An open letter to Carole Taylor on BC Hydro and Site C

Shared with permission, with the residents of British Columbia.

Ms. Carole Taylor

Financial Advisor to Premier of BC

C/O Parliament Buildings

Victoria, BC

V8V 1X4

Dear Ms.Taylor:

Congratulations on your recent appointment. I can only hope that your deliberations and conclusions are open and transparent to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

This is an appeal to you on behalf of the ratepayers of our public utility BC Hydro and Power Authority [BCHPA] to investigate and better understand the negative impacts and onerous financial commitment of the unnecessary proposed Site C in the sedimentary basin of the Peace River. 

At the very least, this project must be reviewed by an independent BC Utilities Commission and at the most by a Royal Commission.

1.       Escalating Debt load on the backs of BCHydro Power Authority rate payers.  The total BCHPA debt in 2003 was $30 Billion, while in 2013 BCHydro CEO Charles Reid admitted an accumulated debt obligation of $70 Billion. (See Newspaper for details)

2.       Escalating cost of construction of proposed Site C. Current cost estimate is $9 Billion.  We know that the WAC Bennett Dam doubled in cost in a 6 year time frame.  This means potentially another $16 Billion to $18 Billion added to the existing $70 Billion Debt.  Note that there has been no business plan in place to retire this accumulating rate payer burden.

3.        There were 7 purposes provided for the use for proposed Site C beginning in 2010 with export to California to energizing 450,000 homes in BC, ending with export to California (on the last day of the Hearing). This demonstrates no purpose for proposed Site C.

4.        Provincial Credit Rating is deteriorating and will likely be downgraded.  It is noted that the base debt of BC is $65 Billion compared to Alberta’s $16 Billion. Total Citizen Debt Commitment is estimated at $181 Billion. Compare our failed Provincial Resource Development Policies with Norway who is parallel in population, geography, and resources now has a wealth pool of $700+Billion, second only to Dubai!  The question is:  Why can we not do as good as or better than Norway?

5.       Much more affordable alternates:  The Shepherd co-generative gas plant on 60 acres in Calgary is equivalent to proposed Site C.  It has been constructed on budget for $1.3 Billion and has a guaranteed 5 year rate of .08/Kw hour. This is a fraction of the cost of proposed Site C. The current contract of $1.75 Billion would have built a co-gen plant using our stranded resource (natural gas) adjacent to the load. This only makes good business sense.

6.       Existing infrastructure: The Burrard Thermal Plant at Port Moody is paid for, has been upgraded and is capable of energizing 700,000 homes at the flick of a switch and it is next to the main load. The policy to dismantle a facility equal to Site C needs to be reversed.

7.       Safety Uncertainty –”The uncertainties in predicting both the extent and rate of the shoreline impacts lead to the proposal to adopt an observational approach for periodically reviewing and updating the reservoir impact lines after the reservoir has been filled.” Statement in the September 2009 Klohn Crippen Berger and SNC Lavelin report produced for BC Hydro.



This is supported by the report made by the Geological Survey Branch of British Columbia prepared for the Honorable Jack Weisgerber, Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in 1991.  (Quaternary Geology and Landforms of Eastern Peace River Region, British Columbia, by N.R. Catto 1991) Other cautionary examples such as the Mount Polley Disaster, Teton Dam Failure and the Vajont Dam Collapse demonstrate that clay sedimentary basins are the absolute worst places to construct dam reservoirs.

8.       Cost escalations caused by missed expenses: i.e. PST costs were missed by estimates, TOTAL costs rose from $ 7.9 Billion to $9 Billion in one month.  Are there others?? How about the mounting disparity of Canadian Dollars versus American Dollars?

9.       Most importantly, BCHPA DOES NOT have a social licence to interact with the Peace Region.

This glaring corporate deficiency continues after 57 years of impact on the Valley growth and two major hydro-electric dams.  For example the District of Hudson’s Hope has a decreasing population.  [1400 in 1978, 970 in 2014] The community revenues should be $25 Million for industrial taxes, instead an arbitrary $1.2 M goes to the community coffers.

This list goes on: the loss of First Nations (FN) historical sites, the Rocky Mountain Fort (1794) and Rocky Mountain Portage Fort (1806).

10.   Where is the $400 Million Peace Basin Trust Fund? There is an existing Columbia Basin Trust recognizing past impacts. Why not one for the Peace?

11.   Former BCHPA CEO Reid, at a Chamber of Commerce meeting in June 2013, stated that the $1/2 Billion ‘dividend’ BCHPA pays to the Provincial Budget is borrowed money!!!

As a business man this tells me that our public utility is Bankrupt!

12.   Demand for electricity has flat-lined at 53-56,000 Gwhr. since 2008. North America is awash in electrical energy. BCHPA forecasters have consistently got it wrong.


As a business Leader who understands that the bottom line is essential to running a successful business, how would you rate your public utility with the financial facts authored in this letter?

The retirement of the existing $70 Billion debt load is not addressed.  The huge debt burden will be on the backs of all British Columbians forever.

DEBT IS NOT O.K. Expect exponential rises in consumer electrical rates!

The litany of poor economic performance and failed energy policies can lead one to speculate there must be a hidden agenda for forcing proposed C on the backs of British Columbians!!!

Could it be a future sale of our Public Utility’s assets to General Electric, as was proposed in 2005 but was rejected due to immediate public back-lash?

Site C would become BC’s economic and environmental disaster of this Century.

To quote Harry Swain, Chairman of the Joint Review Panel: the Province’s failure to investigate alternatives to the dam was a dereliction of duty.”

We as householders and ratepayers DEMAND a sober review by the BC Utilities Commission of the unnecessary proposed Site C Dam.



Arthur A Hadland, P.Ag, AACI(retired)

Citizen of the Peace,

Past Peace River Regional District Area C Director

Agrologist of the Year 2001

Food producer and Land Use Consultant


cc Auditor General, Moody’s

And you might want to read a bit of background on another one of the Site C consortium members, courtesy of Integrity BC: 

BC Hydro selected Korean-based Samsung C&T, Madrid-based Acciona Infrastructure and Calgary-based Petrowest for the $1.75 billion Site C main civil works contract.

Samsung C&T was banned last year by Korea’s Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) from participating in any government tenders in Korea as a result of alleged bid-rigging.

Read the rest in the embedded link above that gem…. Can you imagine the questions the BC Utilities Commission might have been asking about contract prices ??!  Tsk Tsk.


48 thoughts on “An open letter to Carole Taylor on BC Hydro and Site C

  1. P. 17 of BC Hydro’s 2015 Annual Report says:

    “Support the Province’s economic development priorities with implementation of such projects as: the Northwest Transmission Line; transmission upgrades required to supply the initial 3,000 gigawatt hours of LNG load and to prepare to meet future LNG requirements; and, clean energy opportunities for First Nations.”

    This means Site C. But LNG doesn’t look likely to happen in BC.

    Click to access bc-hydro-annual-report-2015.pdf


  2. A critical question must be addressed. Ever since this government took away from BC Hydro the right to make new power (except Site C) that right has gone to private companies, Independent Power Producers, (IPPs) who undeniably have a sweetheart deal, They are paid double+ the msrket, have their power bought whether BC Hydro needs it or not, have cozy bidding practices and so on.
    This destroys WAC Bennett’s committment to public power, for ideological reasons only. Far from being financially beneficial to BCH it’s driven it to where if in the private sector, it would be bankrupt. Site C (and I fully agree with Laila’s appraisal) will certainly come in at $10 billion+ and add to BC Hydro’s already staggering $76 billion debt. This government has turned BC Hydro around all right -from a self sustaining Crown Corporation with cheap power to home and industry alike into an evonomic basket case which must constantly hike rafes in order to keep the money, our money, pouring into IPPs, all of whom contribute mightily to the Liberal Party.
    There is no gainsaying any of this Carole Taylor, what do you intend to do about it, trade your great reputation for the salary that comes with covering uo for this government?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. The facts speak loudly in this letter. Thank you Mr. Hadland. And thank you Laila for putting it up here. Site C is not required and will put rates up for consumers and business thereby making our few homegrown companies less competitive. Sounds like a great economic development strategy.


  4. Gosh Rafe, I sense your frustration. Your sixth to last and final lines need editing.
    What I was going to suggest was: Make the Independent Power Producers responsible for Site C. Let THEM decide if there’s a business case for it. In the meantime we can look after the ruin (sic) of the river projects for them.


    1. To John’s Aghast …. Thanx for noting the Freudian slip? “.., constantly hike ‘rafes'” should read ‘rates’ … ” Sorry!!!!

      John, how would IPPs judge if there’s a business case or not when they’re used to having Hydro, on Christy’s instructions, decide what the extra slush should be???? Hell, they don’t even have to decide how much product to produce since Christy and Hydro will take whatever they produce whenever they produce it, even during the run-off which is the only real time IPPs can produce and when BC Hydro has chock full reservoirs! IPPS have such a sweetheart deal they have no need to make decisions, Site C might require some actual thinking – then what would they do?!!



      1. “,,,an evonomic basket case…”?.
        If there is a law preventing Hydro from creating any more power, other than Site C, then why not a law that makes IPPs responsible for Site C? Nobody’s stated that these things have to make sense – but perhaps the economics would require the IPP’s to do some thinking, and then they would cancel the project?
        You’re the lawyer and former politician – I’m just a commenter, or is that commentator?


    1. @Niovi:

      Carole Taylor was BC’s Finance Minister for three years. She is also a very accomplished business woman with many credentials. Her qualifications exceed those of any current member of cabinet in my view. The only flaw I see in her resume is that she’s a BC Liberal.

      It’s easy to see why Christy Clark would tie her kite to Carole Taylor, but very hard to see why Ms. Taylor would risk her good reputation by saddling up for a ride with Christy.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I completely agree, Lew. One often surmises things tha aren’t so but Carole and the late Art Pholips were considered wealthy. If she is well off, why would she place her reputation in the hands of that lot. It may be that she is one of those “sacritice all to keep the NDP out” and looking at Horgan and his lot I can see where that comes from … though even then its hard to imagine Horgan being worse than Christy

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Re; I agree on the point of FAILING … John Horgan …

          ” … Not much better was John Horgan, now leader of the BC NDP, who called the high school students’ efforts a shallow publicity stunt, saying the target won’t be met and he wouldn’t sign the document because it isn’t possible. After we explained that we, as youth, do not want to inherit a fossil fuel-based economy, he responded saying the whole rest of the word is inheriting it too, and there’s nothing he could do about it. …”
          >>> The man who ran for the party leadership in 2011 as an advocate of climate action seems long gone. <<<


        2. Completely agree with Lew and Rafe about Ms. Taylor. I was (shocked is too dramatic a term) puzzled as to why she would make this move. After all it has been said she turned down invites to lead the liberals before Christybelle was tapped. I believe she was asked, would have been a good choice and would have done a better job for all of us. So, what happened?

          Rafe may have the answer; “sacrifice all” because I think the choice of Mr. Horgan, while being the only choice as NDP leader at the time, is not a good one. And that is what is so strange; I believe Mr. Horgan was elected NDP leader because of his tenacity, grasp of important issues, communication skills and willingness to take the fight to the liberals; right out of the gate. But no, it seems BC is becoming a one party province with a complacent opposition.

          When I read the really good bloggers, whom we here all know, see no tangible, positive change over the Liberal reign and observe an opposition which refuses to go to war, I seriously think of joining the majority to plop my head in a sand hole.


        3. It just occurred to me; did Mr. Horgan not decline the first bait of leadership? Did he not say he was tired and youth should be the new direction? Perhaps that sentiment and lethargy has been too difficult for him to shake.


      2. Carole Taylor, as Finance Minister under Gordon Campbell, eliminated the Corporate Bank Tax which brought in about a $100 million a year in government revenue. Carole was rewarded for her generosity to the corporate banking world with a board appointment with the TD bank and a very lucrative salary. Being a BC Liberal, and in fact a smart one, makes her flaw rather significant when it comes to the well-being of the province.


        1. No argument from me, Karen. The only thing more dangerous to the province than a smart BC Liberal is an uninformed BC voter. It takes a few of the former and many of the latter, but throw a co-opted press, sycophantic BC Liberal caucus, and a weak opposition into the equation and the province will be in the sick bay for a long time to come.


    2. I don’t recall Taylor being a weather person. Her qualifications with our finances? She married Art Philips.

      Along the way Taylor gained a great deal of experience and is no slouch. What I’m amazed at is she would waste her “capital” on a “ditze” like Christy. Of course, they may have asked Taylor to be a “financial advisor” to see if she is willing to take over the party. she isn’t as young as she used to be, but given the “sewage” which trails Christy, the B.C. Lieberals might need a new leader, who is a tad cleaner than Christy and her cabal. Taylor would fit the bill.


  5. excellent letter! full of financial facts, scientific data on the landscape, excessive and growing debt… but unfortunately Ms. Taylor is a professional politician and /I expect she will do as the liberals tell her. She is no hope or saviour but rather ANOTHER appointment to serve the liberal mantra. So sad but so expected.
    As far as an “independent” review by BCUC, it will never happen because there are NO independent bodies in govt. All the people on the “Boards/Commissions” want to keep their cushy jobs and will always do as told by the libs. You can include the ALR in this mess.
    Another solution???

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Now that LNG prices are expected to be well below the money-losing line for the foreseeable future, there is no rationale for Site-C that serves the public interest. Site-C must therefore serve another, ulterior interest. Considering all the conspicuous tactics BC Liberals’ have used to tilt the playing field in their favour (disallowing BC Utilities Commission assessment of Site-C’s feasibility in public-interest terms, presenting cost estimates using unacceptable accounting techniques, setting up bogus “job fairs” to inflate actual Site-C employment, peddling new electricity markets in Alberta that the Alberta Premier has in reality rejected, rushing to spend as much money as possible before all existing and potential legal challenges have been heard, and continuing to extoll LNG potential that doesn’t actually exist, et cetera), it appears their sole purpose for Site-C is to beat the NDP over the head with partisan sloganeering and smears—“the Forces of No” label, for example, having already been floated. In other words, Site-C is a giant, hugely expensive misappropriation of public money by the BC Liberals in an attempt to gain partisan advantage in the next election, that is, a $10 billion (minimum) campaign stage-prop paid for by taxpayers, BC Hydro customers and, ultimately, all BC citizens.

    What other purpose does Site-C have that also serves the public interest? There isn’t one and that makes Site-C one of the single most blatant, audacious, perfidious and galling misappropriations of public money in Canadian history.

    If the BC Liberals were sincere about Site-C’s potential, they would fight the election on weather or not we should have a dam, not on whether we should waste four or five billion public dollars by forcing the new government to suspend Site-C part-way—just so we don’t actually lose even more public money by having to sell power at money-losing rates—just to never quite finish paying for an expensive dam we don’t need. BC Liberal cronies, like IPPs, enjoy this massive flow of money: they get to parasitize it by selling BC Hydro (i.e., us citizens of BC) expensive, uncompetitive electricity they could never sell on the open market (the BC Liberals passed a law forcing BC Hydro to buy their friends’ exorbitant power while forbidding the BCUC’s the opportunity to assess IPPs in public interest terms).

    That potential four or five billion-dollar loss (the suspension of Site-C after May 2017)—or whatever the final amount of public money is they’ve misappropriated by election time—is the only the minimum loss, and only if the BC Liberals lose the next election; if they win, BC’s loss will be much more as they continue to add to the debt they’ve already tripled during their time in power—costing BC tens of billions more every year, year after year.

    What will it take for BC voters twig to the fact the BC Liberals are playing them for suckers big time? If BC voters allow this scam to continue will have become the biggest suckers of all time.

    There is only one reason to build Site-C and that’s to give the BC Liberals something to run on. And there’s only one reason they need to resort to such unethical behaviour as to spend $10 billion (minimum) public dollars for partisan advantage at election time: they can’t refer to their own record because it’s so chalk-full of even more unethical behaviour. Otherwise, Site-C is a complete and utter boondoggle, and a massive, massive breach of public trust.


    1. Well said Scotty! Erudite, factual, concise. As AGT would say (where is he, by the way?) “REQUIRED READING BY EVERY BC TAXPAYER”.


    2. I would agree the reasons you list are the reasons the B.C. Lieberals are going ahead with the Site C dam. It maybe also Christy wants it named after her. its part way there.

      This is also a great way to provide contracts to all the “friends” who will in turn “donate” to the election purse.

      Site C won’t be about electricity, its about water. the accumulation of this much water, will enable water companies to purchase the dam and export the water. First customer, state of California. Neslte, not so much, they all ready get most of their water free or close to it.

      Build the dam, accumulate the water, then sell the whole thing off. A water company could never hope to build a project like this, but a government could, then you sell the project to a company and everyone lives happily ever after. Water companies, which were public have been bought and sold all over the world. Did work for citizens, but those corporations did very well. We can all do without oil, gas, etc. But without water, give us a week tops.


  7. Interesting piece by Ben Parfitt, on the troubles at BC Hydro.

    Also interesting that The Province chose to print it. They may not choose to have their reporters dig too deeply into the BC Liberal-caused problems at Hydro — but it’s refreshing to see that they will print views that run against the current government. That shows a semblance of balance.


  8. A big part of the plan for Site C is to provide backup capacity for existing and planned IPPs, which provide intermittent power and need the backup from large reservoirs.

    So BC Hydro, already owing over $56 billion for IPP power, ‘needs’ to spend $9+ billion for Site C, so it can handle even more IPP power.


    1. its not about the power/electricity. Its about the accumulation of water and the export of water. Once the dam is up and running and the lake behind the dam is full, look for the B.C. Lieberals to sell it all to an international corporations for approx. the same amount as they built it for. Rationale:” we didn’t need the power and we are deeply in debt and we need the money. el gorod and Christy both have sold off B.C. land, this is nothing new, just different.


    1. Tried it for a bit, but to be honest,many readers expressed concerns over donations & where they may come from, so it came down shortly after.

      I know Norm does it to help cover costs- there certainly isn’t any profit to be had! – and I don’t think he has an issue but I am known for being just as hard on the NDP as the Libs so perhaps that’s the issue-Norm is perceived as more NDP friendly from what I hear from readers 🙂

      Readers also do not like to see ads ( talk to Sean Holman about that) so I’m left in a bind to be honest. Research takes time and money. Lots of calls,searches and time which I cut back on because it costs so much. It would be optimum to have an account set up with things like corporate registry etc,and a more secure system but again, limited by what I can put into this effort.And readers have asked for a better organized blog and archive to access past posts, which would require more than a free blog can provide and a tech/intern to go through and reorganize all that…there’s just no time to do that,write and well, have a life.

      As much as people enjoy indie media,there is still not a huge effort to support it, unless you are unofficially in support of one party or another. NDP supporters won’t even tweet my links if there is anything critical of the NDP within it – not likely to


      1. I don’t want to hijack this important topic.

        Norm is an analytical bean counter and a very good one. I have no doubt, if the NDP are ever again in government, Norm will have just as critical an eye, regardless of his personal bent. He is just that professional. In fact, I doubt he was even blogging when last the NDP was in power. Where my doubt lies is in the NDP ever again governing.

        With respect to donations, well, those who enjoy reading you for free, expecting you to do their digging and heavy lifting, respect that you make family and personal sacrifices and TRUST your integrity, they should trust you with the basket on a stick. Otherwise, they can just S…no, I won’t say it.

        So, I will find a way to get you a small “anonymous” stipend or “thank you.”
        And…maybe there is the answer. Accept donations with a very clear statement that if they are not completely anonymous, they will be returned or trashed.

        And we don’t need to worry about Mr. Mair, we know what his career path was…;)


        1. But what if you are really Rich Coleman in disguise…. ? 🙂 Just kidding. And let me clarify- In no way do I think Norm would hold any other government less to account either- his work is impeccable and without it so much would never be documented.The perception is conveyed by readers,not myself. We’ve talked about starting a collective or a society and I have to follow up on that now that this has prompted my memory! We need a larger and wider audience for these stories,across the province.

          Support for these efforts is always appreciated – thank you.


        2. Just so everyone knows what my shady career path that Hawgwash alludes to, I was, born, rsised and educated in Vancouver: 60 years ago I obtained an LL.B from UBC; after insurance interval, practiced law in Vancouver and Kamloops for 15 years in my own firm: spent a term on Kamloops City Council; twice, 1975 & 1979, elected MLA for Kamloops; as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs revamped consumer law with 22 bills including licensing car dealers with 5 angry ones in caucus; revamped liquor laws; with deputy Tex Enemark launched the “cottage wine industry” which grew into BC’s hugely successful wine industry; was BC Minister responsible for the Constitution for 4 years during the Patriation of the Constitution; as Environment Minister stopped the killing of wolves to the horror of ranchers who were mostly Social Credit, saved the Skagit River from being ruined by a US dam, brought in a moratorium on exploration and mining for uranium: as Health Minister brought in Home Care and Palliative Care; spent 25 years as #1 Talk Show Host being BC Broadcast Performer of the Year, received the Michener Award after also being short-listed twice, awarded the Bruce Hutchison Lifetime Achievement Award from the Jack Webster Foundation, installed in The Canadian Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame; honourary LL.D from SFU: received the Roderick Haig-Brown Trophy from the Tyee Club for service to sports fishing: received Wilderness Committee’s Eugene Rogers award for service to the Environment: have served for 25 years and still serve on The Board of Advisors of The Sea Shepherd Society: have written countless newspaper and magazine articles and had 13 books published, plus two manuscripts now with my publisher.

          Oh yes, managed to have 4 children, 8 grandchildren, one great granddaughter with a great grandson due imminently.

          Plus, made in to 84 without, yet, being in jail.

          By the bye, Mr. Hawgwash, what have you been up to?


        3. I like the yet in: ” made in to 84 without, yet, being in jail.” 😉

          Rafe, we love your perspectives,memories and knowledge that few in the province have the combination of -I’ve learned a lot from you over the years,even just by reading much you’ve written.We need an entirely new generation of Rafe’s to hold government and sometimes medias feet to the fire. There are some potentials out there, but not many with your brass…


        4. I should say that I’m inspired greatly by Rafe, not just his recent contributions but the work he did long ago, first as politician, then as broadcaster. He almost inspired me to take up fly fishing in earlier days but the hooks kept catching in my shirt.

          Rafe often used a statement about holding the feet of decision makers to the fire; I try to follow his direction, which means that it is usually feet of BC Liberals I’m trying to roast. Of course, that’s because they are the setting course and treating friends to rewards from the public purse.

          My preference is for a government that is transparent and accountable to the people instead of to special interests. (The Liberals’ 2001 platform promised many of the principles; they just took the opposite direction.) If government is fully transparent, public administration will likely be efficient since failures can be revealed by political opponents, journalists and others.

          In my view, best practices in public policy emerge after discussions among affected people and by thorough consideration of relevant theory, research and experience. An informed public is essential. Unfettered self-interests and knee-jerk politics benefit rather few and that belief explains why I want to see political change in BC now.

          Today,there is need for citizens to seek information from a variety of sources and citizen journalists can be helpful in separating fact from spin. It is onerous work for individuals to do comprehensive and accurate work. The large financial interests invest millions in putting out their messages and, for people trying to serve the broad public, it feels like an unequal contest at times.

          I greatly admire her for the sacrifices made over many years while serving our community. She’s been articulate and amiable. Yet, perhaps she is too polite and reticent to put a donate button on her website. However, if anyone wishes to give her support, use the donate facility on my site, mark it for Laila or send a message and I’ll pass it along to her intact.


        5. You are both far too kind.

          We will never have anything approaching a govt that represents people and not just interests until we break the yoke of ” responsible government”.
          Proportional Representation is a good start but education is the key. People don’t understand the system, don’t want to and don’t want their kids to.
          We just had a shitty decision on Woodfibre LNG and everyone is mad at our neutered MP.

          I am in the sense she should have known this would happen. But a prominent opponent of LNG, and a community leader wrote me lamenting that if we hadn’t got caught up in “strategic voting” we’d have a Green MP raising hell in the House about this decision!

          I told her that the Green leader is granted a very occasional question in Question Period and asked how in hell our MP would get the floor? She honestly believes that MPs just raise their hands and start talking! Any effort I have made to explain what really happens is simply not believed.

          When I tell people what life as a backbencher is really like, their eyes roll heavenward because that’s not what their teacher taught them. Not only is the public ignorant, they prefer it that way and want it that way for their kids.

          Is it any bloody wonder we have Christy and the Gumshoe running our province?


        6. You’re very kind Norm,Hawgwash and others.I appreciate that readers want to contribute and will figure out a way to do that in a manner that keeps everyone happy. The 100 reasons needs extensive updating moving into 2017 and must be made available in a format that can be downloaded in a file and print format for readers to share and post -this alone is going to take considerable time since the current government has continued to provide extensive reasons why they should go…..

          BTW, excellent comment Norm, on the value of indie media and citizen journalists.

          “n my view, best practices in public policy emerge after discussions among affected people and by thorough consideration of relevant theory, research and experience. An informed public is essential. Unfettered self-interests and knee-jerk politics benefit rather few and that belief explains why I want to see political change in BC now.

          Today,there is need for citizens to seek information from a variety of sources and citizen journalists can be helpful in separating fact from spin. It is onerous work for individuals to do comprehensive and accurate work. The large financial interests invest millions in putting out their messages and, for people trying to serve the broad public, it feels like an unequal contest at times.”

          There is not a day it doesn’t feel like an uphill battle and I too,firmly believe the balance of power in the legislature needs to change.


        7. Rafe Mair was once a Socred Cabinet minister. So redemption is possible for everyone and anyone. (sorry I couldn’t resist) Having said that, the current crop of B.C. Lieberals make you almost wish for the old crop of Socreds. People used to joke they were the government of car dealership owners. Now we understand they actually knew how to run a business, something el gord and Christy never figured out how to do.


        8. And what did Rafe do as a Socred Cabinet minister? Check my reply to Hawgwash then tell us all what you’ve done in those years. Then grow up and start looking at accomplishments, not labels. When you find deeds of mine to criticize, and there are plenty, do so and I will do my best to respond. Cheap, anonymous shots are so unbecoming!


  9. I’m for building a world-class political party, then determining what else is needed to get BC performing at a world-class level again.


  10. Being as simple minded as I am, I believe that Carol Taylor is there as a fallback just in case the Lieberals decide to cut their losses, and dump the Bobblehead.


    1. totally agree. I think there maybe something coming down the pipeline which will put some of the B.C. Lieberals in an “awkward” position. The string pullers, could then bring in Taylor and have her run. She was respected and she has a lot of support around.
      it maybe that some hard polling has shown the party may not be able to win and those who need the B.C. Lieberals to continue, have convinced Taylor it is her duty to keep the hordes out of office.


    1. Ken, you may not have respected her, but there are plenty of others who did. I wasn’t one of them, she was after all a part of the B.C. Lieberals. However, if Taylor ran as leader of the B.C. Lieberals, they would win. there are those who won’t vote B.C. Lieberal, but hate voting NDP, so if Taylor ran, they would give her the vote. Those who are starting to see Christy and her cabal for what they are, may not vote NDP, but they may just stay home and if the NDP can get it together to get their vote out, they’ll win.

      Now, to Rafe Mair@ Rafe Mair, my previous comments regarding being a Socred Cabinet minister was not intended as an insult or cheap shot. Being a Socred Cabinet minister is so much better than being a B.C. Lieberal cabinet minister. as I mentioned, Socred Cabinet ministers who were car dealership owners, did know how to do business; something todays B.C. Lieberals certainly don’t know how to do.


      1. e.a.f.
        I agree, Carol Taylor would beat the NDP, hands down. She is very marketable.
        I disagree with your assessment of the business acumen of current lot.
        They absolutely know how to do business
        It just isn’t the kind of business, right thinking honest folks espouse to.
        They are as business savvy as any big time crime syndicate.


        1. Hawgwash, true, true, true. I was speaking in the sense of how governments are supposed to do business, like taking care of some of the basic needs of the citizens of a province. The B.C. Lieberals do remind me of organized crime. Although some organized crime groups do spend money on needy kids for publicity purposes and Christy and her cabal hasn’t figured it out yet that looking after the needs of kids, is always a good publicity thing.

          Now as I wander off topic, and L.Y. can nuke this, as off topic;

          Now that the federal budget has provided funding for families with children, will those in B.C. be able to keep that money or will Christy and her cabal claw back that money nickel for nickel if they are in receipt of welfare or disability? I honestly don’t know the answer to that.

          If Christy claws the money back then Moreau just gave Christy and her cabal a big wack of cash each month.


Comments are closed.