B.C. Politics Thread

[bishopshodan]

“John Rustad’s vision for this province is one that’s rooted somewhere around 1957, I mean, he cannot look ahead because he can only look back,”

I think Furstenau nails it here.

 

Rustad is not the leader we need. 

[Bob Long]

40 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

“John Rustad’s vision for this province is one that’s rooted somewhere around 1957, I mean, he cannot look ahead because he can only look back,”

I think Furstenau nails it here.

 

Rustad is not the leader we need. 

 

I do like her. I don't agree with some big chunks of the platform but she's someone id be happy to see hold the balance of power for a couple of years.

 

Rustad is likely just a placeholder for whoever the next BC con leader is. 

Edited October 10 by Bob Long

[bishopshodan]

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I do like her. I don't agree with some big chunks of the platform but she's someone id be happy to see hold the balance of power for a couple of years.

 

Rustad is likely just a placeholder for whoever the next BC con leader is. 

 

Rustad's bold faced lie about the dead body gives voters a sense of what kind of person he is.

 

He is insulting the intelligence of the public. Hopefully the majority of voters are not as dumb as he thinks. 

 

 

[Bob Long]

Just now, bishopshodan said:

 

Rustad's bold faced lie about the dead body gives voters a sense of what kind of person he is.

 

He is insulting the intelligence of the public. Hopefully the majority of voters are not as dumb as he thinks. 

 

 

 

Yep it's actually baffling.

 

I think maybe more than anything it speaks to his character under pressure. He knew he needed a good debate showing and he went with.... bullshit. 

 

If BC faces an unexpected crisis does he go back to that well?

 

One part of this election I'm happy about is Eby has been forced to a more centre position on some issues. So that is already a good outcome.

 

I don't think the cons will win after the debate showing, which is also good.

 

[Warhippy]

14 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

Rustad's bold faced lie about the dead body gives voters a sense of what kind of person he is.

 

He is insulting the intelligence of the public. Hopefully the majority of voters are not as dumb as he thinks. 

 

 

I just read the story about that.

 

That's actually really gross.  Turns out he may have seen nothing as the only evidence he says exists is a photo a staff member took.

[Bob Long]

13 hours ago, Coconuts said:

 

 

Even amongst Indigenous Peoples the band council, leadership bits vs the hereditary bits, it's complicated. But again, blame Canada, because if one goes back and digs into the history, it all ties back to the Indian Act. Obviously the hereditary system predates colonial mechanisms. 

 

 

is something good just because its hereditary? how far do we take this? 

 

I don't think we've had enough debate on what this all means for everyone going forward. 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

I just read the story about that.

 

That's actually really gross.  Turns out he may have seen nothing as the only evidence he says exists is a photo a staff member took.

 

He also recently changed his story about it after being called out.

 

Quote

Tory leader changes story

A day after the debate, after requests from CBC News, Rustad changed his story to say that he saw an overdose at a different downtown location, and the person survived.

 

In an emailed response, a Conservative spokesperson said that Rustad witnessed a person overdosing at the corner of Burrard and Helmcken streets while in a moving car.

 

The spokesperson emailed a picture, which they said was taken by Rustad's aide, which appears to show people gathered outside a youth shelter on Burrard Street, around 500 metres from St. Paul's Hospital.

 

This photo, which the B.C. Conservatives say was taken by John Rustad's aide, purports to show an overdose occurring around 500 metres from St. Paul's Hospital in downtown Vancouver. (Conservative Party of B.C.)

However, no emergency responders or ambulances are visible in the image, despite Rustad's debate claims.

 

The spokesperson said that Rustad did not engage with anyone on the scene but said that "some of the bystanders at the scene signalled that the person in question had sadly passed."

 

"From a distance, I saw someone who was unresponsive being resuscitated by medical professionals on my way to the debate," Rustad said.

 

"I am overjoyed to have been told that the individual, who I had been told had overdosed, survived thanks to the heroic efforts of our first responders."

 

CBC News has reached out to the Conservatives to ask how Rustad received the information he referenced, as well as B.C. Emergency Health Services to see if they have a record of paramedics arriving at Burrard and Helmcken streets before the debate.

 

excerpted from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/john-rustad-fatal-overdose-1.7348135

 

BC Emergency Health Services had mentioned in a previous fact-check (also excerpted from above):

 

Quote

B.C. Emergency Health Services also says it has "no records of any patient events" on Tuesday at the corner of Robson and Hornby streets "or on the blocks immediately adjacent to that intersection."

 

Anyways, let's see what BCEHS has to say and what other genius "correction" Rustad will come up with.  

[Coconuts]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

is something good just because its hereditary? how far do we take this? 

 

I don't think we've had enough debate on what this all means for everyone going forward. 

 

I don't know, you'd probably need to dig and explore, and read/ listen to bits from folks who are better educated than I am on the matter, and that'll probably involve knowledge coming from people whose positionality isn't tied to a place of westernized academia; which isn't to say it doesn't have it's place of course, there are many Indigenous academics and researchers, and many more who aren't. It's nuanced, it's complex, and it involves not only legalities, but bits that predate Canada's legal system. The best thing folks can probably do as individuals is seek knowledge and information on their own, because realistically most of us aren't adequately equipped to debate this stuff, I'm certainly not. I'd imagine there's a lot of factors involved, a lot of pieces. 

 

There are a lot of opinions on it, some from Indigenous Peoples themselves, some from others. 

 

What I do know is that any resolution likely needs to be spearheaded by Indigenous Peoples themselves, which is in itself a tricky thing given that Indigenous Peoples aren't a monolith, there's a lot of diversity there and that'll extend to views, beliefs, and opinions as well, and they may very even within communities. It'll extend to knowledge, ways of knowing, and ways of being too, world views, and even bits like knowledge construction, ontology, epistemology, and so on, which is interesting to dig into. For example, two eyed seeing. The first couple pages do a good job speaking to this concept. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1609406919869695

 

It's complicated, and very much tied to history, and if I had to guess there's likely be a lot of diversity regarding how it's approached. For example..

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/crown-indigenous-relations-northern-affairs/news/2024/07/gitanyow-hereditary-chiefs-and-canada-sign-funding-agreement-to-restore-self-government-on-ancestral-lands.html

 

Things are always shifting, and on a number of different fronts. For example.. 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-indigenous-communites-granted-power-over-child-welfare-1.6664683

 

Which recently culminated in..

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cowichan-tribes-first-nation-child-services-1.7245374?fbclid=IwY2xjawF09gdleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHV3R-EvwqV5fpqeHhP3SdTSLhW1I75ZIVRV-7BHqOGqyCO7ywHWEokFVeA_aem_Tf9mM3JrJ8ZujbGnzY9A8Q

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

 

Rustad's bold faced lie about the dead body gives voters a sense of what kind of person he is.

 

He is insulting the intelligence of the public. Hopefully the majority of voters are not as dumb as he thinks. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob Long]

46 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

I don't know, you'd probably need to dig and explore, and read/ listen to bits from folks who are better educated than I am on the matter, and that'll probably involve knowledge coming from people whose positionality isn't tied to a place of westernized academia; which isn't to say it doesn't have it's place of course, there are many Indigenous academics and researchers, and many more who aren't. It's nuanced, it's complex, and it involves not only legalities, but bits that predate Canada's legal system. The best thing folks can probably do as individuals is seek knowledge and information on their own, because realistically most of us aren't adequately equipped to debate this stuff, I'm certainly not. I'd imagine there's a lot of factors involved, a lot of pieces. 

 

There are a lot of opinions on it, some from Indigenous Peoples themselves, some from others. 

 

What I do know is that any resolution likely needs to be spearheaded by Indigenous Peoples themselves, which is in itself a tricky thing given that Indigenous Peoples aren't a monolith, there's a lot of diversity there and that'll extend to views, beliefs, and opinions as well, and they may very even within communities. It'll extend to knowledge, ways of knowing, and ways of being too, world views, and even bits like knowledge construction, ontology, epistemology, and so on, which is interesting to dig into. For example, two eyed seeing. The first couple pages do a good job speaking to this concept. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1609406919869695

 

It's complicated, and very much tied to history, and if I had to guess there's likely be a lot of diversity regarding how it's approached. For example..

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/crown-indigenous-relations-northern-affairs/news/2024/07/gitanyow-hereditary-chiefs-and-canada-sign-funding-agreement-to-restore-self-government-on-ancestral-lands.html

 

Things are always shifting, and on a number of different fronts. For example.. 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-indigenous-communites-granted-power-over-child-welfare-1.6664683

 

Which recently culminated in..

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cowichan-tribes-first-nation-child-services-1.7245374?fbclid=IwY2xjawF09gdleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHV3R-EvwqV5fpqeHhP3SdTSLhW1I75ZIVRV-7BHqOGqyCO7ywHWEokFVeA_aem_Tf9mM3JrJ8ZujbGnzY9A8Q

 

Thanks thats a lot of good info. 

 

When I look at this, I see a big gap between this and actually getting a development project going. There's so much detail here, and so much uncertainly.

 

When I look at the coastal gas link project, e.g., you can see the kinds of conflicts that arise: https://thenarwhal.ca/wetsuweten-coastal-gaslink-rcmp-overview/

 

Who does the Canadian/BC government side with here, the hereditary opposition or the elected band? what if the hereditary leaders just refuse the project outright? 

 

Horgan kicked this down the road a bit with a fairly sizeable payment to the hereditary leadership, but it's still looming. 

 

What I don't see so far is where the certainly in moving forward is coming from with the UNDRIP legal changes. I support it as a guideline, I don't know that I trust the NDP to implement it for actual project development. 

 

Whats maybe more important to me at least is we really haven't had a public discussion about what all this really means. We're supposed to just agree that this is the way forward I guess? 

 

I don't have a dog in this fight personally, it won't matter to my life. What I do worry about is our government screwing up the implementation and actually harming future First Nations development projects because the hereditary folks gain too much power. How the coastal gas link project gets resolved, and the other gas line projects in progress, should tell us a lot about that. 

 

 

Edited October 10 by Bob Long

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

An analysis piece on The Tyee today:

 

Five Positives You May Not Know about BC’s Economy

The province is tops in Canada for growth, productivity and more. Are voters hearing it?

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/10/10/Five-Positives-You-May-Not-Know-BC-Economy/

 

Subheadings excerpted from the article:

Quote

1. BC has the fastest per capita GDP growth in Canada.

2. BC has the lowest ratio of unemployment to job vacancies in Canada.

3. BC has the highest hourly wages in Canada.

4. BC has had the fastest growth in capital investment in Canada.

5. BC has the fastest productivity growth in Canada.

 

You can read the substance to back up the 5 excerpted subheadings at the URL above.

 

And then some commentary by the author:

Quote

Why so quiet?

 

These numbers directly refute the claim that B.C.’s economy is being driven into the ground by expanded public services, strong wage growth and taxes. The sharp contrast with neighbouring Alberta, poster child for aggressive trickle-down policy, is especially uncomfortable for true believers of the free-market model.

 

We should be careful not to overly politicize these statistics. After all, provincial governments have surprisingly little impact on overall macroeconomic trends — which depend far more on national and global factors, technology and geography than on which party inhabits the legislature. But it is nevertheless surprising that B.C.’s broad economic success has not attracted more attention in this campaign.

 

Opposition parties are naturally reluctant to discuss these indicators. Conservatives like to boast they are naturals at “prudent economic management” — and their business backers echo that refrain. Why would they draw attention to the fact that B.C.’s growth, investment, productivity and wages are all the best in Canada? That doesn’t sound “broken.”

 

I’m more surprised, however, by the NDP’s apparent timidity in fighting on this terrain. Perhaps it reflects a traditional lack of confidence among social democrats to take on economic debates, preferring to stick to more comfortable social issues.

 

There is also a cautious empathy visible in NDP campaign material. They acknowledge that despite these strong aggregate numbers, many British Columbians clearly face significant financial and other challenges, like housing costs, health care and inflation. The party may fear that sounding boastful about an economy that’s strong, but where many still struggle, might rub the wrong way. Hence the platform’s careful language about “helping people now” with “tough challenges.”

 

Democrats in the United States face a similar quandary. The economy there is beating the pants off every other industrial country, by every conventional measure (unemployment, real wage growth, business investment and more). Yet in some quarters there’s a lingering feeling of “vibecession” at odds with the strong data. Consumer confidence indicators are improving in both the United States and Canada, thanks to falling inflation, growing real incomes and improving stability, so this general anomie is likely to fade.

 

 

But will that occur in time for B.C.’s election on Oct. 19? Crafting a message that acknowledges the hardship all communities, including B.C., have faced since COVID, but that takes a bit more credit for the good things that have happened, could be a promising strategy for the final push of David Eby’s campaign.

 

[Sapper]

Another day another shit storm with the BC cons

 

The latest is 9 year old Facebook posts making some truly offensive comments about Palestinians... This isn't some dumb college kid who has now grown up but adult comments from an adult 

 

Guy says now that I'm caught I apologize and I've grown and John is the blushing leader saying he accepts the apology and this guy has Muslim friends  and has grown blah blah blah

 

The BC cons have no vetting process because they welcome the entirety of the fringe movement and as such doesifn't have any restrictions or core values as a party. This also means if elected into power John will have to move parts of the fringe groups agenda into law.

 

Basic politics 101 is clean your social media before running .... The fact that the cons don't even do the most basic vetting means either they welcome the extremists or they are so poorly run as to be incapable of actually leading if elected 

 

BC is screwed if the cons win 

[Johngould21]

3 minutes ago, Sapper said:

Another day another shit storm with the BC cons

 

The latest is 9 year old Facebook posts making some truly offensive comments about Palestinians... This isn't some dumb college kid who has now grown up but adult comments from an adult 

 

Guy says now that I'm caught I apologize and I've grown and John is the blushing leader saying he accepts the apology and this guy has Muslim friends  and has grown blah blah blah

 

The BC cons have no vetting process because they welcome the entirety of the fringe movement and as such doesifn't have any restrictions or core values as a party. This also means if elected into power John will have to move parts of the fringe groups agenda into law.

 

Basic politics 101 is clean your social media before running .... The fact that the cons don't even do the most basic vetting means either they welcome the extremists or they are so poorly run as to be incapable of actually leading if elected 

 

BC is screwed if the cons win 

Pretty sad when your party doesn't vet that element of their team. I was going to say wacko's, but we lefties aren't supposed to call them that, right EP?

[Bob Long]

2 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

An analysis piece on The Tyee today:

 

Five Positives You May Not Know about BC’s Economy

The province is tops in Canada for growth, productivity and more. Are voters hearing it?

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/10/10/Five-Positives-You-May-Not-Know-BC-Economy/

 

Subheadings excerpted from the article:

 

You can read the substance to back up the 5 excerpted subheadings at the URL above.

 

And then some commentary by the author:

 

 

Guess which part the tyee forgot?

 

We are also adding debt faster than any province, so we should be seeing good gdp numbers, we are paying for it.

 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/british-columbia-adding-government-debt-faster-than-any-other-province

 

 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Guess which part the tyee forgot?

 

We are also adding debt faster than any province, so we should be seeing good gdp numbers, we are paying for it.

 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/british-columbia-adding-government-debt-faster-than-any-other-province

 

 

 

Given your love of the Tyee, I was expecting you'd have something to say about it.  

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Given your love of the Tyee, I was expecting you'd have something to say about it.  

 

Couldn't help it.

 

But it's also true. I don't have a problem with the things like capital investment in hospitals but that's not really good financial management per se, the gdp rise is a natural consequence of the mega projects that we need.

 

It comes at a large debt service too so it's not like the NDP created it from nowhere.

 

Now if those numbers came from new businesses I'd be impressed.

[UnkNuk]

One other thing that caught my ear during Tuesday's debate was Eby saying that, if the current pace continues, every British Columbian who wants a family doctor will have a doctor or nurse practioner by the end of 2025.

 

Very good thing if they can pull it off.

[Bure_Pavel]

30 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Guess which part the tyee forgot?

 

We are also adding debt faster than any province, so we should be seeing good gdp numbers, we are paying for it.

 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/british-columbia-adding-government-debt-faster-than-any-other-province

 

 

A lot of people forget about this part when looking at GDP, Growth is very important but needs to be done the right way as well. If the debt is being spent on infrastructure and long term investments into BC's future, then great as we will see the benefits recognized over time. If the debt is increasing like crazy but the balance sheet isn't then we will run into some big problems.   

Edited October 10 by Bure_Pavel

[Bob Long]

6 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

A lot of people forget about this part when looking at GDP, Growth is very important but needs to be done the right way as well. If the debt is being spend on infrastructure and long term investments into BC's future, then great as we will see the benefits be recognized over time. If the debt is increasing like crazy but the balance sheet isn't then we will run into some big problems.   

 

The question for me is, are we growing enough private business to cover all this in the future? I'm fine to pay for all the new stuff as long as there's an actual plan to pay for it all. Anyone can write a cheque.

 

BC is behind the national average in medium and large businesses: https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/sme-research-statistics/en/key-small-business-statistics/key-small-business-statistics-2023

 

We need more of these types organizations to sustain this level of debt. 

 

[Warhippy]

9 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

A lot of people forget about this part when looking at GDP, Growth is very important but needs to be done the right way as well. If the debt is being spent on infrastructure and long term investments into BC's future, then great as we will see the benefits recognized over time. If the debt is increasing like crazy but the balance sheet isn't then we will run into some big problems.   

Here's the rub.

 

I can't think of a single province that is actually spending on infrastructure with an eye to the future.  EVERYTHING is for the now.  Not the later.

 

Look at the infill proposals.  How much $$$ is going to have to be spent on towns of 20k-40k people with the idea of doubling their populations in the next 20 years?  Roads will have to be doubled, water/sewer/gas doubled or tripled.  Waste water?  Reservoirs?  We're talking hundreds of billions in expenditures across the province and not a single party is thinking of anything more than (if we add this bridge to kelowna or this tunnel/bridge to vancouver we'll be fine.  

 

Not a single one is thinking, WTF do we do when we have almost 3 times the population this infrastructure can handle

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Here's the rub.

 

I can't think of a single province that is actually spending on infrastructure with an eye to the future.  EVERYTHING is for the now.  Not the later.

 

Look at the infill proposals.  How much $$$ is going to have to be spent on towns of 20k-40k people with the idea of doubling their populations in the next 20 years?  Roads will have to be doubled, water/sewer/gas doubled or tripled.  Waste water?  Reservoirs?  We're talking hundreds of billions in expenditures across the province and not a single party is thinking of anything more than (if we add this bridge to kelowna or this tunnel/bridge to vancouver we'll be fine.  

 

Not a single one is thinking, WTF do we do when we have almost 3 times the population this infrastructure can handle

 

municipalities will be left to fend for themselves on the bolded. Roads will be jammed, like the sea to sky is now.

 

[Warhippy]

11 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

municipalities will be left to fend for themselves on the bolded. Roads will be jammed, like the sea to sky is now.

 

I have been banging this drum for like 9 years regarding this issue as well as the lack of light rail and high speed cross national rail.

 

It's genuinely insane the amount of money we throw away on things that are literally going to be obsolete the moment they are finished or essentially upon completion be so overworked as to need an addition or upgrade.

 

BC needs to seriously plan for 40-50 years down the road but instead it is still pretending that logging is viable, we can add a 10 lane tunnel or bridge in vancouver in to a 2 lane artery or that adding an additional bridge will alleviate issues in kelowna.

[Bure_Pavel]

20 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Here's the rub.

 

I can't think of a single province that is actually spending on infrastructure with an eye to the future.  EVERYTHING is for the now.  Not the later.

 

Look at the infill proposals.  How much $$$ is going to have to be spent on towns of 20k-40k people with the idea of doubling their populations in the next 20 years?  Roads will have to be doubled, water/sewer/gas doubled or tripled.  Waste water?  Reservoirs?  We're talking hundreds of billions in expenditures across the province and not a single party is thinking of anything more than (if we add this bridge to kelowna or this tunnel/bridge to vancouver we'll be fine.  

 

Not a single one is thinking, WTF do we do when we have almost 3 times the population this infrastructure can handle

They need to couple this kind of spending with projects that will generate profit for the province such as the LNG projects and more hydroelectric projects. Its the only way they will be able to afford to provide the required support to the growing population. BC has many natural resources that can be tapped into, but we also have to make sure we do our due diligence to minimize the environmental impact. 

[Bob Long]

41 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I have been banging this drum for like 9 years regarding this issue as well as the lack of light rail and high speed cross national rail.

 

It's genuinely insane the amount of money we throw away on things that are literally going to be obsolete the moment they are finished or essentially upon completion be so overworked as to need an addition or upgrade.

 

BC needs to seriously plan for 40-50 years down the road but instead it is still pretending that logging is viable, we can add a 10 lane tunnel or bridge in vancouver in to a 2 lane artery or that adding an additional bridge will alleviate issues in kelowna.

 

100%. Imagine if we had just  two fast commuter rail lines, one all the way to hope and another your way. How many new viable home subdivisions could we have? How many cars off the road?

 

Would we build hwy 5 today?

[chris12345]

1 hour ago, UnkNuk said:

One other thing that caught my ear during Tuesday's debate was Eby saying that, if the current pace continues, every British Columbian who wants a family doctor will have a doctor or nurse practioner by the end of 2025.

 

Very good thing if they can pull it off.

That would be awesome.