising might say.
Canadian banks sell (lend) about $600 billion to businesses a year. Of that total, only 3% of loans go to small businesses that require loans under $100,000, and about 20% to medium size businesses with loans up to $5 million. The remaining 77% goes to big business in loans well over $5 million.
Ironically, much of the big business lending finances large international corporate enterprise outside of Canadian borders, and yet it is the small and medium-sized business sector that has created 90% of the jobs in Canada since 1983 and currently employs half of all working Canadians, who in turn put their hard earned money back into the bank and are paid peanuts in interest for this “privilege”.
Having myself served as a Provincial Finance Minister, I can understand why our federal Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty has been quick to rise to the defence of the banks stating, “We’re not going to punish our banks for the fact that they have acted responsibly,” but what I don’t understand is why he has not told Canadians that the banks have had the benefit of over $200-billion via a low-interest line of credit from Ottawa. Neither has he reminded us his Conservative government has gifted the banks over $4 billion in corporate tax reductions. Nor did he mention that any compliance the Canadian banks had with Canadian banking regulations was done reluctantly, with loud and frequent protests by our banks that they were overregulated and couldn’t compete with the other banks on a level playing field.
The Conservatives while in opposition supported the banks demands for deregulation to match that of the American banking system. Good thing the federal Liberals of the day didn’t listen!
Canada’s financial sector has averaged $50-billion a year in before-tax profits since 2005. Even during the 2009 recession, our banks and financial partners still racked up an impressive $44-billion in profits. Incredibly, during 2009, a year with record personal and small business bankruptcies, rising unemployment and numerous home foreclosures, the financial sector, which employs just 6% of Canadian workers, managed to earn profits of over 25%.
So while I might agree that the IMF has no business telling Canadian banks that they need to pay into an international fund for bank bailouts, Canadians should become increasingly aware of the huge profits that are being made by these institutions with every uptick in both privately and publicly held debt.
Canadian banks are uniquely positioned to be profitable and hold protected status within our economy. They didn’t survive 2009 simply through sound management, but did so hand in hand with the Bank of Canada and the federal government.
Finance ministers are uniquely positioned to set a new economic course, and Mr. Flaherty has been handed a golden opportunity to do so now that he has the banks’ attention. It seems to me that the compassion that Mr. Flaherty has for the Canadian banks is misplaced. What he should do is recognize that it is the hard work of the Canadian people that has built these institutions, and protect the people from usury as applied to credit card interest rates by capping the upper limit. He should compel the banks to lend to small and medium sized business at affordable rates, and have a compulsory public audit of accounts to make sure that they are doing so.
Banks sell the wealth of the people for profit. Mr. Flaherty should make sure that a fair percentage of those profits come home to benefit the people who have made them possible.

Share and Enjoy:

If British Columbians are really ready for change, there is no better time to recruit and train the army of progressives to bring it about.

Gordon — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 02:48:32 +0000

As the Campbell Liberals get ready to invoke closure on the debate surrounding the HST, the rumblings about forming a new political party are getting louder and no one should be surprised.
Back in the day, more than a decade ago when I was the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the BC Liberals were mounting an all-out campaign to try to stop the then-NDP government from passing legislation to implement the Nisga’a treaty. I invoked closure because the Liberals were trying to stall the passing of the bill because they were suing the government to try to block the historic treaty from becoming law.
When I introduced closure Gordon Campbell, then Leader of the Official Opposition, called the use of closure a “menacing, autocratic and undemocratic assault on the B.C. Legislature”. What the government of the day was doing, in Campbell’s words, demonstrated “the worst kind of tin-pot democracy you could find.”
I didn’t agree with him then, but I think this time we have a real example of menacing, autocratic and undemocratic use of the legislature.
It is one thing to use closure to end decades of debate on a long-negotiated treaty that applies to a small First Nation their historic lands in Northern B.C. The HST is an entirely different.
The Campbell government is introducing a new tax system that amends British Columbia’s constitutional right to set tax rates, and to collect taxes provincially, and it will impact every British Columbian and every sales transaction in the province.
What’s more, there was an exhaustive clause-by-clause debate on the legislation governing the Nisga’a treaty before I invoked closure. This has not occurred with the bill on the HST. Neither, I should point out, was there a petition circulating throughout the province gaining widespread support from the electorate to stop the legislation.
The use of closure is the most recent demonstration of arrogance from the Campbell government. There are plenty of other examples of this government’s callousness.
School hours for our children are being reduced to save money from a financially beleaguered education system, but there is plenty of money for a new roof for B.C. Place.
There is lots of money to fly five plane loads of staff and reporters to hear the Premier announce Site C, but no money for B.C. writers, painters and musicians.
So, the rumblings for a new political party get louder.
Ironically the loudest voice comes from the B.C. Conservative party. I suggest it’s ironic because they were the only party whose platform actually advocated for the harmonization of the HST. Reading their policy papers suggests that they are angry because Campbell hasn’t gone far enough to the right.
The latest Angus Reid poll added some fuel to the smouldering embers, by reporting that 49% of those polled believe that British Columbia needs a new party. More fuel was poured on with the report that 52% of the Metro Vancouver respondents would support a third option, and an even higher number in support, 54% coming from respondents in the interior of the province.
Sadly for those pushing the B.C. Conservatives, the most popular new party will be one that enters center stage left, not on the far right. A new centre-left party, similar to the real liberal party that I led in the late 1980s and eventually took to Official Opposition in 1991 would take votes from both established parties and would head to the next election with a six-point lead. I have long believed that most British Columbians sit comfortably in the center left position politically. That is why I worked hard to position the B.C. Liberal Party into that space, and after it was hijacked, the Progressive Democratic Alliance.
There are of course many within the Vancouver establishment who are uncertain about any political party that does not steer well to the right of center. While they are pragmatic about having a leader who provides an appearance of being center-left, they won’t support one who actually goes there politically. The result of this is that the people of British Columbia have to not only want progressive policy through political leaders with a vision and passion to deliver it, but they have to be prepared to defend and finance their choice.
The Vancouver establishment, realizing that Campbell’s day is done and not wanting to give up their position at the public trough, is already starting to polish up their choice to succeed him: Carole Taylor. A fresh new face on the Campbell Liberals might actually give the liberal party the appearance of being the real thing.
Carole Taylor has been quick to point out that as Minister of Finance she rejected the introduction of the HST. Using the public platform afforded her by virtue of her position on the CTV’s Power Play, Taylor has cited the HST as ideological, shifting roughly $2 billion in taxes off business and onto consumers. Perhaps she is smart enough to know that every person in business is also a consumer, and what’s more a voter.
Of course while Taylor can smugly claim “not on my watch” with respect to the HST, she is going to have a much more difficult time explaining how it came to pass that as minister of finance she removed the corporate capital tax off banks, a tax that had been in place for over thirty-eight years. It was a tax that provided needed revenues to the province form the wealthiest businesses, Canada’s national banks. What will be more difficult to explain is why she voluntarily gave up this revenue source, since no one, with the possible exception of the deputy-chairman of the Toronto-Dominion Bank Financial Group, Frank McKenna, was lobbying for it.
McKenna, a former Liberal Premier of New Brunswick was, according to the Globe and Mail, “instrumental in helping persuade British Columbia” to repeal the corporation capital tax off banks. A few months later, Taylor left politics and was appointed to the board of directors of the Toronto-Dominion Bank Financial Group at an annual remuneration with benefits of up to $350,000 per year.
If British Columbians are really ready for change, there is no better time to recruit and train the army of progressives to bring it about. But it isn’t going to happen by sending one or two brave souls over the top, only to have him/her fall to the inevitable barrage of fire that will come from those for whom such change is unthinkable.

Share and Enjoy:

Why not a BC Agricultural Land Trust with a Farmstead Act?

Gordon — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:45:53 +0000

The struggle to preserve agricultural land in British Columbia can be traced back to a fundamental flaw in the BC Land Commission Act and the establishment of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).
This should be clear when one observes that many of the people who are lobbying hardest to get their land out of the ALR are farmers who have invested their lives in working the land, have raised their families on the land, and have nothing appreciable to show for it in terms of cash savings. Their land is their retirement fund, and yet it is virtually worthless without a potential to change the permitted land use, because nobody, not even their own children, want the life of a modern Canadian farmer. This is both shocking and an issue that needs to be addressed if we are to protect farming as an option in Canada.
Certainly British Columbia is better served in agricultural land protection than other provinces. Ontario, in which roughly half of Canada’s prime farm land may be found, has lost roughly one million acres of agricultural land to urban sprawl and industrial development since 1991.
The BC Land Commission Act (BCLCA) was introduced in April of 1973 by the Barrett NDP government to protect British Columbia’s agricultural land base. As progressive as the Bill was, it was fundamentally flawed because the Act caused agricultural land to be preserved through a process of land zoning, rather than through the establishment of an agricultural land trust in which residual title on the land rests with the Crown at all times, and cannot be removed.
While I was elected to office, I pushed hard for the creation of an Agricultural Land Trust and the introduction of a Farmstead Act.
The model that I proposed, and that I still advocate today, is for the creation of an Agricultural Land Trust that is effectively a “land bank” into which farmers can sell their farmland at a value to reflect the potential of the land as a valued producer of agricultural product, and this value takes into account the quality of soil, availability of water, and history of production.
Farmers should not be expected to carry the cost of the ALR on their shoulders and not have a reasonable opportunity to retire with tangible financial benefits for all their years of hard work.
The establishment of an Agricultural Land Trust would put all agricultural land into a permanent land base to the benefit of all Canadians, underwritten by federal and provincial governments.
Those who currently own agricultural land will still hold fee simple title to it, but if they chose to sell and move on, the sale is made into the trust at a price that reflects the agricultural potential of the land as established through standard land appraisal processes.
Similarly, pre-retirement sale of land into the trust would be possible while the farmer continues to farm though a management contract.
This approach will achieve two valuable results:
First, farmers will have greater certainty with respect to their retirement from the land with sufficient incentive to continue to farm without the pressure brought to bear by land speculators and realtors who dangle the financial rewards available through sale of land to developers who will petition to have the land removed from the ALR.
Second, land held within the agricultural land trust can be made available to young Canadians who may be provided incentives and training that will cause them to want to farm.
Yesterday, I wrote that we need to put more emphasis on developing local markets for locally produced goods, and to do it in such a manner that we are able to compete with low-priced foreign food products that flood our markets year round. For the greatest success from production to market to consumption, we need to give farmers the opportunity to succeed.
The companion legislation that I advocated while elected and continue to advocate is the The Farmstead Act.
The primary goal of this legislation is to provide major incentives for new farmers, young and old, to take over farms that are held in the Trust, and make it financially viable to work on these farms, modify them, and update them.
Recognizing that farmers selling land into the Trust will require a solid financial return for their land, measures will be needed to make these available farms affordable for those Canadians who wish to take on farming, many of whom may have skills and passion for farming but lack the resources to gain access to farmland. The Farmstead Act is a mechanism that provides this access by making these farms available on conditions not unlike the now defunct Homestead Act that was responsible for building much of western Canada.
The Farmstead Act legislation I envision will make farms available from the Trust to new farmers on a lease-to-own basis without the requirement of a massive down payment and the challenge of trying to find a commercial bank that will provide farm mortgages without proof of off-farm income to support it.
Tied to educational programs within our community colleges, technical institutions and flourishing new universities, I believe that farming can become a very attractive life choice for many Canadians and an excellent economic generator for our country, not to mention the extra benefits of greater access to local food. The Farmstead Act, if linked to a stable Agricultural Land Trust, will provide the financial security that modern Canadians are looking for while promoting and expanding the farming options within the province and country as a whole.
Under this system, the existing provisions for farm preservation that are included in the Land Commission Act, and the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, will be better secured. Local planners will have to take into account both current and future farm demand for water, and the pressures to sell or move that are brought upon farmers who live adjacent to suburban populations such as those in the Fraser Valley will be removed. Fruit growers in the Okanagan will grow fruit knowing that when they are ready to retire, they will get a fair return for their land from the Trust.
Last, but by no means the least contentious aspect of this proposal, is the fact that an established Agricultural Land Trust will be treated as fee simple land, alienated from the Aboriginal Treaty process so that large tracts of fine agricultural land cannot be removed from farming as a result of Treaty making with First Nations as we have seen in the Tsawwassen Treaty where 207 hectares of prime land was removed from the ALR, and 290 hectares of land formerly in the ALR remained excluded.
That does not mean that proper compensation in the Treaty process will not apply; it means in the determination of compensation, the federal and provincial governments and the First Nation involved will have to recognize that the real value of agricultural land is in its ability to grow food to feed the people, and not to be stripped of its soil to build shopping malls.
Best of all, British Columbians will know that the base of agricultural land will be preserved in perpetuity, cared for and valued for food production, and this inventory of land will grow. This program ensures that a whole new generation of people will find new and innovative ways to increase our food production, and by doing so, increase the economic and physical health of our province and country.

Share and Enjoy:

the family farm will soon be a thing of the past.

Gordon — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:10:41 +0000

The most egregious legacy of successive federal and provincial governments is the failure to properly protect and expand Canada’s agricultural land base and with it, a viable and expanding primary and value-added food production industry.
For me, the most disturbing part of this failure is the complacency shown by so many British Columbians who at best think of agricultural land as “pretty green space”, and at worst don’t think about it at all.
This indifference is hardly surprising when one considers the growing number of people for whom city living is their life experience. They don’t have a clue where their food comes from, and seem to think that as long as they have money they will always be able to buy food. I use the term “food” loosely to include plastic-covered processed frozen food that is heated in a microwave and considered dinner.
I read in a local urban living magazine a few years back that studio apartments and small condos are becoming the most preferred purchase by the young urban dweller. These apartments are small, often less than 850 sq ft, and in order to accommodate the maximum living area, are built without a formal kitchen. A small fridge, stove top and microwave are all that is provided.
The reason for this trend, according to the writer in the magazine, is because most young urban types eat out or buy microwavable and prepared food. Few prepare meals from healthy, fresh, raw materials. Those frozen and prepped fast foods could be made in China in very poor production facilities for all these consumers care, and many are.
Historians tell us that throughout history the sovereignty and strength of a nation depends upon its ability to feed its population. Despite globalization and worldwide food distribution systems, that fact is no less true today.
Sadly, many politicians, economists, community planners and members of the general public have dismissed food production as a key indicator in measuring the economic health of our nation. Witness the last federal and provincial budgets. Agriculture barely warranted a mention, and in British Columbia the agricultural ministry had its budget slashed, which will result in significant program reductions, again.
Agriculture, or business directly connected to agriculture, is frequently put far down the list of priorities in economic development planning at the community level. The net result of this has been to permit large-scale residential developments on land adjacent to farms without any serious regard for obvious consequences such as competition for water or residential complaints from the sound and smell of farming.
There is no shortage of studies undertaken to measure water supply for residential or industrial expansion, as in most cases approving authorities require that developers supply them. Only recently, however, have we started to take into account the impact of water demand by those developments on operating farms. This is especially true when one takes into account climate change, which will not only reduce the source and supply of water, but cause farms to require more water for irrigation.
The semi-arid Okanagan, for example, has become a bit of a Mecca for Canadian retirees. The result has been massive residential growth which has put considerable demand upon the local water supply. The Okanagan valley is also home to many growers who not only supply apples, plums, cherries, peaches and pears, but also grow a multiplicity of grape varieties that support the value-added wine industry. In a drought, it is the farmer who loses out in the battle over scarce water supply while the permitted subdivisions, hotels and recreational complexes are well supplied with water.
Where decision makers at all levels should be building in food production as part of the economic development picture, instead, for decades, it has been taken out. Taking food production and the agricultural industry out of the analysis of the economic health of our nation creates a flawed picture of Canada’s economic sustainability.
Two of the more common reasons cited for this short-sighted approach are:
First, economists point to the price of agricultural product available in Canada from agricultural jurisdictions such as California or Mexico and tell us that due to farm practices, the scarcity and cost of labour here, and domestic transportation costs, imported food is less expensive. What’s more, Canada has a limited growing season, and Canadians have come to expect fresh produce year round.
Second, planners point to the growing urban populations with associated suburban demand upon land that, while zoned agricultural, are not actively farmed and contribute very limited revenue to the municipal or provincial tax base. They argue that better use of the land can be found through rezoning to permit residential, commercial or light industrial development.
There is some truth to both arguments; however, by accepting the premise that Canadians cannot compete with cheap imported food removes any incentive for Canadians to invest their time and money into building a strong, innovative agricultural sector which can challenge the price structure of imported food in the market place.
In the same way that we have seen bottled water remove concern for watershed protection and farmed salmon diminish the concern for the preservation and maintenance of the wild fishery, reliance upon imported food will lessen the demand to protect our farmland and farmers along with it.
Suggesting that we cannot meet domestic demand for many products during the winter through hothouse, hydroponic and other technologies creates a self-fulfilling prophesy, and a gradual decline in Canadian food production will be the result.
The success of B.C. Hot House Foods Inc is a testament to what can be done through innovative hydroponic production. It is unfortunate that government has not seen fit to protect winter employment by finding creative ways to provide an agricultural gas rate to make the source of heat energy through the colder months more affordable and thus eliminate the need for a Mexican partnership.
The number of farms in Canada has been declining for the last three decades, although the rate of decline is slowing. A fact worth noting is that in three provinces the number of farms has marginally increased: Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia.
Ontario leads the country with just under one million hectares of farmland lost over the last decade. The slight rise in number of farms reported is due to the increasing number of small-scale, family-owned farms where income is heavily supplemented from off-farm sources. Only British Columbia has managed to maintain roughly the same amount of farmland in aggregate, largely due to the implementation of the Agricultural Land Reserve in the 1970’s.
Unfortunately those of us who live in British Columbia cannot feel too smug about that statistic because it has been maintained by a “no net loss” policy, allowing some of the best land to be taken out of the reserve with equivalent amounts of less suitable land being put in.
When the political leaders we elect come from an urban-based experience, never having to actually create a dollar by growing anything, there is little wonder that they look at agricultural land preservation as an accountant looks at a corporate bottom line.
Gordon Campbell, for example, has lived off public tax dollars for the last twenty-six years, excluding the three years he worked for Vancouver Mayor Art Phillips. He cannot know what it is like to run a farm, and farmers are the ultimate entrepreneurs, taking seeds to plants to harvest or growing a herd of cattle, passel of pigs, flock of sheep or clutch of chickens. The weather to the urban dweller is only important when selecting their wardrobe, or planning their weekend. Sadly, you never know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone, and despite the growing interest in local food production through movements like the hundred mile diet, with current government regulations creating barriers to the marketplace, the family farm will soon be a thing of the past.

Share and Enjoy:

What is really going on in British Columbia is the dismantling of public utilities such as BC Hydro

Gordon — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:28:37 +0000

The development of a comprehensive energy policy, at all levels of government, is steeped in the rhetoric of the “green” economy and carefully articulated to mask the real agenda. What is really going in British Columbia is the dismantling of public utilities such as BC Hydro in favour of “independent” power producers.
Instead of getting into the meat of the public policy debate around public versus private ownership of our energy supply, the government has us all trying to understand exactly what “green energy” is, and how it fits into the “green economy”.
The very simplistic view presented, and one that I have to say is having success amongst the voters, is that any alternative to carbon-based fuels is “green”. Of course that is not true, but it sounds good as it rolls out of the mouths of politicians as they hand over public money to corporate energy CEOs.
The most outrageous example of this was seen a month or so ago when President Obama committed billions of tax dollars to the nuclear power industry. As he did so he told the assembled workers and the gullible media that the construction of these nuclear reactors would reduce carbon emission because they would not have to build coal-fired plants. Hello? What about all the other alternatives? Nobody can seriously advance the argument that nuclear power is “green”.
If the rhetoric about coal-fired plants sounds familiar, it should. The very same references were made by the proponents of run-of-river electrical power production in British Columbia. So called “independent” hydroelectric power producers have successfully courted both federal and provincial politicians to the tune of millions of tax dollars pledged to these private power production companies, funds earmarked for “green energy”.
The environmental arguments against starting a nuclear fire to boil water so steam can generate electricity are well known. Curiously, however, hydroelectric power production is frequently referred to as a “green energy” option and the environmental arguments against it are not well known.
Green designation is questionable given the considerable structural undertaking that large hydro dams require and the huge amount of habitat that is flooded and lost, as well as the serious impact to downstream ecosystems.
In addition, the requirement for long transmission lines on wide swaths of land that must be cleared of vegetation has serious issues of its own. Widespread application of herbicides to limit plant growth is common and those herbicides have collateral effect on flora, fauna and water systems; herbicide application is frequently in watershed catchment areas
There is also Corona discharge; the crackling sound heard under high-voltage power lines and the ongoing and inconclusive debate about the connection between long-term human exposure to this and leukemia. Whichever side of that argument you fall on, what is undeniable is that the Corona discharge is power lost in transmission which speaks to the efficiency of the project. In addition, houses or buildings anywhere near transmission lines have less market value because enough people believe there’s a correlation.
The modern form of hydroelectric generation, the newly minted “green” option, is run-of-river. This system does away with the mega-dams built during the last half of the last century and places turbine generators within the course of the river, causing far less destruction behind the generating stations and utilizing river systems in very isolated and often very steep terrain that would previously have made them unsuitable for power generation.
While the impact of run-of-river may be less than that of a mega-dam, there is no denying that there is a very real impact upon the river, both in terms of dependent wildlife and the jurisdiction over the water rights that are granted to the private sector companies who are building the project.
Run-of-river electrical generation still requires transmission lines, and the fact that many are to be built in rivers that cross steep terrain and are in relatively isolated places means that many of these sites are in pristine wilderness areas and support healthy fish and wildlife stocks that are relatively untouched to date. Just as the province of British Columbia is developing a robust wilderness tourism economy, which many argue is “green”, we are going to permit power lines through some unspoiled landscapes. Few will pay big money to see wild lands with power lines, which adds to the argument that these projects are not as green an economic option as wilderness tourism.
Proponents will be quick to point out that the areas where these power lines are being constructed is already subjected to logging and small clear cutting is not uncommon. That is true, which is why responsible governments have made sure that logging practices have improved and that there are silviculture requirements forcing companies to replant what amounts to a renewable resource. Quite the opposite happens under a power line as I have mentioned above.
The question remains, then, why are these projects and this government’s commitment to see them built presented as a “green option”? And, what happened to the other electrical energy producing options?
Since the early 1970s there has been no shortage of lip-service paid to those who believe that we should move away from an economy based upon fossil fuels, i.e. carbon-based fuel. A great deal has been written about the virtues of solar energy, passive and active, as well as photovoltaic generation. Wind power has seen limited success in some countries, but not been seriously tried in Canada, and tidal power, while available in the Bay of Fundy, is not considered a viable option in the west. Geothermal heat production for residential and some commercial applications, however, is proving to be both affordable and extremely workable in many residential areas.
These “green” options are trotted out every few years like designer gowns on a fashion runway. Everybody marvels at them, but few will buy them, and fewer still actually use them. Why? The answer is simple.
The modern approach to utilities is corporate monopoly or oligopoly and thus the goal is financial control. Recently governments have gone along with this private approach to energy production. These companies control the production, the transmission, and along with a Utilities Commission (soon to be limited by the Campbell government) they set the rates. They read the meter and they collect your money. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry that requires a complete buy-in by the consuming public. Control of this industry would not be so easy if the primary source of heat energy comes from the sun. Governments have found ways to let private interests hold rights over public water ways, but privatizing the sun, wind, tides, or the heat stored in the ground isn’t so easy to do.
You can imagine the impact on our economy if we decentralized residential power production such that we were able to produce sufficient amounts at our own home and through our own initiatives. Now that would be independent power production.
WAC Bennett was British Columbia’s longest serving Premier. From 1952 to 1972 he had a vision for this province that included a publicly-owned utility which became B.C. Hydro. Bennett argued correctly that in order to build a strong provincial economy there had to be a reliable source of power that was affordable to British Columbians and provided them with an advantage in both national and international markets.
Many British Columbians sacrificed their land, some unwillingly, to the flood waters behind the dams. Wildlife was displaced and farms and forest lost, but the construction program did two things: it provided British Columbians with a secure, affordable, publicly-owned source of electricity, and it also secured the ownership of our water systems with accruing financial benefits on rivers such as the Columbia which is shared with the United States.
Had we not paid the price for this secure publicly-owned resource it is doubtful that British Columbia would have enjoyed the wealth that was generated through latter part of the twentieth century.
All that seems to have changed.
Certainly, the signing of the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA had a significant impact upon our ability to own and set preferential rates for our power, but that it seems was only the beginning. Those two agreements not only removed our ability to put a preferential rate to domestic energy given our export to the United States, but it also challenged the notion of public ownership of both production and transmission.
No one should have been surprised by the American position; after all they had used exactly the same argument with respect to softwood lumber and the public ownership of our forest land. They long fought and eventually won against “preferential” stumpage rates charged by the Crown to those who had a license to harvest timber, and export lumber.
What we saw in the latter part of the twentieth century was an increased push to privatize the North American economy into fewer and fewer hands. At that time the sales rhetoric was “open economy” not “green economy”, but the end result has been that “free” enterprise, where entrepreneurs take risk with their own money and create wealth, has increasingly become “private” enterprise, where the government advances public money and hands over public assets to private interests for private profit.
That is so far removed from the wise thinking of W.A.C. Bennett that is gives one cause to wonder why any politician who knows our history would opt to privatize our electrical energy sector.
The answer is all too obvious. Billions of dollars are to be made by those who control the source of electrical power, and short-sighted politicians think that by providing financial assistance to these producers, dismantling a fine Crown asset like BC Hydro, and granting private license over our public rivers, that somehow the average British Columbian will be better off.
The fact that they are doing all of this in the name of “green energy” and a “green economy” is a cynical sales job that shows all too clearly that there is only one agenda, a private agenda, one that you and I will be invited to pay for.

Share and Enjoy:

Will Gunn Chapter 14

Gordon — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:58:39 +0000

Chapter 14

The tray crashed to the floor. Food and drink spilled in every direction. Agnes clutched her chest and stumbled backwards.
“It’s good to see you.” I said, not trying to mask my irritation at the situation I found myself in.
“Mary, Mother of God!” Agnes seemed unable to recover her breath, and for a moment I thought she would fall in a faint to the floor.
Being locked in that stuffy, smelly room, for what seemed like an eternity, had left me in a foul humour. With nothing to do, other than go over my conversation with Ruth, I stewed over Lachlan’s intention to move the wedding to Sunday. However, Agnes’ reaction to finding me and not Ruth in the room was so profound that my displeasure turned to concern. I feared her heart would not take the shock. “Are you alright?”
Agnes stared at me, speechless. Her eyes were wide. Her hands trembled. Her right hand clutched her heaving chest while she flapped her apron with her left. Gasping, she pulled it up and wiped away the beads of sweat that had formed on her forehead and face. I sensed that she might have thought me an illusion and that by wiping her eyes that she would, upon reopening them, see Ruth and not me standing before her.
“Surprise,” was the first word to enter my head but obviously not the best choice, because as I said it Agnes’ emotion changed from shock to profound anger. She sprang forward with an angry cry. I covered my head to shield myself from the wild open handed blows that she rained upon my head.
“Have you gone mad?” I shouted at her, climbing over the bed putting a small table between us.
“Where is Ruth?” The cook had gone wild. She frantically looked all about the room.
“You won’t find her, she’s not here.”
“What have you done with her?”
“I have done nothing other than be a considerate gentleman. That woman who has been locked up in this room is quite mad. One minute she is lucid and the next a raving lunatic. How was I to know she would run at the first opportunity?”
“You stupid, stupid, senseless…” Agnes hissed and walked slowly, menacingly toward me. “Why are you here?”
“I came to see Helen.” I didn’t take kindly to being called stupid. My temper began to rise.
“Why are you in this room, you fool?” I backed away from her as she stalked forward. I thought of running out of the room and locking Agnes in, but she stepped sideways, blocking my exit.
“Don’t even think it,” Agnes’ eyes were wild. “Tell me exactly what happened here.”
“I will, if I have your assurance that you won’t start throwing your fists at me again.”
“Go on, then.”
“I came to see Helen, and found no one about. I walked to the foundry and it was deserted. I feared the worst, knowing that Dugald Keith had promised to come for Helen. I knew that her mother was locked in this room. From here she can see all who come and go, so I thought that she might have some knowledge as to why the property was abandoned.”
“So you came to where you have no business being and let her go,” Agnes scolded.
“I didn’t let her go. She escaped.”
“An old woman bested you? Is that what you would have me believe?” Her words dripped sarcasm.
I was getting angry with Agnes, who showed no inclination to let me out of the room. She, a servant to the Gunn’s, should no her place. Besides, where had she been all day? The house had been deserted.
“Listen, Cook, I didn’t lock myself in this piss hole.” I stepped forward, but she held her ground. “While you question me, Ruth and her companions are getting further from this place.”
“What companions? She was locked here alone.” Ruth leaned forward. We were like two dogs, snout to snout, each threatening the other.
“Dugald Keith came here. I saw him from the window. That is who distracted me and gave Ruth her chance to run and lock me in. I have been stuck in this foul-smelling room for hours. Where were you all, anyway?” I thought it best to take the offensive and place some level of blame on everybody else for leaving the manor unattended.
“You saw Dugald Keith here?” Ruth dropped her aggressive stance, a trace of uncertainty in her eyes. “Are you sure it was Dugald?”
“As sure as I am about my need to get out of this putrid place,” I pushed past Agnes who didn’t try to stop me. “He had Helen’s hanky with him. It was clear that he had come for Helen just as I had warned Lachlan he would. Where is Helen? Is she safe? Thank God He delivered me here to protect her. Clearly no one else can.”

Share and Enjoy:

The neglect for our forests by this government is akin to the years of neglect by successive federal governments of our wild salmon fishery

Gordon — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:31:50 +0000

All British Columbians, politically engaged or not, should be very concerned about the wrong-headed approach that the Campbell government has taken in the recent provincial budget.
What we are witnessing is not a partisan “right-wing” agenda as some on the left might suggest. We are witnessing a fundamental departure from our long-standing commitment to managing crown assets such as forestry.
The most dramatic financial cuts by the Campbell government target agriculture, community development, energy, transportation and forestry. These are the very heart and soul of our provincial economy and always have been the key to our economic success.
It is as though Finance Minister Hansen practiced his fiscal surgical skills by attempting a quadruple by-pass, and reconnected our vital arteries to our lungs, missing our heart altogether.
As a former Minister of Forests for the Province of British Columbia, I am particularly concerned and somewhat appalled at the irresponsible position that his government has taken with respect to protecting our common heritage, the Crown Forest.
Those who sit on the government side of the house have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure that this asset is properly managed. In this budget they have all but walked away from that responsibility.
The neglect for our forests by this government is akin to the years of neglect by successive federal governments of our wild salmon fishery, and the end result will be the same: a decimated resource, highly privatized, supporting only a handful of companies.
Since coming into power the Campbell government has sat back and watched annual forest revenues fall from over two billion at the start of this decade to a projected $350 million for the fiscal year ending on March 31st. The numbers of people employed by this industry have also plummeted by roughly 6,500 full-time workers, not including the seasonal loggers or owner operators.
This budget cuts $60 million from forestry, which is roughly 20%. These cuts will further reduce the number of workers by an additional 570 full-time equivalent employees and eliminate virtually all research and much of the planning. The cuts will severely compromise audits and making sure that companies who are operating on our lands are compliant with the law.
The government defends their actions by pointing to the falling revenues, arguing that with only $350 million in revenue, they cannot defend expenditure of more than $600 million on operations. We are told the cuts will assist the government with their commitment to increase efficiency and refocus financial resources.
One has to wonder where this refocus of financial resources will lead us. I have long argued that expenditures in education, health, social services, primary services such as highways and ferries are important. But in order to make these expenditures there has to be a strong wealth generating sector as all of the above cost money, and none of them directly generate revenue to the government.
The forest sector is a cyclical industry. There will always be good times and times of financial challenge. That is the reason why Forest Renewal British Columbia was formed in the mid 1990’s. Forest Renewal took money in the good times and kept it in interest bearing accounts so that money would be available in the challenging times such as now.
It is safe to say that if the Campbell government had not done away with Forest Renewal British Columbia in 2002 and pilfered the money for other government spending priorities, the forest sector would not be in the tough shape it is in today since it would have those ‘drought day’ resources to draw on.
So many of us have for so long been advocating a move to more intensive forest management, with a greater supply of Crown timber to value-added producers. It is frustrating year after year to see such an approach ignored in favour of old inefficient practices. Worse there is an ever greater concentration on the privatization of public forests and an annual increase in the export of raw logs for processing south of the border or abroad.
Successive federal governments, regardless of the political stripe, have never been held to account for allowing our west coast salmon fishery to decline. Once, thriving coastal communities supported by fish canneries and a vibrant fishing industry lined the coast of British Columbia. Today, some are great places to retire or possibly visit, but there is no commercial fishing and no processing of fish left.
The forest industry, and thus many families dependent upon the industry, is about to suffer the same fate as the fisheries. Once the heart of a vibrant provincial economy, the industry has been left to decay and fall victim to infestations of private interests more concerned with making a fast dollar through log export than with the well being of forest based communities. Regrettably the Campbell government has been content to let the decay set in, and relegate this once proud industry to a second class status.

Share and Enjoy: