willy

The Rav line has nothing to do with the Olympics. 3 Billion came out of the bid book. There is no guarantee but we will still have a new highway to Whistler, rinks, stadiums, upgrades to BC Place, a tone of world wide tourist exposure. So what is your real point. The winter Olympics are a great opportunity and my point was they have nothing to do with funding health care. Actually they may promote sport which in a holistic view may improve the health of many in our fine province. The Rav Line is part of a larger 2020 transportation infrastructure plan that includes new bridges, and road upgrades all over the lower mainland. The line plans also include extended the sky train line to the east. This will help move people in and out of Vancouver and help improve our long term air quality. I thought the lefties would like the environmental benefits of rapid transit.

caesar & payfullfellow, The annual budget for the BC government is 33 Billion Dollars. Health care spending is currently 14 Billion dollars annually. Do the math 1/3 of all spending on health care. The Olympics will be 3 billion dollars over the next 6 years and the actual event should generate that or more in revenue. This could be considered an investment that will leave the province with legacy infrastructure paid for by the events. I have also heard that the problem with BC is the big tax cuts made. They cut 1.5 Billion in income taxes 3 years ago. They then increased user fees and the pst. The revenue change is negligible when it comes to billions of revenue and expenses. Health spending in 93 was 5 billion in this province. Anyone who doesn't think we need to slow the pace of spending increases needs to smoke a little less of our provinces largest crop.

casesar, when was the last time you were in Europe. I found that they don't distinguish between us and Americans. I say "I am not American" and they say "North Americano." We are no better than they are but we just have less responsibility. We are good and they are bad is BS. Don't be a hater and realize you are no better.

They are the Washington Groups boats, they can do as they wish. They are finding out what the government found out, they are not sea worthy outside of the islands and they cant travel fast inside the ilands. They are also built to fit BC docks and they are unique. The metal in those boats is the only thing worth anything. They could recycle them for the metal and they would be more useful. The ships were sold at AUCTION after months of trying to find a buyer. No one would pay more. It was an auction publicized around the world and only three bidders showed up. BC does have good ship builders and they have made the ferries in use today. The fast ferries were made by a company that the NDP government made for this purpose. They thought they could create a new technology and thus a new industry. Not a very good role for government.

Can you at least use a few facts. BC firms are on the bid list. All their contracts go to open tender and are listed on BC bid. It is a public access website. They are rebuilding the whole fleet and that is many more boats than three. The Washington group has nothing to do with the ferries. They bought the fast cats at auction and they are still sitting in dock rusting. The ferries were moved to a private entity just like the airport. This was designed to remove the politics out of the business decisions. (Like where you buy the next set of ferries) They will build some of the new ferries in BC, if not ask the question why our ship building industry can not even compete. I would imagine the cost of transporting a ferry half way around the world would be a good competitive advantage.

Alberta has the highest per capita spending on healthcare in Canada. The crisis is not simple. * New procedures are very expensive. * New equipment is very expensive. * We have an aging population. * We have a labour shortage (i.e. physicians and nurses) Our current public system does not meet the demand and the demand will go up. The most expensive time of life is 60-80 years of age because you will need more medication and intervention. All these factors are pressing for change. Not cuts but structural change so the resources we have can better serve the population. Health care has changed and the system must change with it. Home care is one of the most efficient ways of providing quality health care. When hospitals close or become long term care facilities realize the resources are being refocused to primary care not going away. As for Manning and Harper, they see the role of the feds as funding, and facilitator. The provinces hold the responsibility for delivery. Let’s hope Ujal realizes that before he meets with the first ministers. No mainstream political party in Canada stands for privatizing public health insurance. As for private delivery we all use family doctors, thus have all contributed to private delivery of health care. This issue needs not be partisan but needs to focus on health outcomes.

Private Schools do have higher performing students. Here is why? Kids tend to be more economically advantaged (i.e. good diet, tutors ect.) Parents tend to be more engaged Entrance exams limit the bottom end of the scale from entering Teachers are held to higher standards and length of service less important Higher expectations on the students (they are expected to go to university) I have gone to public and private schools in BC and Alberta. I currently volunteer at a private school in Vancouver and still work with kids in the public system. Kids in private school do perform better academically but they don’t learn the personal responsibility for education those in the public system must learn to succeed. The private school kids tend to be sheltered from many of the issues of the city. This slows their maturation. As the pros and cons go, I would much prefer my kids to go through the private schools. As for the draining of resources. The private schools in BC only receive half of what public schools receive in funding, the rest to tuition and fundraising. We have a surplus of teacher coming out of school every year so it is not draining the public system. The public system is just not able to compete. Removing the competition will not benefit our kids or our schools.

Why do you have to like it? The native fisheries in BC already own a disproportional number of commercial licenses. How is this good for the fish stocks or the native/non native relationships?

Did we really? It takes an average of 21/2 years to merge corporations. We merged a party in 3 months. The inner workings of the party are still in disarray and that is to be expected. We had a leadership race only a month before the election. No time for a policy convention, which would for the first time in a long time brought the grass roots of the Conservative movement together. For sure we will be more organized the next time around, and the policy convention will round out our platform. This was always supposed to be a two election process knowing the Liberal would go early again and we just are guilty of high expectations that were not realistic. Strategically the Liberals are now committing errors; they have moved left and left the middle open. It is now time for the Conservatives to occupy that space. We lost this game but, we will be at it again soon enough.

Look forward, if Iran becomes a problem, we better hope that Iraq has a stable government. Iran is becoming a problem. Lets hope the US is successful.

Be clear Conservatives do not have to move all voters but only the “undecided” that went Liberal this time around. That is 5 to 10% of voters. They do not need to build a new. But they do need a policy convention and learn some lessons from this past election. If this 30% who voted for them this time out can become the base, the swing vote will make Conservatives government. Progressive is an interesting word in politics, the Liberals would have you think now that they were the only good Tories, or that they now represent progressive thinking but Jack and the NDP say they are even more progressive. If progressive means to lack a clear moral compass they are progressive but I am not sure why the Conservatives would want to embrace that definition. If progressive meant ensuring self determination, security, and ability to gain and keep wealth and ensuring health and education to the greatest number of people possible, sure lets be progressive. In Canadian politics progressive tends to mean supporting large expensive programs that few benefit from e.g. universal child care. The Conservatives need to define in policy how personal moral views will or will not be expressed in law. The view of Randy White are common in both the Conservative and Liberal party and they represent a large number of Canadians but they don’t represent what direct policy or law may become of these views. Example I am pro-life but I don't think it should be law, so you need not worry about this personal belief. I personally believe God sanctifies marriage not the state so I have no problem with state contracts called marriage for same sex couples but I don’t want churches to be forced into the practice. Again, a personal view that needs not interfere with what others believe.

Who outlawed being pro life? I don't think the government should be the deciding factor, but I am pro-life. Many social issues are this way. My faith brings me to a personal view but I don't look to the government to mandate it. My NDP candidate was of the same opinion maybe we should talk about her hidden agenda. Look, parties are made up of a variety of views, some believe this means they don't have a voice but really it is the only way parties can govern. Libs center left, Cons center right. Harper had many, and is a policy and strategist himself. Stock had Ron Love, and he didn't reach out to Ontario. He made many mistakes but has learned a number of lessons. Stock has earned back my respect but I still don't want him to lead the party.

3 -more party discipline. When Jack talked about Clarity Act during the campaign, other NDP MPs openingly criticized him.

The talk of separation is never serious, it is more just an extreme frustration with the lack of influence the west seems to have on the outcome. Can Harper be the populist the West needs? From now until the next election we need an organization and ground troops in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. If The Conservatives can better represent those areas, they will be in a better position to represent the west. The answer is to have two clear national choices in all provinces. Yes, we need A center right and center left party system. Both brokerage parties with wide appeal. In French and English. Address the democratic deficit. Address trust in politics. These are not western issues but issues all regions would benefit from.

Here you go I am an old reformer, triple E senate. More free votes (accept the negative side for more local representation) More power to non partisan committees that deal with the detail of policy. A government that runs on principles not fear. I am not a separatist but I do get frustrated with the arrogance I see in Ottawa in the Liberal.

As a former Albertan, how about the negative attacks on the values that many of us hold. They did not attack policy, they personalized a negative campaign against me and those like me. They did not only do it against our actual value system but they also attached political opportunism to make us look worse. (i.e. Klien’s remarks about health reform.) Alberta's health system is the best financed in the country. Having the resources and identity, why should we put up with this distain that continues for years. We voted on block across the prairies no Fiberals, and it didn't matter. Across Alberta you had Conservatives winning with 70% or more. Which part of disenfranchises and insulted don't make sense?

The Fiberals won. They will be shifted to the left by the NDP and the Bloc. I don't want to afford this new focus, but I have not choice. You can save the Conservative rhetoric for the next election, you won we concede. Handle the win with some decorum, responsibility and respect for the 1/3 of the population that will not be represented by this agenda. Have just a little bit of humility. The only guarantees in life, death and taxes.

Joe was campaigning for Anne in Edmonton. We don't want him back. Harper will take his time and ensure we have a united party before we march forward. The party can learn a lot from this one. Need a policy convention (no more hidden agenda) More candidates training on staying on message and clarifying platform Kick back harder when you are being slandered Harper is the man for the job but we needed an exhibition game first. When the party formed we thought it would be a two election process. If we are guilty of anything it is to high expectation that emerged during the campaign. We have 100 seats (Chuck counts). Time to go to work and earn trust with action.

The election is over and the crap can stop. 1/3 of the voters chose Harper and the Conservatives. Liberal MP's David Anderson, & Hedy Fry are still spotting off about their manufacture concerns like the individual above. They need to grow up and stop being so divisive or we will have a problem again with western alienation. We have an elected government that needs to represent all Canadians, not just the 1/3 that voted for them.

Depends who's spin you look at: - gut federal powers (respect provincial jurisdiction) - re-open 'social conservative' issues through referenda (have an open debate on gay marriage and nothing else) - undermine the supreme court (Judges to go before committees and looked at by the house before appointment) - relax environmental enforcement (junk Kyoto in favor of clear emissions guidelines that don't currently exist after 10years of Liberal rule. - - Check and see we only have 4 federal air emission standards for industry) - lower taxes on the wealthy by shrinking public institutions and social infrastructure (Lower taxes for middle and income bracket and reduce air security tax) I have met Randy and heard him speak, he is passionate about drug enforcement and victims rights. Those are his priorities.

Ever ask how he bought the steam ship company? Got it for a song off of Power Corp. How did he get the job at Power Corp? His dad's buddy gave it to him. Self made man? Or pig in the trough? Pension scandal worth $89 million for CSL yet to come. $170 million in contracts from the feds never investigated. So if experience counts, he sure knows how to use those connections. But what debts will he repay if we give him the chance?

Would you vote for him anyway? No Go bother a candidate you are likely to ask an earnest question to and believe. Tell the truth; even if you have a clear answer you would not have believed it because you don't want to believe it. You may not like the Conservative position on many issues but they are clear. I know the NDP platform and I don't like it. I know the Fiberal platform and they aren't likely to use it. Nothing hidden except the Fiberal scare tactics for lack of a new platform. What was this big question anyway? Be specific and I will answer, after 5 weeks of platform, I have heard and read most of them.

I have worked in a campaign office with the older generation working the email, they may not have had a good system in place to respond to your question or lost it. My candidate was at a minimum of 10 debates in the last 4 weeks. I am sure the phone number of the CPC office was also available to you. They have said. Have you listened?

Glad to know takeanumber that you like to elect trained seals that vote the party line. I would prefer my MP to seek a level of input where possible and educate the constituents on the issues as much as possible. John Cummins is very good at sharing documents that outline the positions and seeking feedback. Would you rather all decision be made for 4 years based on an election platform that may or may not be relevant in a year? This is all about degrees, key election promises are run on should be respected and votes should go that way. Emerging issues such as treaty resolution needs MPs to seek guidance and local debate that is brought back to caucus and considered. John Renolds yesterday talked about this. He said only 4 in 10 may vote for me but I must try and represent all my constituents.

I have been to many candidates meetings and the Conservatives have been clear. Some are for same sex marriage (as a Conservative I am), Vancouver Center, some against Richmond. Go ask your candidate. Votes also means three readings in the house and plenty of debate. More than any other party the Conservatives also believe in representing their constituents views. Randy was at a candidates meeting in the Fraser valley yesterday. Many candidates were not at the Harper rally but close to 1000 supporters were there. I was one of them. Again the party priorities and policy were clear. First priority, accountability. Ethics commissionaire that reports to the house. Larger budget and authority for AG. Appoint elected senators. They are very specific on the platform. If you don't understand a point just ask. It’s all good stuff, and the reforming parts have less to do with left/right and more to do with decentralizing the power out of the PMO. Can we not all agree that is a good thing?