Changes Would Give Lower Mainland the Power Though Rural BC Provides The Money

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 04:14 AM

Electoral Boundaries Commission meets in Prince George September 5th, and can expect to hear from plenty of interested parties.

The Electoral Boundaries Commission can expect to get a lesson in financial reality when it meets in Prince George next month.

The Commission’s preliminary report calls for changes in the number of seats in the legislature. The reconfiguration would give the "604" control in the legislature.

In 2002, David Baxter and Andrew Ramlo, then both of the Urban Futures Institute, produced a report which showed there would be definite financial disparity if the province of B.C. were to be divided into urban and non urban sections.

The report developed one metropolitan area of Greater Vancouver and Victoria, the other would be comprised of the non-metropolitan area.

According to the Urban Futures Institute, if the metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions were, “provinces’, the non- metropolitan province would have $14,920 in international export income per capita and the, "city state”, would have only $4,278.

The report went on to say the trading relationships between these two regions would acknowledge the reality that the non-metropolitan regions would start out having three times as much per capita to spend than the ,"city states".

The authors say it is important for the two regions to work together "While metropolitan regions should work diligently to build strong metropolitan exports, until they do, it is in their best interests to ensure that the non metropolitan regions can attract and retain the people and investments that these resources need to produce the income that is shared."

Bluntly put, the report says 71% of the wealth produced in the province of British Columbia comes from the non metropolitan areas of the province.

The report goes on to reinforce the idea that the so called rural reaches of the province should receive representation based on the basic fact that they are major contributors to the province’s economy.

That information, according to leading business figures outside of the 604, somehow is being lost by the Electoral Boundaries Commission in its recommendation that the number of seats in the , "Rural Parts" of this province be reduced based solely on a population basis without factoring or considering any other areas at all.

Opinion 250 Editor, Ben Meisner says he will appear before the Electoral Boundaries Commission when it holds a session in Prince George on September 5^th.

Meisner says he will try and drive home the point that population alone cannot be the criteria for determining what area will receive representation in the provincial legislature.

Meisner says adequate participation in the decision making process is critical for B.C. "Without the rural part of this province, the so called 604 would be in financial straits within a year and we who produce the wealth of this province must continue to receive a fair representation in the legislature."

The Commission had proposed to reduce the number of seats in the Cariboo-Thompson region from five to four, one less electoral district in the Columbia –Kootenay region from four to three, one less electoral district in the north from eight to seven, but adding four new districts in the lower mainland and one new electoral district in the Okanagan to bring them to seven from six.

In Prince George the representation in the legislature would go from three to two.

The City of Prince George has already served notice it will be holding a rally in the Civic Centre Square on the day of the Commission’s hearing in Prince George. (see previous story) The City of Quesnel has also indicated it will be attending the session to lodge its opposition to the proposed changes.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 04:14 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: bohemian on August 22 2007 6:11 AM

Unfortunately, I never did like this report.

"$14,920 in international export income per capita and the, "city state�, would have only $4,278"

Sounds good until you realize "international export income" is only part of the entire equation. The domestic economy is also an important factor, as is the multiplier effect of that income. The "city state" has a much, much larger "domestic economy" than we do simply because they have a much, much larger population. This was IGNORED in the Urban Futures report.

The report's arguement that only measuring the "first dollar" (the first dollar of course being a narrowly defined export dollar) is bogus because in the end it is ALL the dollars that count. It is bogus in the same way that concluding a "housewife" doesn't contribute anything economically to the family.

And dont' forget the impact of the big cash crop, pot, on our economy; the report doesn't count illeagal contributions to the economy.

I think everyone should go back and read the origninal report, understand what was measured and how (and what was not), and not listent to the simple phrases of the local politicians (and well-intentioned, but wrong, commentators) that say "all the money is created in the north."

It is certainly not, and the narrow focus, and suspect definitions, of the Urban Futures report does a disservice to us all.

I really wish we wouldn't quote it anymore. It's not being payed attention to anyway (and rightly so.)

Posted by: Chadermando on August 22 2007 9:03 AM

You are right in that we have two different economies from rural to urban BC.

The idea of measuring export dollars is more important at a federal level than a provincial level. The trade balance is the source of foreign reserves used to support the value of the Canadian dollar. We can have all the internal trade we want and it is worthless on the foreign markets if our dollar has no trade value. It is this value of the Canadian dollar that allows us to import everything from food, to fast cars, electronics, and building materials. Vancouver is built by imports with a nearly non-existent local manufacturing base and thus the reliance on the value of the Canadian dollar for its imports, and thereby the importance of the rural exports to the economy.

The internal trade in Vancouver is large and is the largest tax contributor to the provincial government by far. That trade is enabled by the imports that are enabled by the Canadian dollar, which is enabled by the trade value of our rural based exports. The actual royalty revenue from resources is actually a small fraction of government total direct revenue, but the impact of real dollar creation has a huge impact on the relative value of the Canadian dollar.

What could Vancouver do to pull its own weight? It could, and likely will, expand its service trade outside of the Lower Mainland as a source of export dollars based on services and not actual products. Until Vancouver can close that gap they enjoy a quality of life along with the rest of us based on the value of our dollar that is supported by our rural based exports.

The problem is when they loss sight of this in Vancouver feeling they are the center of the universe. Then the allocation of resource revenues is diverted away from enabling the resource based economy for things like the Olympics, and is possible in the short term with little visible effects, but has huge long term effects that directly impact the rural based economy and eventually indirectly effect the Vancouver based economy. E.g. the response to the Pine Beetle epidemic or the Sale of BC Rail and BC Hydro Transmission, or the Cariboo Connector ect.

The problem is by the time Vancouver sees any of the effects the guilty politicians that bought their votes with our rural based slim pickens in royalty revenues, have long since retired to collect their gold plated pensions. With no check and balance against the rob-peter-to-pay-paul principle, we are left with no democratic accountability.

Posted by: Chadermando on August 22 2007 9:21 AM

I don't believe MLA seat should be allocated based on wealth. I do however agree that a mix of incorporated communities and distance between communities should be part of the function that equates the size of an MLA's constituency. This should be the basis of fair representative democracy.

There is no way a constituency covering over a 100,000 square kilometres with dozens of incorporated communities is represented on par by a single MLA; as that of a constituency of as little as 16 square kilometres covering a single neighbourhood of a single incorporated community. Fairness in this situation should be considered regardless of their economic contributions to government.

Maybe we need an interim solution that calls for every mile of highway between incorporated communities as well as every square kilometre count as a person when looking at numbers for dividing up the seats in the legislature. On this basis Northern BC would see an additional 5 or 6 MLA�s.

Posted by: bohemian on August 22 2007 9:23 AM

@Chadermando

Thanks for your insight.

"non-existent local manufacturing base" - but what about their service base? For example, lots and lots of software engineers work in the lower mainland that create code for Microsoft and Electronic Arts and many others. That code is then incorporated in a US export product, not a "lower mainland" export. But the wages, and taxes were paid in the lower mainland. From my reading of the report this wasn't being properly taken into account.

Posted by: bohemian on August 22 2007 9:26 AM

btw - I agree with this initiative:

"Meisner says he will try and drive home the point that population alone cannot be the criteria for determining what area will receive representation in the provincial legislature."

I just don't think the Urban Futures report is very good to use as "proof."

Posted by: owl on August 22 2007 10:03 AM

It states: �the non- metropolitan province would have $14,920 in international export income per capita and the, "city state�, would have only $4,278.�

And then states: �Bluntly put, the report says 71% of the wealth produced in the province of British Columbia comes from the non metropolitan areas of the province�
And therein lies the fallacy of the argument as Bohemian and Chadermando have pointed out.

I have never read the report. I always wondered where the conclusions of the report came from. If those two statements are indicative of the reports thesis, then it is obvious it is a fallacious report.
Let me just introduce one word � tourism.
A $9.5 billion industry in 2004. Most of that goes through Vancouver, with some dispersed through the hinterland. Not all of it is external, some is internal. Much of it is, however, money coming into the country. Services and goods are being bought with outside dollars, but this sector is never seen in the �export� accounts.

The key to internal well being is not only in how much one can export, but which region provides the services which are required to bring the products to export. Resource extraction and primary manufacturing of that export is only one aspect of the �cost� associated with that.
So, we are looking at the income side of the balance sheet. We are seeing gross income, not net income when we look at the exports.

We need to look at the expense side of the balance sheet. What are the expenses associated with sending the product to market?

Want to export oil? Pipeline, port with harbour facilities, lawyers, financial agencies, advertising agencies, accountants, etc.

We buy most of the machinery and peripheral equipment from outside of BC. Pipes for pipelines, cranes fro port facilities, ships to carry the �stuff�, engines to pull the stuff along rails, the rails themselves, the sawmill parts, the computerized optimizers, the harvesters in the woods, even most of the logging trucks. If we don�t buy them from outside of BC, we buy them from the lower mainland.
So, what do we need to do? Create a province? And how will that help the balance sheet? The marketplace will not change just because one draws another line in the sand. You want to sell your wood, your gas? The process is still the same. Except now you have a bit of a better idea of how the region�s balance sheet will look. And you might be surprised to the negative.

Be careful what you wish for.
If anything, we ought to work on getting the government to begin to look a bit more seriously at the notion of decentralization. The old notion of the mid Canada corridor comes to mind. Thunder Bay � Winnipeg � Saskatoon � Edmonton - Prince George - Prince Rupert.
It is easy to see where that corridor goes when dealing with highway transportation. Coming in from Jasper, tons of trucking traffic till the cutoff at Tete Jaune � then it heads to Kamloops, and no trucking to speak of the rest of the way into Prince George. Creating a province in the north will not change that.

Having regional political parties may. One more voice in the legislature � I don�t think that is strong enough. It is just the principle of it I do not like. But having 6 or 7 or 8 people who speak with one voice, even though it is only 10% of the total, will go further than having those same people in the party in power.

Posted by: owl on August 22 2007 10:12 AM

Use PEI as part of the proof .... it has a guaranteed 4 seats in the federal parliament.

The notion of representation based on both area and population is not foreign. In fact, it is entrenched in practice not only in Canada, but also in other countries.

Remember, a 25% variance is allowed. In the case of the "ring" drawn around PG it is only something like a .2% variance I believe. The Hart, North Nechako, and other areas within the City Boundaries will be covered by the MLA who covers everything from Vanderhoof to Mackenzie to Valemount. So, will the Hart be as well represented as College Heigths in that case? I doubt it. Especially if the person comes from an outlying community and his/her interests are more attuned to the rural situation.

Posted by: owl on August 22 2007 10:44 AM

I think if one looks at what resources are the ones which have been giving major wealth to countries in recent history it is oil, natural gas, and people.

If you do not have those resources, from an economic point of view, you become a second class citizen.

Leather and beef built Argentina � but no longer.
Bauxite comes from Jamaica, but the incomes pales in comparison to its tourism industry which provides 60% of its GDP.

Look at virtually any area of the world which sends natural resources to the remainder of the world and the economic well being of that part of the world pales with the parts of the world that has the people who take the raw materials and produce the products for the end user and provide the myriad of services required to add those values to the raw materials.

Unless we find a way to draw tourists into this area, or an industry such as the film industry we need people as the resource to grow the north. People are the key to any industry. They are the consumers, and they are the creators of the products for the consumers. So, back to lifestyle. To draw people to a region, these days, one needs the lifestyle to cause them to move there and cause industry to move there because they know their employees will be happy there.

Follow that thought and think Vancouver, Island, Okanagan, mountains, ocean, palm trees, lake, warmth, summer, recreation opportunities ��

The drawing card is not working a harvester in the woods, or driving a logging truck �. Those are means to an end for the minority. The lifestyle depicted in magazines, ads, TV, movies, etc. etc. is not here for most people.

Just us odd ducks who know better or can�t hack the line-ups and the house prices.

Again, a line in the sand or one less or one more MLA is not going to make much change in that. There are other forces which work over a much longer period of time which will make changes whenever the time will come for them to happen.

In the meantime, we can prod a bit here or there. It makes us feel good.

;-)

Posted by: owl on August 22 2007 10:51 AM

I just noticed the headline:

"Changes Would Give Lower Mainland the Power ..... "

They already have it. Two more seats for the north, they would still have it ... even with four more they would still have it.

Move the capital of the province to the centre ..... they would still have it.

It is a fact of geographic location.

Posted by: Gofaster on August 22 2007 12:05 PM

Which one of our three yoyo's has lost their job?

Posted by: Bridge on August 22 2007 12:18 PM

I find it very amusing how naive people really are.
Why are we trying to skew our economic figures to try and keep our mindless politicians employed. The less politicians we have the better off we are. Oh yes they do a lot for us to keep our economy growing and who's money are they using.

The airport expansion is nothing other then a mindless project for who's benifit? Its good for the economy is all we hear. Who benifits by a robust economy? Yes we get a few more jobs to engage in our favourite pass time "consumerism". While your out working there are the Jimmy Pattisons who all they do is count shares and the money created by these shares.

We are talking about all the wealth produced in our region for whom? We have all this industry in our midst but who pays the taxes to keep government running. In our City industry contributes 17% to the tax base. And how much do they pay in corporate tax. It used to be about 8% but was dropped back to five to keep our struggling corporations alive. And the working guy that makes over $50.000.00 pays 29%

We are continually told "write to your politician phone your politician" and when you have did they bother to reply and if so did it make sence or answere tour question?

I have to leave you here as I know many of you are already bored by the facts and my eyes are full of tears and I can no longer able to see my keyboard.

Cheers

Posted by: owl on August 22 2007 12:38 PM

"Which one of our three yoyo's has lost their job?"

I think we will all have to wait to the next election to find out.

If the ridings stay as are proposed, then PG will have the 50,000 or so in its inner area being represented by one MLA. That could very well mean a more left leaning voter characteristic for that part of the north. So, it would at the least be a much tighter race as in most inner cities across Canada.

Posted by: bohemian on August 22 2007 12:52 PM

I think owl just outlined the perfect arguement as to why we need to develop the creative economy and invest in creative infrastrucutre.

Posted by: owl on August 22 2007 4:59 PM

Amen, bohemian ..... is wish more people on Council and the RDFFG would understand that. One fewer voice in Victoria for the North is not going to matter one iota as far as I am concerned.

We need to take ownership by being forward thinkers and making it happen. The people that can do that on the government side are those sitting in Coucnil at City Hall and on the Board of the Regional District and, very much so, the often forgotten people they hire for staff who should be coming up with the way to develop this region in an everchanging environment.

The most important loss in my mind to this community was when we lost the trailer building factory to Salmon Arm. We were never really told the facts on that one, in my opinion. Why did we lose it and what have we done to make sure the next one will not be lost? Those are the kind of manufacturing plants we need.

The FMC hydrogen peroxide plant came here. It did not have to. It was looking at larger centres. It produces products here which are not only used here, but shipped out as well. They could just as easily have built elsewhere and shipped here.

Why did they come here? What were the conditions in this city that swayed them to build here?

As bohemian says, we need creative thinkers in this community who can see the niches and can pull the players together to make something happen. I know we have some, but we simply do not have enough and we probably do not have enough in the right places.

Posted by: Palopu on August 22 2007 9:32 PM

I suspect FMC located here because they have easy access to the Pulp Mills in Mackenzie, Taylor, Hinton, Prince George, Quesnel, and Kitimat. All the mills use the Hydrogen Peroxide in their bleaching process to get white woodpulp. It makes sense to build your plant close to your market. Hydrogen Peroxide is a very dangerous commodity, and maybe that also had something to do with the location. I suspect that you couldnt build this plant in downtown Vancouver.

Insofar as the North contributing so much money to the BC Economy, this has little or nothing to do with our representation in Government. Firstly contrary to popular opinion we do not own the trees in this Province, the Government does, and they allow lumber companies to cut the trees for a fee. The money generated goes into Government revenues. It has little or nothing to do with the people who live in the Province.

Example. Canfor locates a mill in Vanderhoof, that employees 200 people, The Government gives them a TFL and they pay the Government millions in stumpage fees. The trees belong to the Government, the Mill belongs to Canfor, none of the process belongs to Prince George or the Citizens of Prince George anymore than it belongs to the people of Kamloops, or Kelowna. The argument as to who produces the most revenue is meaningless.

Stumpage fees are paid to the Government from all over North Central BC, The Kooteneys, Vancouver Island, Cariboo, and Okanagan. It has nothing to do with how we are represented in Government. If all the mills closed down, what would our argument be???

Posted by: owl on August 22 2007 10:33 PM

Actually the option was not Vancouver for FMC. It was Edmonton as far as I can remember.

I think there were at least 7 mills in Alberta at the time and I do not know how many in Saskatchewan. I know of the one in Meadow Lake, which would use the product. Edmonton would have been more central when you look at those mills.

I very much agree with the fact that the natural resources belong to the people of the province, not the people who happen to live close to the natural resources or those who move out to harvest and process the resources.

The government puts out license opportunities and the companies respond. They, along with the government fund the infrastructure from plants to transportation systems, and the people follow.

I was not born here. I did not grow up here. I came here because of the opportunity was there to help with planning and building the infrastructure required for the people who followed the primary jobs. Mine was work in the service industry. It still is, except much of it is provincial in nature now rather than simply local. I could be located anywhere in BC which is close to an airport with direct connection to Vancouver. I depend on modern technology and modern transportation systems.

We all got paid for our work, as much as the factory workers in Sweden got paid for building the Saab Optimizers, for instance, for the modern sawmills, and the Japanese got paid for building the Komatsu harvesters for the woodland operations. We all took out of the system in fair trade for what we put into the system. Those who were forced to or were able to provide those services locally invested in the local economy by buying houses, food, medical services, education services, recreation services, etc. That is the role of the local consumer. The role of the remote consumer is to buy the products we ship out of here.

There are 200,000 or so of us northerners who buy local services which supports the local infrastructure. There are close to 4 million in the rest of the province, with at least 3 million in the lower mainland and south island who buy local services there which supports their infrastructure. Whether it is earned money, or money from taxes which is used to build that infrastructure, the power is in those earned dollars and tax dollars.

If we do not have the creative thinking and �can do� attitude required to build something from those foundations which were given to us by happenstance, we will end up not much better than other single industry towns - as soon as the primary industry dies, the town basically dies and our children and grandchildren will end up back where we came from.

Mine are already back there. Hopefully others can stay and will stay and new ones will come in as many of us did. But we have to make the place attractive. These days, that starts with a job opportunity, but that is not where it stops anymore. More and more it is a combination of job and lifestyle.

Posted by: Chadermando on August 22 2007 11:56 PM

I think it starts with being represented. Owl says, "One fewer voice in Victoria for the North is not going to matter one iota as far as I am concerned."

Owl is wrong and fails the fools test. Sure one less MLA may mean nothing in a meaningless SMP (Single Member Plurality) system we currently have. But once the people of BC opt for democracy of the people (as opposed to party) through the BCSTV, then that extra seat will have a whole lot of meaning; especially in the larger BCSTV ridings that are covering dozens of communities over hundreds of thousands of square kilometres separated by mountain ranges and rivers where greater seat allocation means closer representation.

I believe land should be a factor because land needs protecting just as much as our rights and often large land masses with isolated communities each have their own unique issues that need to be part of the bargaining that is a government process.

The urban issues are easy and simple to lump into less MLA's when you have 8(Surrey) or 11(Vancouver) MLA's all arguing about the same urban issues in a city that is geographically half the size of PG much less multiple hundreds of thousands of kilometres in size.

Combining rural constituencies that already represent multiple cities and towns, small villages spread out over 400km of highway, and tens of thousands of square kilometres is not something that can be done without a major loss of representation for every citizen in both ridings.

Posted by: owl on August 23 2007 5:09 AM

Fails the fools test ..... hmmmm ..

and you actually believe that rural issues are more complex than urban issues .... you do have something to learn.

and you actually believe that a green party member who has been elected under the STV system to represent the greens in an area at least 4 times the size of a present northern riding can transport him or herself the even greater distances to accomplish the mission of keeping in personal touch and knowing the even more diverse issues of such a region. STV might work in an urban context of a Vancouver, but it is a completely different story in the north or in the Kootenays or any other predominately rural area.

One green MLA for an area the size of Britain .... good luck .... and he/she needs to support the programs of the other 4 or so green MLAs in the province to boot, most of which will be urban with urban points of view. So, much like the current MLAs, the lone northerner's votes will be seen to be dictated by the urban greens. No matter which way you divide the countryside and which system one institutes that is based primarily on representation by population with a 25% or so allowance for riding size, the same problem will pop up over and over again .... we's got the smallest population base by a huge variance.

Wanna change it? Use the regional district divisions in the province and give each district 3 MLAs, the same as the senate system in the USA. There are 28 regional districts in BC. That makes 84 MLAs with 3 for the RDFFG, essentially what we currently have. Depending on how you define the north, there are 6 or 7 northern regional districts. Thus there would be 18 to 21 northern MLAs. It is the other northern areas which will benefit from such a region based system since PG has a large enough population that it actually is right at the cutoff of it not being advantageous for us one way or another.

I think it is you who fails the fools test Chadermando ... do a bit more thinking before your next post.

;-)

Posted by: owl on August 23 2007 5:13 AM

BTW .... I am a bit concerned about that fool's test. If one passes it, is one a fool? Or is one a fool if one fails it?

;-)

Posted by: Palopu on August 23 2007 8:46 AM

Or is one a fool if one takes it.?

Posted by: owl on August 23 2007 12:03 PM

Good one .... :p)

Posted by: Chadermando on August 23 2007 5:55 PM

A fools test is someting I just made up for this situation to get Owl's attention. It would in this situation apply to someone with political ambitions (Owl)that advocates PG will do fine with less representation, when obviously more representation is needed, not less. So by failing the test you would hypothetically then be a fool for taking the position that you opted to take.

Your post about the regional district as a basis for seats though might negate partially your previous post, so therefore your now only boarderline foolish

Posted by: Chadermando on August 23 2007 5:56 PM

If we get talking about off shore accounts for politicians again, then we might have to re-evaluate your status....

Posted by: Chadermando on August 23 2007 5:57 PM

;-)

.

Posted by: owl on August 23 2007 11:43 PM

"when obviously more representation is needed, not less."

I would rather have quality than quantity. Give me a premier from here and I will forego the other two seats any day.

Give me two strong cabinet ministers from here and I will forego the third seat.

Three seats in a 79 seat house, without quality, is a 2.5 to 3.8 percent representation as backbenchers which, when it comes to influence is even less than that.

Give them each a seat in cabinet and the level of influence goes up considerably.

However many people a region is able to send to the house, one thing one has to remember. Whoever and however many the various regional interests send to Victoria, once they are there, the main purpose, especially for the cabinet, is to run the province in the best interest of the entire province and its citizens, no matter where they live.

If a region that can benefit the province as a whole is underdeveloped, then every single MLA, no matter where they are from, should support the development of that region for the benefit of all. By the same token, if a region is not pulling its weight and does not appear to be able to, then that region cannot be subsidized forever while draining the rest of the province.

That being said, a minimum standard of living for people in BC, wherever they live, needs to be maintained. It is that minimum standard that is often overlooked, not only in the North and other remote areas, but right down in the heart of lotusland. Unless Toronto has changed over the last decade or so, there is no single area of that city which even comes close to what goes on in the downtown core of East Hastings.

So, the North is neglected? I am sure in some ways it is. But so is Vancouver. One just has to open their eyes and take them off
� The mountains: http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=371006996&size=l
� the luxury boats in the marinas: http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=469094460&size=o
� the beaches: http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=172940901&size=l
� the penthouses: http://flickr.com/photos/flungingpictures/1168808566
� the beautiful people: http://flickr.com/photos/urbanmixer/78787760
� the maseratis: http://flickr.com/photos/flungingpictures/1168560698

and look at the street life:
� http://flickr.com/photos/jerrykobylt/309266268
� http://flickr.com/photos/86858480@N00/253820340
� http://flickr.com/photos/elmada/192693259
� http://flickr.com/photos/joshuatree/364883415

Give me George Street and a few drug busts in the VLA any day. Our problems, the same as the problems in Vancouver, are mainly the responsibility of the City and the Regional District. We have to take care of our own house. The province has to look out for the greater whole and the greater good.