Campbell goes where no premier has gone in 26 years.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.