The Difference is...

...is that the NDP is a Socialist Party and the Green Party is not. Greens believe that environmental solutions can be found through a market economy, whereas New Democrats see the market economy as the cause of environmental problems. Further, much of the Green Party leadership has displayed hostility, if not contempt, of the Labour Movement ever since Adrianne Carr sided with Gordon Campbell on taking away the right to strike from teachers and nurses during the 2001 election campaign.

There was indeed a difference ...

... but if the NDP candidates are now taking all environmental issues, both local and global, seriously, then perhaps there is indeed a chance of the two groups uniting. I could see myself voting for a Green NDP -- and the NDP is a social democratic party, not a socialist party.

Greenies Unlimited

The carbon tax was a silly Liberal initiative that the NDP rightly seized upon in a populist "Axe the Tax" campaign, which saw the NDP vault into first place in the opinion polls, after many years, right after its implementation in late summer, 2008.

No other Canadian jurisdiction wants to go there for fear of incurring the wrath of voters.

Now the NDP seems to have not only embraced the carbon tax but some NDP leadership candidates also plan to put the carbon tax "on steriods".

And NDP leadership candidates have also vowed to stop mine development in BC - the same mines that produce jobs with average incomes in the $109,000/year range and provides $billions$ into government coffers. Selling popcorn to tourists in parks seems to be their only alternative.

Other NDP leadership candidates believe that future employment opportunities for BC'ers lies in the picking of salal and mushrooms. A perfect platform plank to attract the groovy and far-out hippy crowd of the late 1960's.

These policies might go over well with the hemp-wearing, granola-eating crowd on Commercial Drive in East Vancouver but certainly not with blue-collar Joe Lunchbucket.

Heck, the NDP is moving into Green territory so fast that it is even picking up former Green candidates such as Karen Shillington who is the spitting image of Green Party leader Elizabeth May!

http://www.straight.com/article-383562/vancouver/former-green-candidate-karen-shillington-seeks-ndp-nomination-vancouver-centre

Nonsense from the greens

This is balderdash. Crap. Poppycock. Nonsense. With the exception of the mostly meaningless carbon tax, the environmental proposals put forward by the dippers are no different than what was proposed in the 09 election. The NDP was raising issues of species at risk, offshore drilling, fish farms and destruction of rivers by IPPS - all under the leadership of the same Carole James that Vicky Husband says never took a stand on the environment.

When Ms. Matthaus is talking about wake up calls, she should look in the mirror. The environmental movement got snookered by the Libs; the carbon tax was greenwash to hide the Libs awful environmental record, yet the tacit support of David Suzuki and the bulk of the enviro movement helped re-elect one of the brownest governments in the country.

Half wits

Here we see the same morons in the environmental movement who's support voted in the most environmentally destructive political party in history, over a green tax which gave BC the worst GHG record in Canada, actually defending that support.

This despite Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman proving that Obama's cap and trade was far more effective against GHG's than a Green Tax could ever be.

The voting population in Canada and the US has split almost evenly into two camps - the progressive (65) and the conservative (34). Cons obey the commands of the Leader and goosestep in lockstep, progressives spit and argue and complain and an effort to get them to agree on anything is like herding cats.

We cannot continue to give a 10% advantage to Cons election after election. The Green's are here to stay, the brand name is too powerful, and the current leadership is too irresponsible and full of themselves to ever quit. They must be defanged.

BC environmentalists can merge the rational element of the Green party with the NDP but somehow the combined force must legally take the Green name away from this odious group of malcontents reducing the party into a lobby group rather its current role as farm team for the Cons.

Like the environments who thwarted Kevin Falcon by mass buying of memberships, the environmental movement needs to overwhelm the current irresponsible Green party insider group who places Green party candidates up for election attracting low information voters mesmerized by the Green brand name.

While environmental activist support of the NDP is welcome, they are simply too stupid as a group to be allowed any influence.

This is why Simon's idea of a citizens assembly is such a wonderful idea. Here the average citizen can sit down and listen to all the sides in the environmental debate and come up with a reasoned decision without the emotion and politics that results in such bad decisions on all issues not just environmental.

Politicians these days, all with Liberal Arts diplomas in subjects like English Literature have no training or background which allows them to make wise reasoned decisions on any issue.

Oh Canada

Good post, though there is little hope it will help Luke find enlightenment.

Luke's ignorance of the large and ever growing world wide market for non timber forest products is profound.

His posts are typical of the deprecating and belittling attitudes our industrialist dinosaurs love to flaunt with regards to anything they do not know about nor understand!

John Horgan, when he met with NDP members locally, acknowledged that those running the "Forest" industry are not entrepreneurs but bureaucrats. They have an unfounded arrogance born of having their way for far too long, and aversion to anything new or innovative which might demand some real energy and creative thinking - the essence of economic progress!

Whether or not Luke has been paying attention,sales of wildcrafted and other natural foods and medicinal products and have seen exponential growth in the past 30 years. BC has an enormous land base on which a huge variety of useful and marketable plants grow, yet we reap a relatively tiny portion of the whole market as attitudes like Luke's pervade the huge Forestry bureaucracy both corporate and governmental.

I have represented non timber resource interests at land use tables, and as a member of the mainly industrial Cariboo Communities Coalition, part of the 6 person CCC negotiating committee leading up to the Cariboo Chilcotin Land Use Plan, which is still in effect today, and which recognizes wildcraft in all its many manifestations as having the right to access resources anywhere on the land outside of parks.
Later, I participated in Canfor Quesnel's Sustainable Forest Planning Committee, representing wildcrafting interests, as all interests mentioned in the Land Use Plan must be consulted in the planning process.

No one I worked with in these processes, including industry representatives, seemed to think I or those I represented were flaming whackos! Many were amazed by the depth and breadth of knowledge and activity around these products, of which they had formerly known about as much as Luke!

The activities described above led to many conversations under a variety of conditions and with many combinations of participants.

Beer was sometimes involved, and generally helped facilitate very frank discussions.
I found there are far more open minds among workers and local management than at company head offices. Unfortunately, ideas do not generally move upwards in the industry - phrases like "You are not paid to think" or "don't tell management how to do its job" being heard all too often!

It was interesting to hear what was said privately by industrial coalition members, compared to public statements. Let's just say that when company representatives were absent, contractors and union folks became more open about their opinions!

About Horgan.....

John Horgan's awareness of the great potential of innovative and sustainable uses of the land base puts him a step ahead as a potential leader, and among other reasons, has led this family to support him. We have had the chance to put him on the spot in person, and he responded well to that challenge, demonstrating his grasp of the issues and a willingness to move off the timid and inconsistent messaging that has turned many away from the NDP.

agreed on Horgan

OhCanada says "BALANCE is the key"...absolutely.

No one has vowed to put a stop to all mining in BC. Cool Hand has shown many instances of not understanding life outside the city and just what we have at stake here in BC. The mining companies did not create the stuff, they are just making a profit from it. Fair enough, as long as the workers in the local communities benefit, some taxes are paid to alleviate infrastructure costs and provide a better standard of life in general for BC residents...and....most important...there is a balance between environmental effects and monetary ones.

Destruction is not too strong a word to describe some mining proposals and most of the drain-the-lake-dry-up-the-river private power projects.

The following is quoted from the Vancouver Province after a BC Chamber of Commerce and Business Council of BC meeting a few weeks ago. Presentations by John Horgan (and the other NDP leadership candidates) resulted in these very balanced comments.

"Steve Robertson of Imperial Metals said the NDP and the mining industry, perhaps surprisingly, have much in common.

“They’re interested in having good, high-paying jobs in this province, and that’s what our industry can provide,” said Robertson"

Stewart MacKenzie says of Horgan... "grasp of the issues and a willingness to move off the timid and inconsistent messaging that has turned many away from the NDP."

Cool Hand may not have a good grasp on city life either.....a lot of Joe Lunchbuckets grew up around that Commercial Drive neighborhood and they agree that balance is the key. They actually did a bit of travelling around our province while working at those jobs and know what is at stake.

Nothing is ever as simple as it first appears.

If the NDP were to become too "green" it will lose votes from labor. It has happened before. Most Greens I have ever had the misfortune to have a discussion with have little regard for the effect their policies would have on workers. It always comes down to the worker who loses his/her job will just have to manage. Consequently most of labor is skeptical that their interests are better served with the Green Party. In the 90's labor thought the NDP was too concerned about the vocal environmentalists. The NDP tried in the 90's and none of their initiatives where ever enough for the "greens".

So I have to agree with Seth when he says, "Here we see the same folks in the environmental movement who's support voted in the most environmentally destructive political party in history, over a green tax which gave BC the worst GHG record in Canada, actually defending that support." It is that kind of naivety from the Green Party that has turned most folks off.

Enviros Leaders?

Please; as Seth notes they were the ones that helped elect the current 'brown and dirty' government with its greenwash!

Skywalker

"In the 90's labor thought the NDP was too concerned about the vocal environmentalists. The NDP tried in the 90's and none of their initiatives where ever enough for the "greens". "

The trouble with labour leaders and Green elitists alike, was that each side was convinced the other side was getting way more than its share, and booth sides whined and sniveled without remission.

In the early 90s labour, green NDPers, First Nations people and others worked together to develop some of the most comprehensive forestry land use policies seen in BC.

After '96 the likes of Georgetti and Sihota and Dan Miller dissed the Greens so thoroughly that many took their smarts and experience to the Green party, rather than stay and fight within the NDP.

I didn't agree with their actions but understood the reasons they left, and I am quite happy Horgan and Farnworth are bringing some of the issues into the leadership contest now that the "Baker's Dozen" let the cat out of the bag.

Many of the strongest critics of industry I have met worked in the woods, pulp mills, or mines - they seldom would go public for fear of losing their livings, but were the harshest critics of the status quo because they knew it intimately and saw the stupidity and destruction first hand.

Comfortable, middle class urban enviros have all too often felt superior socially and morally to forest workers and other working people. The Green "leadership" is mostly elitist and unsympathetic with labour, which has distorted the picture. Grassroots social democrats with labour and environmental sympathies and histories realize there can be no sustainability without labour support and continue to work with labour inside and outside the party.

Labour and corporate interests are not mutually exclusive but as a rule it is a one way partnership when it comes to political/environmental issues. Big business wants labour to support its land use agenda against environmental "impediments" but feels no sense of gratitude when their interests do not coincide. Big money will leave town anytime the corporate elite decides it is a bit more profitable elsewhere - including places where union organizers are routinely assaulted or assassinated, just like the days of Ginger Goodwin in BC!

Union leaders made a huge mistake when they get cozy with the corporations, and the Green Weenies make a huge mistake when they rush off to a party which has enabled the most anti environment government in BC history to win the past two elections!

the NDP

lessons learned.
these candidates are AWESOME and truly reflecting the Green NDPers

Decentralize control on environmental issues

Even though environment should trump economy for our well being, now and in the future, the reverse is true, especially during perceived tough times. As Derrick Jensen points out "Many lash out in defense of this culture, because they perceive that they depend on the system-not the natural world-to live.

The fact that bureaucracies, public or private, want to sustain or increase their holds on power doesn't help as they spin and put out greenwash in their own self interest.

What's wrong with more regional and local control of land and resources, beyond the grand schemes of provincial and national objectives such as the Northern bitumen pipelines or the Gateway project?

Regional management group doesn't want a particular run of river project, province passes a law nixing any opposition to pushing such projects forward. Municipality wants to preserve some of its community forest, province mandates a cut minimum or turn over that land to a private forestry company for even higher levels of clear cuts.

With Christy Clark, its business as usual, what environment? At least Dix and Horgan acknowledge that we have serious environmental issues. If given power, what they can or will do on this file is still unclear.

A citizens' assembly, informed by good science and as much influence as current private lobby groups have, could inform and benefit our province on environmental issues.

NDP has been evolving on the

NDP has been evolving on the environmental. Good on them. The leadership candidates don't, however, about recommend the massive increases in carbon tax needed to affect behaviour (this could provide room for cutting HST/PST as well as financing green initiatives). I'm also disappointed at their populist objections to electricity metering, which will have a major impact on reducing needs for increased hydro capacity. Still, compared with the Liberals, they are on the side of the angels. Anyone who plans to vote Green where this significantly increases the likelihood of a Liberal MLA (there are lots of constituencies where this could happen) must ask if they are really in favour of improving the environment.

Moving forward

Further to my previous comment/post let me say this so maybe CoolHand will get it....

We will NOT survive as a race if we continue things the way we did before - ignorance and greed as is.

The BC Liberals and the Federal Conservatives - virtually they are the same to me - are the MOST ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL government that has ever existed in Canada.

WHAT WE DO TO THE ENVIRONMENT WE DO TO OURSELVES. Destruction, ignorance and etc.
The consequences will be felt by our children and their children.

Is this the kind of future you want for them?

I don't care what is the party's name as long as they have common sense, sensitivity, community orientedness, conscience and good, fair business sense they will be my choice.

We must stop pointing fingers and call up events that happened 10 years ago. Who cares?
They won't affect my life now. But what we do and decide today will.

So find your common sense and think about voting now ind in the future with intelligence for something that is dynamic and flexible enough to move with everyday life's changes. Our planet and our environment is a dynamic, living, breathing entity and not something stable and rigid.

@ Stewart MacKenzie

I agree with most of your comment except that if as you say "After '96 the likes of Georgetti and Sihota and Dan Miller dissed the Greens so thoroughly that many took their smarts and experience to the Green party, rather than stay and fight within the NDP." I have yet to see anything concrete as to how Sihota and Miller dissed the greens. Georgetti was never part of government so his part in anything is irrelevant.

There was a lull in the progress, granted, but the NDP was dealing with the "Asian flu" and still attempting to get the books balanced from the mess left by the Socreds. The NDP had made some real gains with settling the war in the forests. I recall most of it very well as some of my friends on the green side went totally rabid when everything they wanted was not immediately implemented. I lost some friends over that but I have not mourned the loss let alone the loss of their fickle nature as far as the party was concerned.

In their demand for everything at once they got the most environmentally destructive government in the liberals who also gave away much of the "store" so it is now permanently out of reach of the environmentalist in all of us.

Moving forward 2

Want to learn more go here...

http://forestsofhope.wordpress.com/

No they won't

"If the NDP were to become too "green" it will lose votes from labor"

I don't think that's true anymore, given that the IWA has been bounced from the House of Labour for backing the Liberals and partnering with them for voluntary representation during the Bill 29 shenanigans. The unions that speak the loudest around the party these days are the CUPEs, HEUs and BCGEUs of the world - private sector unions are largely indifferent as they were hit nowhere near as hard by the Liberals.

Farnworth's public power pledge

At TheCanadian.org, Rafe and I have been pleased to see the strong stances of the leading NDP leadership candidates regarding the Liberal private river power program. Most have called for a moratorium on new IPPs and for opening up the secret private power purchase contracts to the public and a through examination as to whether they are in the public interest. We recently published Mike Farnworth's statement - "Public Power for the Public Good": http://thecanadian.org/k2/item/627-public-power-for-the-public-good-mike-farnworth

Our Natural World

The leader and party that recognize that our vast urban wealth in British Columbia is based on the care of our natural world will get my vote.

In metaphorical terms, it is our old slogan "Beautiful British Columbia" that drives our economy. We have dropped that slogan for "The Best Place on Earth", which begs the question, "for whom and at what environmental cost?".

We need a government with strong environmental policies that will care for our forests, for our parks and for the water that nourishes all, including the economy. Only then can we hope to make British Columbia's communities and economy resilient to climate change.

selling popcorn in the park...

While there are many comments I could make on the article, I will focus here on the familiar and ridiculous argument that is always put forward by those in opposition to efforts towards environmental sustainabilty: that we need 'jobs' and that 'jobs' require destruction of the rivers, lakes, oceans, and mountains, and if we do not pursue this course we will be reduced to selling popcorn in the park, etcetera. Not so.

The volume of tourist dollars exceeds that of oil exports, food products, or automobiles: one of the fastest growing economic sectors in the world. From 1950 to 2005, international tourism arrivals expanded at an annual rate of 6.5 %, growing from 25 million to 805 million travellers. The income generated by these arrivals grew at a rate of 11.2 % during the same period, outpacing the world economy (all statistics: UNWTO, 2008). Read that again: the volume of tourist dollars exceeds that of oil exports.... More people depend on tourism to earn a paycheque than on oil exports...It is perfectly posible to enjoy jobs and prosperity without destroying the province.

BC is one of the most beautiful, pristine, and unique places on earth and has far more potential dollar value as a destination than even the rape and pillage of all the remaining resources could manage. Take the 'jobs' argument and shove it up your ass, would you?

Still not serious about the environment

The core environmental problem, and the root of many other problems, is the fact that society has grown too much and is consuming too much. Leaders and leadership hopefuls have yet to seriously address this in public debate.

http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2011/02/bc-leaders-must-prioritize-environment

Except for Dana Larsen, I am still waiting for a public response to the following open letter to all candidates for leader:

http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2011/03/open-letter-bc-ndp-leadership-candidates

Worth a read

This article is important for any discussion of how to deal with the environment:

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue56/Smith56.pdf

ELIMINATE

ALL EXEMPTIONS TO THE CARBON TAX. ALL of them. If government taxes us on the hydro-carbons that we consume, then EVERYONE who consumes gets to pay.

Jerry West

A carbon tax is a waste of time. Better to cap carbon use and limit extraction, production and sales of fossil fuels. Fairness in this would mandate rationing and price controls.

Taxes do not guarantee enough reduction.

El Orso

I don't think you are right. But if it is true then private sector unions will feel even more alienated. Maybe the public sector unions speak the loudest but the perception is that these unions are more governed by self-interest than are the others. They also have the habit of demanding more from their employer than the private sector unions so the public perception is always an issue.

First of all the many

First of all the many faceted environmental movement in BC has zip all to do with the Green Party.

Anyone who thinks the many enviro groups speak with one voice or vote Green is a dope.

Most EAs know the SocLibs are destroying the province but they vote all over the map, most of the ones I know probably don't vote at all.

I would say however that many enviros who have any sense of history would agree with Suzuki when he says that the environmental movement in BC has lost almost every battle.

All the river valleys on the coast have been high-graded. Most mines get the go ahead whether or not they ruin the rivers.

That's why people don't vote NDP or
vote Green it's because when it get right down to it they figure, with good reason, they are only ones that give a rats ass about the future of our Provence, and they keep working because nobody else is doing anything.

People don't vote Green because they think they will win; it's just a protest vote. Instead of voting 'none of the above',they vote Green.

So, let me say it again, the environmental activists in BC have little or nothing to do with the Green Party

Guys like cool hand an seth just make guys like me feel very discouraged that we seem to be part of the same species.

VivianLea Doubt

But Vivian! Catering to tourists isn't "manly" like ripping apart a forest, or gouging out an open pit mine, or inserting a dam, or roughnecking.....

about "manly" jobs.

you guys are sold on the chamber of commerce crap!
Sure turists bring money, but who benefits?
The actual jobs they create are lowpaid and subservient in style.
Is this what we have become: bootlickers to better-off tourists?

VivianLea Doubt

Can you help me understand your interesting numbers? What areas are included? Do you have any statistics specific to BC?
Thanks

Tourism vs Oil & Gas Revenues in BC Only

O & G- 1.35 Billion
Tourism- .75 Billion

Stats BC Gov.

The NDP and Green Party need to unite.

That would ANOTHER WAY the NDP could lose the next election, when they "have it in the bag".

CBC Vote compass

I wonder how many other loyal NDPers took the CBC vote compass quiz and found out they were really Green. If it's not a conspiracy between the Federal Libs and the Greens (as someone suggested) then I support Jeffrey J.'s comments.

Government Revenues 101

I will admit that I was a bit cheeky and facetious in my original post. But I was also trying to make a point.

I will now further expand upon my point.

We have NDP leadership candidate Horgan expressly stating "No New Mines On Vancouver Island" in reference to the proposed Raven coal mine on VI. Even opponents to Raven want the coal hauled by rail v. truck along the under-utilized Hwy 19 freeway and other corridor to Port Alberni for shipment.

The local teachers association opposes same - the same group that wants higher wages and smaller class sizes - that's big bucks that they are requesting from gov't revenues.

The local district labour council also opposes same because port dev't will likely utilize non-union labour. Pffffft. We already have the Quinsam coal mining operating up island and the area has been a mining region for well over 100 years.

PWC has confirmed that the avg. mining salary
is in the $109,000/year range. Certainly nothing to sneeze at from a jobs/economic perspective.

We also now have the Chinese wanting to invest $billions$ in NE BC for 3 new metallurgical coal mines.

BC coal exports were valued at ~$5.3 billion last year. Not "million" but "BILLION" for those who can't comprehend.

The Prosperity Mine has now filed a new application, which will cost an additional ~$300 million to save Fish Lake. BTW, most NDP voters in the Cariboo region support that mine proposal according to opinion polls.

And then we have the Canadian Energy Research Institute confirming that as the decade progresses, British Columbia will surpass Alberta's natural gas production, thanks to its massive Horn River and Montney reservoirs and vast areas of undrilled land for conventional gas production.

That's a huge bastion of wealth for BC and the gov't esp. when much of the ng will now be exported to Asia where the price of natural gas is tied to oil at ~$14 MMBtu v. ~$3 MMBtu here in North America. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

The accompanying high-paying, private sector and many unionized jobs will be derived from the foregoing in the future. And the revnue inflow into government coffers will be considerable.

Anyone who opposes the foregoing and espouses a hard-line "Green" agenda should also recognize that these revenue streams will potentially and likely provide BC to do the following in the future:

1. Have additional financial resources to plow into education, health, social services, and infrastructure;

2. Reduce the HST from 12% to 5%;

3. Eliminate MSP premiums;

4. Further reduce taxes and eliminate other gov't fees, taxes, and premiums;

A win-win situation. It's all about the economy, jobs, local communities, and government revenues and it includes reasonable environment precautions and various trade-offs.

Just the real world from my perspective.

And no, BC'ers will not buy into picking salal and mushrooms for a low wage living.

P.S.

The politics of the current nuclear meltdown in Japan will also likely see a movement to alternative energy production - it would take two years to build a 1,000 megawatt natural gas-fired plant for $1 billion, compared with 10 years for a similar 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant at a cost of $6 billion.

That's a 6-fold increase in cost and a 5-fold increase in time for nuclear plant construction v. relatively clean burning natural gas energy plnat with high-technology scrubbers.

And guess who will likely supply the natural gas to Japan in the future? Yes - most likely BC.

alive

At least tourist money tends to stay local. Except for wages, mining, etc. profits go to (mostly) foreign investors. In other words, we are giving away the resources - again!
And if the money isn't leaving the country, it is certainly concentrating around the lower mainland, thereby not doing a hulluva lot of good for the area that gets torn ur.

More development is suicide in the long run

We have already given away too many resources. As one forestry executive said a few years back, we are down to the guts and feathers.

More mines, more production of gas, more growth is like having cancer in one part of the body and asking for it in other parts. We already extract and consume way too much, we need to start looking at reduction to bring the level of production and consumption down to a sustainable level.

It is important to remember that all of this proposed activity that will generate more tax is not wealth creation, which we can not do, but just transferring wealth from one place to another. In a lot of cases transferring it from the future as we alter the ecosystem.

We can find other ways to raise public income, which of course will mean redistribution and greatly reducing large private concentrations of wealth.

Compromise

What everybody should recognize is that the best policies of the 1990s came from a party with deep roots in both industry and the environment. From that dynamic tension sprang the CORE process, the Forest Practices code and Forest Renewal, and the Treaty Process.They didn't come from somebody like Geoff Meggs or Adrian Dix reading polls in the Premier's Office.

A similar spirit needs to inform land use and environmental issues in the future.

tourism ...

Numbers with regard to tourism are available from the World Tourism Organization, Canadian Tourism, BC Tourism...the sources are endless and as I spend my days noting citations you will have to go ferret them out yourself. Tourism is BCs 3rd largest industry...but that depends,as has been pointed out, how you crunch the numbers. What is tourism? It is a lot of things you may not have thought of - to mention a few that are growing by leaps and bounds: gay tourism (gay people like to travel where they are safe, and Canada is a preferred destination, also notably Vancouver), cultural tourism, volunteer tourism, green tourism...it is jobs in museums, art galleries, on farms (think of the Cowichan Valley), in shops and restaurants and hotels and spas and ski resorts, in parks and on the ocean and as guides and travel agents, in local wineries and distilleries, dozens of them - I could make a much more exhaustive list, but presumably you get the point. Also, the great majority of visitors to BC come from within driving distance - imagine if we had tourist trains! (Too late for BC Rail) The point being that we can make a choice about what business we want to promote and encourage, and there are many reasons why we might want to consider tourism as a mainstay of the economy: first and foremost, because we are citizens of a place that is unique, and priceless, and worth preserving. And as has already been pointed out, the profits by and large stay here in the province (a few large hotel chains excepted).

As to the argument that these are all low wage jobs - really? All those jobs, and the hundreds more I haven't listed? At one time, the majority of hotel and restaurant workers in BC were union workers - yep, let me repeat that, the majority. What happened to them is the story of HEU, say, but on a less publicized scale...suffice it to say that many people made a living wage then and could now.

Anyway, the point of the post is just this: we decide whether we continue to rape the natural resources of the province, sell them off to the highest bidder, ship them out to place to be refined. The fact that short-sighted and rapacious politicians want you to believe it is our only choice does not make it true. Just as it is not true that we have to sell popcorn in the park, or pick mushrooms and salal if we let all these 'investors' get away.

What exactly is Green about tourism?

After reading some of these comments about how protecting and conserving the environment of BC is a great way to save the planet and as an added bonus trade tourist dollars for jobs really has me baffled.
Now I'm starting to get it. It's okay if people from around the planet spew carbon, use up their resources and generally degrade the rest of the planet as long as they do it to come visit BC.
Could it be irrational nonsense for anyone that thinks tourism has anything to do with being "Green". I'll jump on this bandwagon right after my lobotomy.

Divide an concour policy

The capitalists have won the race, when otherwise sensible posters endorse lousy wages, as long as we do not export raw logs?
Is it not possible to be against both?
Have we forgotten that we were capable of running sawmills etc. in BC?
Have we forgotten that it was our corporate masters who shipped entire manufacturing plants overseas so the shareholders can make more profit?

Grandma_J

"CBC Vote compass"

I'd love to see the percentage of NDPers that have been told by that poll that they're actually Greens. One theory is that its to do with the NDP private member's bill whereby all supreme court judges have to be bilingual. If you don't agree, you're no longer a Dipper according to the poll.

Luke

"A win-win situation"

Except for low-income people, they'll get nothing from the development of these resources. As you say, it'll go to tax cuts for corporations and high income people.

The jobs will go to already employed people moving from one project to another, short term employment will go to those from out of province or out of country because they're cheaper.

Your view is based on two assumptions. First, that rising economic growth lifts all boats. The evidence available shows that this is no longer the case. The increased wealth from economic growth is now, and has been for the last two decades, directed to making the rich richer. It doesn't trickle down. Even Don Cayo pointed out in one of his blogs from a few months back that if economic growth is not shared then it means one person's getting wealthier comes at the expense of some other person becoming poorer. Which resource extraction will do. Some will get very wealthy and the rest will pay for clean up.

Second, you're ignoring ideology. Federal Conservative and BC Liberal ideology is not suddenly going to change overnight and support policies designed to share wealth. As they so often point out, that type of thinking is NDP ideology and they want nothing to do with it. Their tax and social policies will continue to divide people into "deserving" and "undeserving".

Tourism is not the solution

Increased tourism is not the solution, it is just another form of consumption. We need to reduce total consumption, not trade one excess for another.

Another thing, the old saying that a rising tide lifts all boats is a lie. Fact is that when the tide rises in one place it is lowering in another. What a rising tide is is a shifting of water from one place to another. The same with rising economies. One areas gain is another's loss, either now or in the future.

And in case anyone wants to bring it up, the three legged stool model of the environment, economy and social needs is a crock of BS. There are no three legs. What we have is a pedestal with the environment at the base and everything else built upon it. Everytime that the environment is degraded, sooner or later the other two will also suffer degradation.

In a closed loop, zero sum environment in which we live, a fair social and economic system is achieved not thru growth, but through equitable distribution of resources. The only sensible approach to the environment is how to protect it so that it remains relatively stable and sustainable, and to use redistribution as the tool for achieving social justice.

yet more tourism...

First, my posts on tourism were made in the hopes that people might see the flip side of the coin: that digging up (cutting down, netting) resources and selling them as fast as possible are not the only ways to make a living. @paisley: you simply show your ignorance of what tourism actually is in BC if you assume it is people jetting in - no, it is the people of BC - such as David Suzuki, say - who are busy jetting off to explain our glories to the world.Do read my posts again. @ record: we are ALL tourists, no exceptions (or very few, even the poorest amongst us have generally been to a locale other than where they live). An equitable distribution of resources IS precisely what I am talking about, and tourism is one way to accomplish that, because, quite simply, people want to travel and get to know their neighbouring communities.

If you want to create a different society, the starting point is imagination: envisioning how that society might look. Try loooking at your province with the eyes of someone outside - they are surely mystified why we would destroy and despoil this beautiful place that the world yearns to visit, and is held as a symbol around the globe. Perhaps Tourism BC is responsible for the view of tourism as 'excess consumption', I am not sure. Never the less, many leisure activities are tourism: biking, hiking, visiting a gallery...the list is endless, and not something I am prepared to give up, even in my extremely simple non-consumption oriented lifestyle. Humans will always have curiosity and the urge to explore - no matter what society you envision.

@ RickW

Yes, the 'manly' activities of despoiling the glories of nature are writ in the history of this province for the last few hundred years. The First Nations were more sensible: the 'manly' activities were confined to war and to a certain few tribes: we might organize ourselves in the same way.

But just so you know, the man of my dreams works in a bookstore and bikes to work :)

VivianLea Doubt

Shades of Tom Hanks & Meg Ryan!
But "seriously" though, clear-cutting and replanting just serves to restrict that piece of land for the production of more pulp for paper. And it takes 50-100 years to get there. It's an awfully huge assumption to suppose paper will still be that important then. Besides, if the land that has been "harvested" for it's pulp value were replanted in hemp, within two years there would be a harvestable crop for paper, not to mention the zillion other uses for the plant.

It just goes to show that the slash-and-burn people are throwing up smokescreens to justify their "grab-and-run" concept of "the economy".

Sky...

I guess you just had to be there. From 1989 till about 1998, I attended every convention and meeting of the "Standing Committee on the Environment for an Economically and Ecologically Sustainable Future" of the NDP.) I base my comments on what I witnessed, or heard from reliable sources.
As Environment Minister, Sihota attended one of about 10 SCOE meetings, annoying everyone on the Committtee. After six years of seeing Harcourt, Zirnhelt, Cashore, Dan Miller, Corky Evans, Anne Edwards and others attend every meeting possible, Moe's lack of respect for the grassroots work of SCOE reflected on him, not on SCOE.

It was common knowledge that Georgetti had a huge role in the backrooms, along with Jack Munro - who was working for industry but still was worshipped by the IWA. Their disdain for the Green elements was blatant, and everyone knew where they stood.

At the same time, "Corporate" enviros gained more influence as the climate was all "top down", which suited the "Big Green" style! Policies were no longer developed cooperatively by grassroots members, but in backrooms by elites from labour, government and "Big Green"

These opinions are far from being mine alone!
In 1990 when I first attended SCOE, my mission and that of my Cariboo associates, was to get everyone to work together. To a great degree SCOE succeeded, as shown by the Forest Policy which passed unanimously at the '92 convention.

Our perception was that both "sides" behaved like 3 year olds, who needed time outs and frequent scoldings for missing the whole point of our alliance!

Labour was no more righteous than the Greens, but had greater support in the party and were able to dominate. Many Greens couldn't take it any more, and the "Top Dogs" were more than happy to show them the door!
You express similar sentiments even today:

"I have not mourned the loss let alone the loss of their fickle nature as far as the party was concerned.

In their demand for everything at once they got the most environmentally destructive government in the liberals who also gave away much of the "store" so it is now permanently out of reach of the environmentalist in all of us."

It is equally true that labour won a Pyrrhic victory, and in their demand to rule the party got the most labour hating and destructive government, which has rolled back worker's rights gained over many years!

In other words, Greens and labour shotgunned their own feet!

The NDP is a coalition of social, labour, and environmental activists in which each interest must feel represented and served.

We either stand together or fall apart. Majority interests cannot sweep away all other considerations; we need all the smaller groups to work hard in the same direction - as the last two election disasters demonstrate!

BC NDP Policy

If you would like to read the BC NDP policy on environmental issues, go to this site.

http://www.buildingsustainablebc.ca/

It might clear up a lot of misconceptions some have.

Stewart

So then how do you explain that the one candidate who is touted as being "near green" Horgan is backed by Miller, Ramsey and Cull.

But I think a little paranoia shows when you suggest that Munro and Georgetti played key roles. Yes they were influential in the labour movement, each in his own sector, but determine policy? Not that I ever saw. It is convenient to use their names as an excuse but I experienced most of the real greens in the party wanted it all, and wanted it yesterday. None of them faced the reality of the deficits that were still looming until about '98.

Tour/ism

I'm so glad when the tourists finally go home, when this inlet brimful with hordes of 'eco'-kayakers (who seem to prefer to travel in packs) is finally emptied and freed of them. To and fro they go on their wilderness adventures in shiny SUV's careening at warp speed down our dusty earth roads......animals and birds scattering for cover.

We have even stood there in a long line and mooned them as they rocketed past - even this doesn't slow them down.....;-)

I once saw a photo of Katherine Hepburn, standing outside her country gate, happy golden sunflowers blooming nearby, and hanging on the gate was a sign written in rusty red paint that said:

"Please, go away!"

My sentiments exactly.

A great article highly worth the read:

Tourism, the new colonialism:

http://open.salon.com/blog/padraig_colman/2010/01/21/tourism_the_new_colonialism

once again, a misconception of tourism...

Lynn, I repeat - we are ALL tourists. Please name the person of your acquaintance who has never travelled outside of the place s/he was born.

Eco-kayakers, by definition, would never racket down roads in SUVs - and that is not eco-tourism, but mere greenwashing. Try to get past the way tourism is thought of and portrayed in our culture, and think of the deep-seated reasons people travel and visit other communitities and cultures, even the ones just down the road. Then do a little homework - of which I have put in 5 years - on what tourism is in BC. Better yet, put your poetic imagination to work at envisioning sustainable tourism, because, after all - the odds are good you will not be sitiing in your own backyard for the duration of your stay on the planet.

Tourism green redux

No, we are not all tourists. Some of us call this place home, some of us were even born here. Just because our grandparents immigrated here does not make us tourists. Having said this, I do like being a tourist. I also like living in other countries for a short work stint, and I'm certain some of the natives where I visit are happy when I go home. I'm a much better world citizen because of my tourism. Lynn, you need to get out and see the world more before casting silly aspersions on the people that visit your home town.

As for the topic at hand, Vicky Husband is a well known NDP diaper baby; I wouldn't take her views on the NDP with much more than a rock of salt. There's nothing greener about the current crop of NDPers than 10 years ago. She's just playing politics with the issue. And I support that because I, too, want to see the Liberals crushed in the next election. But I'd also love to see more political diversity in Victoria, a couple Green seats would be nice.

Axe the Tax

We're confused. The Axe the Tax campaign has 7,773 followers on its Facebook page but now we hear that everyone running for the NDP now like this tax.

As Bill Tieleman wrote, here on The Tyee, " ...the NDP were 12 to 18 per cent behind the B.C. Liberals throughout 2007 and only got ahead in November 2008 after launching the axe the tax campaign earlier that year ..."

We presume this is a "what I really meant" issue.

Anything is better than the Liberals

The people of the north have always voted for either Social Credit, Conservative or Liberal. Never have they voted for the NDP, yet we are treated as collateral damage up here. Whether Blair Lekstrom is the golden haired boy or whether he's not,the Liberal government is only interested in taking the money from our gas/oil resources and giving nothing back. No effort is made to protect the health of the people who live near the gas production sites. There was a time when they were built in the middle of nowhere but now they are right next to farm houses, schools and communities. I will be the first generation in my family to vote NDP. The NDP cares about the environment and the health of the people. No jobs will be lost if there is a bit of care taken when choosing the location of the oil/gas sites.

sell and go broke

OK, so many of you posters enjoy being a tourist; I get it!

The issue here is that the jobs created by tourism are not good all-season jobs and poorly paid.

So why not enjoy touring if that is what pleases you, but aim for good dependable jobs here in BC?

Elect a government that stops good jobs from being exported to the third world.

Support unions that tries to protect those same jobs.

And shop for canadian made goods!

The only reason we are not bankrupt as a society is because we export our rescources, sure we get money now, but in the end we will have no rescources left and by then absolutely no industry and no skilled labour left.

Carbon Tax Redux

Let's go back to this silly carbon tax, which is ivory tower social engineering hitting people in the pocket book.

When it was brought in there was massive public opposition as confirmed by an ARS poll at the time:

Opposed: 64%
Support: 32%

http://bc2009.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/20080729132015_backgrounderaxethegastaxpollresultsdoc.pdf

The HST is even more popular than the carbon tax with currently only 54% opposed.

That carbon tax issue vaulted the NDP in the lead over the Liberals in late summer, 2008, for the first time in years, which resulted in the 2009 election being as close as it was.

Now we have the NDP leadership candidates falling all over themselves trying to get on the so-called carbon tax bandwagon and also trying to lace it with steriods:

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Candidates+take+swing+touch+carbon+concept/4550330/story.html

Well, the NDP got it right and the Libs got it wrong. And now the NDP is getting it wrong with their flip-flop.

During the 2008 federal election the federal Liberals brought in the "Green Shift" platform. If ya loved the carbon tax, the "Green Shift" was nirvana from heaven.

Yet, the federal Liberals only received 19% in BC in 2008 with their "Green Shift", their lowest BC showing in 25 years. Today the federal Liberals have dumped their "Green Shift" and now look what happens in BC with Nanos tracking:

CPC: 47% (+3%)
Lib: 28% (+9%)
NDP: 20% (-5%)
Green: 5% (-5%)

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2011/polltracker/index.html

The moral of the story is that "turning Green" with silly initiatives also turns off voters.

BTW, if those federal numbers hold up in BC on election day, both the Cons and Libs will be making seat gains at the expense of the NDP.

So lynn

Your even against kayakers. Just too bad for those small business owners on the coast that rely on that traffic to make a living, but screw em, right? Not your problem.
If you think kayaking is bad I'd like to hear your take on the largest open pit gravel mine in North America. The one owned by the Sechelt Indian Band.
Kayakers launch on the Inlet at Sechelt or Tuwanek. Where are these fairytale dusty coutry dirt roads you speak of?

"We have even stood there in a long line and mooned them as they rocketed past - even this doesn't slow them down.."

Yeah no shit. I'd speed up.

r'man

I'm still against the carbon tax, still think it won't help the environment. Only regulation with real teeth will do that.

Luke

That tracking poll is old. Although I posted that I thought the Liberal jump 4 days ago was true it hasn't been borne out on the following days and 308 hasn't posted today's poll which drops that poll showing a Liberal bounce from 4 days ago as Nanos rolling poll only has 3 days in it.

At the moment all the ups and downs look to be within the margin of error.

Frank

Nope. Nanos just released same this morning and those are the fresh "overnight" numbers.

BTW, some politicians are just downright hypocrites who think voters are dummies.

Case in point - the NDP's Jack Layton. Layton comes to BC and disses the 12% HST.

Layton is now in Nova Scotia, with an NDP administration, which has a much higher 15% HST rate. But the 15% HST rate in Nova Scotia is "acceptable" to Layton because it's not applied to home heating. What a maroon. haha

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ndps-layton-fends-off-questions-about-modest-crowds/article1968428/?from=sec368

That statement will now backfire on Layton big time with the media out here.

Tourism is big business

No, we are not all tourists.

There is difference between travel and tourism.

Tourism blooms from a capitalist system that insists on turning everything into commodities.

It commodifys the cultures of the world, including our own.

There is a big difference between the experience of travel and the 'business' that prices every inch of it.

Skywalker

The IWA in the past not only had its own delegates at NDP conventions but controlled many NDP constituencies by sheer numbers. Greens who didn't understand what a valuable and powerful ally the union could be resented this.
The union put bucks in the bucket and feet on the ground for every election, as did most of the BC Fed related unions.
To think the head of the BC Fed did not have a major influence on the NDP government is simply naive!
Munro was like a guru to the IWA leaders at the time. I spent plenty of time hanging out with some of the IWA heavies of the time - the ones who made Gerry Stoney walk the plank in favour of Dave Haggard - (and didn't That work out well!) I had a friendly relationship with the folks I knew , and often had enthusiastic conversations about our differences, beer being involved on many, but by no means all, of those occasions.

Beneath the "cappucino sucking city slickers" rhetoric, many union people agreed privately about the corporate agenda, and were not totally comfortable with having to support their employers in land use issues.

It certainly didn't stop the timber companies from shutting down much of the industry and shipping the jobs to China!

The arrogance and condescending attitudes from Green types with more formal education (which is definitely not synonymous with higher intelligence or greater knowledge!)
resulted in justified hostility and alienated the forest workers.

If you spent time with labour leaders in the 90s you would have heard similar whining to what you heard from the Greens. I mediated, informally of course, at many a meeting where the sniveling symphony became unbearable, and harsh methods had to be employed to get them all to work together

All three leadership candidates with a chance to win an election have support from people I agree with and disagree with on various issues. Being a part of any coalition means having to set aside differences with our allies in order to achieve common goals. I hope everyone has learned from past mistakes; Horgan and Farnworth have articulated issues which have been downplayed for years, and I can only go on faith as to how they may keep to their promises.

By bringing up controversial issues and taking positions for which he may be attacked by the likes of the "Fool Hand", Horgan has showed he is a step ahead of Mike, but it is interesting they both, along with Simons and Larsen, have felt the party membership wanted them to take much stronger stands on the issues and look towards solutions involving new and sustainable initiatives rather than the tired old strategy of taxing the old industries to pay for social programs!

Frank

You say that you're against the Carbon Tax although Carole James came to accept it - and you were a strong Carole James supporter.

You must think it a bit sad that all the leadership hopefuls are adopting Carole James' policies.

From: Tourism, the new colonialism"

"After the St Stephen’s Day tsunami hit Sri Lanka in 2004, an official of the Sri Lanka Tourist Board was quoted as saying: ‘In a cruel twist of fate, nature has presented Sri Lanka with a unique opportunity, and out of this great tragedy will come a world-class tourism destination.’ According to Naomi Klein one of the reasons the government forbade re-building of houses near the shore was to leave land available for hotels. Thousands made homeless by the tsunami have still not returned to their former villages and livelihoods – partly because of tourist development......"

"What about responsible, ethical tourism? There is a joke in the travel industry: "What's the difference between an eco-holiday and a normal holiday?" "30% surcharge". Between 1999 and 2005, the total GDP of the Galapagos Islands grew by 78%, mainly because of eco- tourism. GDP per head only grew by 1.8% because the population increased by 60%. The fragile ecosystem is crumbling under the increased population caused by eco-tourism.

The Honduran government has designated 107 areas as protected, 24% of the nation’s territory. Almost all of the 80-square-mile island of Roatán is part of a national marine park. In reality, only eight miles of shoreline are officially protected. Locals make jewellery from the shells of critically endangered turtles to sell to the ‘eco-tourists’ and those passing through from the cruise-ships. The prospect of jobs has enticed people from the mainland to start building shanty towns without septic tanks. When the rains come, untreated sewage will slither down to the ‘protected’ eight miles. The sediment reduces the amount of sunlight that reaches the coral, killing it, which, in turn, slowly kills the fish that live there.

Tourism is an extractive industry and not much of the benefit goes to locals. Resorts are usually operated by foreign companies. Any local benefits that do accrue must be offset against the downside, such as the commandeering of scarce, clean, fresh water by resorts to the detriment of local communities."

Programming the tourist mind-set :

"Over thirty years ago Dean MacCannell wrote a study of the phenomenon of tourism. His theme was that the middle classes of the west felt alienated from reality by their comfortably dull lives. Although they had been programmed to believe the fiction that everything centred on the individual they felt the disjunction of living in a depersonalised historical epoch. If there was an authentic reality it must be elsewhere. If it was out there it could be bought.

Professor MacCannell employed Marx’s concept of fetishisation. Pure experience, which leaves no material trace, is manufactured and sold like a commodity. The tourist thinks he can buy the authentic experience which is located somewhere exotic beyond his normal experience. The tourist experience is built upon the fiction that it is outside historical time in a virtual world.

The touristic world is filled with people who are just passing through. It is a world furnished by the social production of highly fictionalised versions of the everyday life of traditional peoples, a museumisation of their quaintness. There is inevitably a tension between the moderns’ nervous concern for the authenticity of their touristic experience and the traditional folks’ difficulty in acting out someone else’s fantasy version of their life. Culture is tailored to suit those who pay for it, until, in the words of a Masai man, “We have ceased to be what we are; we are becoming what we seem.”"

r'man

I was a big CJ supporter even though she reversed herself on the carbon tax.

Sometimes I think politics gets in the way of good policy. People don't want to fight against the tide, they just want to go with the flow of what's popular.

"You must think it a bit sad that all the leadership hopefuls are adopting Carole James' policies."

I sincerely am not sure I understand this. Horgan, Farnworth and Dix were CJ loyalists. They aren't going to agree with her on everything but they wouldn't disagree on everything either.

"The issue here is that the

"The issue here is that the jobs created by tourism are not good all-season jobs and poorly paid."

This is a false statement which is not challenged nearly often enough. Some tourism jobs are low paying, others pay extremely well, and derisive rhetoric from radical industrialists is meaningless without fact to support it!

Scorn and derision towards good capitalist enterprise is not something we should hear from any business person. Real entrepreneurs contribute positively when exposed to new ideas, offering ideas on implementation rather than simply pissing on any idea but their own! That is the way of the bureaucrat!

Any sustainable economy we develop in BC must be based on small businesses creating greater wealth from local resources. Big business is bureaucratic and resistant to new ideas, and cannot provide leadership.
The elite management class has hoodwinked shareholders and hijacked the corporate agenda to suit narrow, greedy, and self centred purposes. This army of upper class twits, MBAs and corporate bandits is violating the capitalist ethic, running huge companies into the ground, then demanding billions in bailouts, while the real entrepreneurs get squeezed, shafted and screwed.

The NDP needs to ally itself with entrepreneurs, who can provide the "lemonade stand" skills the party has usually lacked, and who believe new directions and opportunities must be accessed as the main long term strategy rather than depending on sunset industries run by international pirates!

Luke

The Layton thing was silly, but I can list a lot of similar stuff the Libs and Cons do. For some reason you're always aghast when a Dipper does it and ignore it when others do the same thing.

As for Nanos, they show the Libs in a steady decline over the last few days since March 30th. Which is what I expected when I said polls following 4 days ago haven't borne out the optimism from that 4 day old poll.

Correction, please

She agreed the tax was a fait accompli AND committed her party "to make sure it's fair and that it's effective."

There's a huge difference and Campbell's stupid Tax is still nothing more than a money laundry.

Frank

It was silly, as protrayed by the media. But the HST is a fait de compli. What is arguable is how it is appled. The way it was applied in BC is de facto recognition that Campbell & Co. have spent this province into the ground, and the BC Libs are looking for every penny they can squeeze (out of the proletariat). Layton is correct in his approval of the HST as applied in NS.

I for one favour an HST somewhere in the range of 5%, but applied across the board, with no exceptions.

Learning to paddle your own canoe

I am definitely not on popular ground here, not that I give a damn, but my belief is that neither packs of pushy kayakers nor all those supposedly sacred entrepreneurs paddle or stand on holy territory.

Reading the comments here......

Isn't it strange how so much of our imagination and our humanity is now limited and perverted by the word 'business'?

'business' person, 'business' parties

As a kid I hiked, I biked, I explored, I looked at paintings with no middle man either present or necessary.

I wonder what got in the way of such a simple but wonderfully good idea?

Stewart:

You wrote: "Any sustainable economy we develop in BC must be based on small businesses creating greater wealth from local resources."

However, no one creates wealth, at least not material wealth. It just exists and what we do is move it around. What we do create is value, a subjective thing that depends on faith.

A sustainable economy is one that is built on resources that can be regenerated and are not exploited at a rate greater than that which allows for sustainable regeneration at the same level.

Small enterprise is probably a better model for doing this, but not necessarily. What is necessary is a model not predicated on growth. Growth is the cancer that kills sustainability.

One of the reasons that we have our current problems is because we have an economic system based on growth instead of on stasis and stability. We will not solve our problems until we get rid of that system.

Rick

How could you have a 5% HST when the GST is 7% from coast to coast to coast. What would the provincial component be?

Well said, record:

"What is necessary is a model not predicated on growth. Growth is the cancer that kills sustainability."

r'man

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that the GST in Alberta was 5%.

Disneyworld travellers

Well put lynn!
Tourism as you describe it is just another Disneyworld!
If only people could see it that way, then maybe a lot of tourists would realize they can get exactly the same experience living at the local Hyatt, instead of the Hyatt in another country?
Maybe some would realize that going on a cruise from here to here is only an escape that happens to be on the ocean instead of at a local hotel with an equally overflowing menu?

RickW

I don't know enough about the details of the Nova Scotia HST so I'll take your word for it.

Nanos

Nik Nanos said on CTV Question Period today that the Liberals have moved up into a "statistical tie" with the Cons in Ontario.

That would be huge because the Cons are counting on dominating Ontario.

Stewart MacKenzie

Extremely well paid jobs in tourism?
Also extremely rare I am sure!
The average guide takes the job because it gets them out into a field they happen to enjoy, and the pay is a bonus!
As for the slaves at the resorts, give me a break, they are being used and abused and paid poorly.
Sure the entrepenours may be raking it in, but starting your own business is not usually considered a job, and not everyone has the cash needed or can chance the family funds on a venture.

Frank

Your right, GST is 5% in all provinces.

On a slightly different topic I'm sure your not too thrilled Jenny is formally backing Farnsworth.

Tourism

Oh come on, I know many people that make good money from tourists.

And year 'round

As for Eco-tourists causing trouble in hot climes, um, um, BS.

Eco tourists don't cause trouble here, why should they do it elsewhere?

Hang around Whistler, Tofino, or Granville Island for a while and quietly watch the money pour from the tourist's wallets.

It's lovely...

happy

You're right, but I'll have to read Jenny's explanation of why she chose to back the leadership candidate closest to Carole James.

I would have assumed she'd back Dix based on the criticisms she had of James, not being left-wing enough, looking only to win, and so on. How she squares that with her backing of Farnworth is beyond me.

Frank

This may shed some light on Maritime HST:
http://www.vancouver-real-estate-direct.com/HST/BCvsMaritimes.html

R/M old man....

ALL tax amounts are entirely arbitrary. If you want my wording to be different, then I would advocate that ALL HST be pegged at 5% across the country and across the board.

record

Excellent post! Hits the spot!
Here's something you m ay or may not have perused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

happy

I wouldn't put too much stock in anything Jenny Kwan says or whom she chooses to support.

Couple of notes on taxes

Couple of notes on taxes mentioned in this thread:
1. HST makes for a more efficient tax system. The unfairness is that the relief to companies was compensated by the higher than necessary HST rate, rather than an increase in corporate tax. That remedy is still possible
2. Carbon Tax CAN, contrary to what some have said on this thread, change behaviour. it's a question of tax rate and ensuring everyone pays it. Rates can be easily adjusted to secure changes in emissions behaviour. Contrast that with changing caps on different industries under cap and trade. Massive political wrangling and log rolling will tend to favour the biggest emitters.

West

I don't. Shouldn't that be Jennifer though?

Cheers guys

Market solutions are not good enough

Tax rates can change behaviour, but it is a crap shoot. There is no guarantee what rate will change how much behaviour. Direct intervention through limiting supply and production and rationing sales of carbon fuels is more precise. Carbon trading on the other hand, is just another smoke and mirrors exercise to avoid what must be done. Besides, climate change is not the core problem, it is only a symptom. We need to go after the root cause of what is wrong, an overgrown society producing and consuming too much of everything. We need to shrink society and reduce consumption.

In addition, market solutions, like taxes, impact those with less income more than those who can afford to be wasteful. Adjustments to this, such as rebates, are self defeating.

Frank

You're right, I mixed it up. BC's Provincial Sales Tax component of the HST is the 7%. Yes, the GST is 5% across the country after the Harper Conservatives kept their campaign promise and reduced it by 2%.

Disagree

The Campbell tax hasn't changed behavior; hasn't reduced the amount of CO2 produced and hasn't reduced the amount of fuels used.

It hasn't created a single mile of rapid transit or gotten a single small business man or woman out of their truck or car. It hasn't done anything to make housing more affordable or discouraged anyone from building new roads or bridges.

You can confirm all of that on your own frank2 - the Campbell tax is nothing but a money laundry.

limits to growth...

The big question that the capitalist system has yet to answer is how to sustain the growth that will keep money flowing and keep the system alive. Many of us have moved on from this: the planet and her systems are finite, and by definition therefore infinite growth is not sustainable, and if we persist in 'growing' our economy we are simply moving towards collapse a whole lot sooner. I have always leaned towards the 'steady state' economy: money is a convenient mechanism for exchanging labour for goods and services and eliminates the need to barter for everything, but money is not in and of itself an arbiter of value. As the mastercard ads tell us, some things are priceless...Market solutions are rarely good enough: market solutions have brought us mountains of shoddy goods waiting to be unloaded at Wal-Mart and concurrent mountains of used-up shoddy goods at the landfill. Not to mention that the height of normal for many British Columbians is to jet off to Mexico or some other cheaper place for a vacation...and this is what passes for normal, and the 'good life'.

Those of us who believe that change must be made are stuck in a peculiar place: we must both try to imagine a future, more livable (sustainable) society, and we must try to work within this one to make change where we can. Make no mistake, it is a difficult place: we have people resisting ANY notion of change and others who see that change may not come fast enough to save millions of people. The way I see things, our most urgent task is to demonstrate to the dinosaurs and rapacious capitalists and the like that change is coming, and we had best step in to manage that change so as to survive.

Within the context of the current system, our best hope is small business and shopping locally and travelling within our own country, because those are the actions that will keep the money flowing HERE and creating jobs HERE. And it also means that those people we do business with can be scrutinized more carefully than those with headquarters elsewhere.

I suppose it isn't much of a manifesto, but it beats throwing up one's hands and jetting off to Mexico.

VivianLea Doubt

It can't. The capitalist system with infinite growth is just a huge bubble. And even capitalists acknowledge that bubbles eventually burst. Where the "big problem" lays is that capitalists today gamble on being able to "get out" before the burst. Their short-sightedness is that they figure the "get out" place is the Caymans, etc. (as though it's not part of the world).

from another post

The gas tax was just a tax grab, it was not an environmental plan. All the BC Liberals did was institute a tax on petrochemical energy products, but they had no plan on how to reduce the use of such fuels. They called it a Carbon Tax to dress it up, not to reduce its use. Look at their plans for highway construction and expansion to see the myth that they were interested in GHG reduction. They have no plan to implement to help GHG reduction. You can imagine Joe the Plumber saying to himself, "Gee the gas tax is causing the price of gas to be so high, I need to trade in my 4X4 pick-up and get a hybrid car." Look at the increase in highway construction in the last few years. The NDP did have a plan. They were set to implement a Cap and Trade system. They wanted to tax the petrochemicals at their source so all would be covered, including exports. And they were initiating a fund to help establish environmental sound processes to develop and use in our homes and communities. Not much in the press about that during the election campaign, but lots about attack ads. In fact so much that it became an attack on the NDP.

RickW

Thanks for that link about comparing the HST in the Maritimes to here. It was interesting and I feel I know more than I did.

It is always local just not in the mindset of the tourist

Rick W: "Ummm....how about obesity epidemic?"

That could be true but I was thinking more in terms that activities like hiking, biking, kayaking etc. are things we can do ourselves, (and once did as children) without the need for them to be co-opted by a tourism industry that will market them for profit. The tourism industry with its Chamber of Commerce lobby attempts to maximize that profit by ever increasing the number of tourists and thus increasing both growth and development.

When warbler says I am "casting silly aspersions" on the people that visit my hometown, that is the typical tourist response. He/she would not find it so silly if it was his children, his dog or cat that is almost run over by kayaker-filled SUV's recklessly speeding down country roads.

And while happy would like to believe that I am against kayakers, that is far from the truth. Kayaking is a great way to enjoy the ocean but tourism attempts to 'package' a false wilderness experience and again to maximize profit and convenience creates an unnatural experience that involves 'packs' of kayakers. It is not the reality of the wilderness. Local people simply do not travel in packs on the ocean. As the numbers of kayakers and tourists increase so does the size of the damaging footprint left on our beaches - that impact felt on delicate oyster seed and the pristine quality of our waters -both of which many locals base their livelihood on.

It is always local ( just not for the conveniently removed tourist) when it comes to the deleterious effects of the tourism industry... and it is personal and not at all silly when it your community, your home, your culture being forever changed.

" Culture is tailored to suit those who pay for it, until, in the words of a Masai man, “We have ceased to be what we are; we are becoming what we seem.”""

OK then lynn

I did not "want to beleive" you were against kayakers, that the way you came across and I wasn't the only one who saw it that way.
But since you have now clarified, we are good.
I still think you are over the top.
If there are vehicles speeding down your road call the RCMP. On the coast they aren't shy about setting up radar, they don't have a hell of a lot of other work they seem to do.
Secondly, as I stated first post, there are many SMALL business operators on the coast that cater to tourists. Maybe your next door neighbour. Any B and B's in your neighbourhood? Are they bad?
I don't care for packs of tourists either, but my definition must differ form yours. I see busloads and busloads of tourist groups, mainly from China in the city and there is nothing to compare that to what we have on the coast.

happy

"I don't care for packs of tourists either, but my definition must differ form yours. I see busloads and busloads of tourist groups, mainly from China in the city and there is nothing to compare that to what we have on the coast."

If you really think about it, happy, I'm not sure that comparison helps your argument. ;-)

GREEN NDP!!!

Our worlds’ seen many changes,
in the last half century.
Life is so much better,
Because of technology.

We’ve learned to split the atom,
sent rockets up in to space.
The world moves so much faster,
what about the human race.

computers and our cell phones,
keep us all in touch.
But are we not forgetting,
things that mean so much.

A few are getting richer,
the poor don’t get their share.
The old are growing older,
does anybody care.

We are coming into a new age,
let’s hope we find a cure.
Solve our social problems,
so no one suffers anymore.

WHAT'S SO DIFFICULT ABOUT THE BEST OF ALL PARTIES COMING TOGETHER?
WHY MUST EGO GET IN THE WAY & POWER CORRUPT?
WE ALL WANT TO MAKE THINGS BETTER
SO GET IT TOGETHER!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALPATSA

I see the old-school NDP anti-enviros are out in number

Wow, it never ceases to amaze me how many self-styled ND supporters in BC are virulently anti-environment.

That's not the case in other provinces, where the NDP has welcomed greens and never hung them out to dry.

BC's case seems like a bad hangover from decades past.

I suspect these anti-enviros are mainly old white guys who are bitter about their lot in life - like most other conservatives.

Fortunately the tide of broad-minded progressives is washing over these fossils, and their influence in BC's NDP has waned considerably.

Can't be too soon for this progressive ND supporter.

tourist...

The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'tourist' as a person who travels for pleasure.

I think, Lynn, that you and many others confuse the word with the actions of an industry that has much to apologise for...but the simple fact that driving (or biking, or taking transit) to enjoy a local hiking trail is tourism. As is kayaking, or driving to Nanaimo to shop and see a movie - a popular pastime where I live, although not for me. And I know of one local doctor who regularly rides transit around the Valley on her days off just to experience where she lives from a different persepective (not driving, for one). 'Tourism' is imbued with the sociological baggage that our particular culture has heaped onto it, but it need not be 'packaged' to be tourism.

I ran into some Japanese tourists a while back at a local park that I happened to have written an in-depth paper on...and they were charmed to understand its original First Nations name and other little tidbits of the ecosystem. Not all tourism is busloads of Chinese, or eco-kayakers in SUVs.

What it could be, under a government with some vision, is a way to share the riches of our province without destroying its ecosystems, and providing an interesting way to make a living.

@RickW...yes, without a doubt. We must somehow find a way to begin to make changes within the parameters of the current system we live under...or throw up our hands. I prefer to try to envision how the system might be made to work, even if only for a time, to benefit those who so desperately need it. Even small changes like employment in decent jobs would begin to encourage a lot of wasted talent.

to Saysme

Check out this site to see the BC NDP policy on the environment.

http://www.buildingsustainablebc.ca/