Conservative MP (Nanaimo-Alberni) James Lunney Has Not Earned My Support!

I have been meaning to write this entry for quite some time but you get busy and time has a way of slipping away but, since we are facing a Federal election in less than a week, I think it important that I share my impressions of my MP, James Lunney, 'New' Conservative (Nanaimo-Alberni). I don't ask all that much of those that we elect to represent us, whether it be in Victoria or Ottawa but I do expect them to listen to my concerns and then do their best to help me, whether or not we share the same political ideology. Conservative James Lunney is my Member of Parliament (Nanaimo-Alberni) and I often receive pamphlets from him asking for my opinion/input on issues that HE feels are important but the questions always seem to be phrased to elicit the answer he is looking for, i.e., the questions are 'loaded'. He invariably asks me who I think would make the best leader/Prime Minister when, given how low the art of politics has sunk, my truthful answer would be 'None of the Above'. So, he sends me partisan materials on a regular basis, some of which are even past their 'action date'. Although I have sometimes offered my comments and included my name, address and telephone number, so far, the communication has all been pretty much one way, i.e., he has never replied to or acknowledged the comments I have taken the time to share with him.
I have been trying for over two years to obtain straight answers to the question of why my community of Lantzville received two infrastructure grants for a sewer collection system totalling $5.6 million from the provincial and federal governments when the programs were heavily over-subscribed and Lantzville didn't meet the eligibility requirements or submit the required documentation with their application. To that end, I have submitted Freedom of Information (Provincial) and Access to Information (Federal) requests in an effort to obtain the documents that should show exactly what happened in this instance. While the federal government was quicker than the provincial in providing access to some documents, they were very reluctant to answer my direct questions about the process they used to select the 'winners' and by extension, the 'losers'. As a result, I found it necessary to attend the Nanaimo offices of my Conservative MP, Mr. James Lunney, and request their assistance in obtaining a reply from Western Economic Diversification Canada (WEDC), the agency responsible for shepherding the Federal part of the CBC-MRIF applications through the vetting process. While I was told that Mr. Lunney supported Lantzville's application, I was also told that his Executive Assistant (Dave McEachern) understood my concerns about accountability and would do what he could to help. Within two weeks, I received a reply (although unfortunately not answers) from WEDC. As the process evolved, questions remained unanswered and new questions emerged yet WEDC sent me a very brief letter stating that 'the deal was done' and thanking me for my interest in their program. So, I again found occasion (mid-July 2009) to request Mr. Lunney's office to help me obtain a 'real' response from WEDC. His new Executive Assistant, Curtis Hansen, basically told me that it would not be a high priority with them and, since they were just gearing up to 'throw even more taxpayer's money off the back of a truck (my paraphrasing of his response - Economic Action Plan)', it would take them awhile to get to it - to date, I have still not received any manner of results from them. I told him at the time that, if they didn't take the time to learn what could be improved with the previous program (millions), they were bound to repeat the same mistakes with the newer, and even more expensive (billions), one ('the canary in the coal mine' analogy).
So, fast-forward to today and Mr. James Lunney would now like me to help re-elect him as my Conservative MP. Well, in addition to what I have just written above, I have a number of other issues that would prevent me from doing so and I will share them with you, my readers, in the form of a letter I was planning to send him even before Parliament was dissolved due to an Opposition vote of 'no confidence' in the Stephen Harper government on a matter of two counts of contempt of Parliament:

Dear Mr. Lunney,
Thank you for you most recent mailer. In the beginning, I used to read them faithfully but must admit that I haven't been keeping up. They all seem to have the same tone and are phrased in such a way as to try and obtain the answer(s) you are looking for. I have, in the past, offered my comments to you on some of the issues contained in them but I have yet to receive any kind of response from you. I have also taken the time to gather materials and information on issues important to myself and other Canadians and, once again, I have not received so much as a 'thank you' from you for my efforts. Regrettably, I have come to the conclusion that you don't really care what my concerns are or what I think about the important issues that MP's like yourself are asked to decide on our behalf. So, just so you aren't surprised that I don't vote for you in the upcoming election, I am taking this time to commit my reasons to paper:
1. Mr. Lunney's cavalier approach to spending of our money (almost $565,000 annually) for travel and office expenses - it is not good enough to just say that the rules allow you to do what you have done, especially during a global recession. When Canadians were losing their jobs and their homes, you should have left your wife at home and worked long hours in Ottawa to help 'right the ship'
2. Mr. Lunney supported Stephen Harper's government's proroguing of Parliament, effectively silencing the people's voice for the sole convenience of his government on the issue of the Afghan detainee documents
3. Mr. Lunney's Conservative party, despite saying that they are for an elected senate and against patronage, have appointed 20 new Senators since 2005
4. Mr. Lunney blindly supports the state of Israel, even when it is clear that they have broken international law and been sanctioned by the U.N.. The situation in the Middle East is far more 'grey' than he would have us believe and the state of Israel won't gain any points from me by acting much like the regime that persecuted their peoples during the Second World War!
5. Mr. Lunney, as part of the Stephen Harper government, supported the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics, which were 'sold' to the Canadian people based on wildly optimistic cost numbers., e.g., $175 milion for security, which ended up costing over $900 million. Governments have a long history of this type of deception in order to build edifices to themselves at public expense.
6. Mr. Lunney voted to support the implementation of the HST in BC, one of the biggest tax shifts from businesses to consumers in history ($521/yr. for the 'average' consumer). We are still waiting for the predicted savings by businesses to trickle down to us.
7. Mr. Lunney appears to support his government's contempt of Parliament on both the Bev Oda misleading/lying to Parliament and the government's refusal to hand over documents related to the costs of building more prisons/implementing their 'tough on crime' agenda. I happen to support some increase in our prison capacity since I don't believe it has kept pace with our criminal population growth but you will not 'win me over' with such anti-democratic methods
8. this is not the first time that the Conservatives have refused to hand over documents to the people's representatives in Parliament - the Afghan detainee documents have still not been given to Parliament, several years after they were requested
9. Mr. Lunney supported his government in killing the environmental bill of rights which would have at least started to acknowledge the impacts of global warming, a serious challenge which must be addressed along with economic growth, not sacrificed to it
10. Mr. Lunney supported the Stephen Harper government in extending the term of duty of our soldiers in Afghanistan, after they said that July 2011 would be the end of the mission. Resorting to 'weasel words' is not the way to build public support for a decision. Personally, I don't believe we have any business being in the corrupt, deadly quagmire that is Afghanistan.
11. Mr. Lunney supported his government in extending the deadline for implementing firearms marking regulations for a third time since 2006
12. Mr. Lunney supported his government spending $1,000,000,000 on security alone for the G8/G20 photo op in Ontario last summer - which, according to your last mailer, is also how much the Conservatives say they are committing over the next five years to develop green energy technologies. There cannot possibly be that kind of value realized from a bunch of 'heads of state' getting together for a few meetings and 'photo ops'.
13. Mr. Lunney supports his government in awarding a contract for new jet fighters without tendering the contract. Again, a government that prides itself on its fiscal responsibility would have us believe that the spending of $35 billion (purchase price) - $50 billion (life-cycle cost) without 'seeing what the market has t offer' is a fiscally prudent decision - it all looks like 'smoke and mirrors' to me!
14. Mr Lunney supported his government in their decision to make the long-form census voluntary, causing Canada's Chief Statistician to resign on a matter of principle. Prime Minister Stephen Harper goes on and on about how he is the one with the Economics degree who keeps close watch over our finances and yet he has eliminated one of the best ways that we can ensure that our scarce tax dollars are spent in the most effective manner and places
15. Mr. Lunney supported his government in their (11th hour) implementation/reversal of the cigarette package labelling fiasco
16. Mr. Lunney supported his government in their use of infrastructure grants as part of their Economic Stimulus Plan without ensuring that the requisite 'checks and balances' are in place. When I tried to bring this potentially serious problem to your attention, you chose to ignore me.
17. the Conservative government's decision to over-rule the Competition Bureau's ruling on foreign-ownership/control in the GlobalLive cellular telephone file, breaking the law in the process does not foster the kind of confidence that businesses need to flourish. The courts have since ruled that your Conservative government was wrong.
18. Mr. Lunney is part of the Stephen Harper government's repeated anti-democratic actions such as hiding from the media, muzzling Cabinet Ministers, pre-screening and possibly barring attendees at political events, severely restricting the number of questions which can be asked at media events and proroguing Parliament twice during the last five years when things got 'a little too hot in the kitchen' are just a few of the anti-democratic indicators which come to mind. Good government's tackle issues openly and straight on and never forget that they represent the people who elected them and they are duty-bound to involve them and listen to them.

Sincerely,
Hans J. Larsen
Lantzville, B. C.

In closing, I have recently received a campaign brochure from Mr. Lunney in which he highlights all of the places that his government has spent taxpayers' money resulting in many photo ops for them. I also strongly lament the tone that recent election campaigns have taken with attack ad after attack ad - I can tell you right now, you will NEVER get my vote using those tactics! Tell me what you are proposing to do and then do your darndest to actually do it!
You can read what I think about the efficiency, wisdom and pitfalls of using taxpayer's money to 'buy' votes at http://vigilantz.blogspot.com/2008/11/politics-of-infrastructure-grants.html. Although he has been my MP for over 10 years, I have never actually met him (he seems to make himself scarce) and I only know what he looks like from his 'photo ops' where he is invariably handing over our money to someone and from his website. It is past time to elect someone who will listen to their constituents and bring their concerns to the government in Ottawa (and, for that matter, Victoria too).

Olympic Boosterism/Euphoria Is Alive And Well in Nanaimo!

I submitted the following 'Letter to the Editor' to the Nanaimo Daily News, with a note explaining that I had been holding onto it for awhile since I knew that they were unlikely to run it because it exceeded their guideline of 300 words or less (even after 3 edits). I then noted that they had recently published an LTE of approx. 700 words, so I was hopeful that this demonstrated some flexibility in their rules and that my submission would be published.

Dear Editor,
It appears that local Liberal supporter and tourism operator, Scott Littlejohn, has fully bought into this paper's self-serving drivel (B.C. residents should embrace the Olympics, Feb. 12/09) and has now taken upon himself to 'spread the word' to the masses (B.C. should make the most of 2010 Olympics, Feb. 19/09), the gist of which seems to be - we hope to be making lots of money so the anticipated end justifies the means.
I, like the vast majority of British Columbians, will never ski the 'Super-G' at Whistler Creekside, fly off the Whistler Olympic Park ski jump, experience the thrill of the track at the Sliding Centre, rent out a room, sell a meal or guide a tour - no, all I will ever get to do is help pay for it all - for how long, who knows?! Unlike the athletes, many of whom are already professionals earning millions of dollars, with even the amateurs being provided the opportunity to earn lucrative contracts as a result of the Games - all at no cost to themselves!
Only a few weeks ago, five and a half years after winning the Games, did the organizers finally come clean with the projected costs of these Olympics, announcing that the security costs, which they had been carrying on the books at $175 million for all that time (in spite of overwhelming evidence that it would be significantly higher), are now most likely to be in the order of $900,000,000, more than a five-fold increase!!
It's a little like making the big decision to have a house built and being told by the eager contractor that the cost of the roof will be $12,000 (though not guaranteed), only to arrive at the paint, flooring and fixtures stage and then being told that it is now $62,000, leaving you to not only wonder where you're going to find that extra money but if you should have built in the first place - of course, its too late for that!
So, the Daily News now tells us that the Olympic games are almost here and we should just enjoy them. That's pretty hard to do when you feel like you've been played for a sucker using that time-honoured tradition of significantly understating costs in order to get a publicly-funded project approved (Vancouver Convention Centre, Fast Ferries, etc.). Once again, we've been "sold a bill of goods" by those paid to look after EVERYONE'S interests. Will we never learn, why do we continue to let our governments treat us this way?!
What kind of sense does it make to hold any event where the security costs alone are in the order of $900 million?! Just think of all the health care, education resources or homeless shelter that could buy. If we're going to be spending public money, how about doing it on something that will actually have a chance of benefiting the majority of us?!

Security Costs Approaching $3/4 Billion; Are Olympics Still Relevant?

When the Vancouver/Whistler 2010 Olympics were first being introduced back in 2004, almost nobody in the mainstream media (TV, print or radio) wanted to talk about security costs, including the two Campbell's - Premier Gordon Campbell and then Vancouver Mayor, Larry Campbell, which at that time were 'estimated' at a 'bargain' amount of $175 million. I even had CKNW talk-show host, Jon McComb, cut me off as I was trying to make the point that this amount flew directly in the face of all recently-held Olympics [Salt Lake City (winter 2002) - $310 million, Athens (summer 2004) - $ 1.5 billion [incl. $312 million for communications 'backbone'], Turino (winter 2006) - $ 1.4 billion, London (summer 2012) - est. $1.7 billion; 3 x bigger Summer games cost more than Winter] and that the taxpayers were the ones who would be paying.
Well, Stockwell Day, Federal Minister of Public Safety recently offered his own 'estimate' for security costs - $400 million to 1 billion (a 228 - 571% increase) and I would still question whether that is even going to be enough. VANOC, which has been missing deadlines for budgets almost since Day 1, now says that their entire, updated and approved budget, including security costs, should be released to the public soon after their next meeting on January 29, 2009 (just over a year before the Games are due to begin). Hang onto your hats for that one, folks!
We really need to ask ourselves (actually we should have done this years ago!) if, in today's dangerous world whether or not holding a 17-day event (plus the much lower profile 10-day Paralympic Games), where the security cost alone could well approach three-quarters of a billion dollars, makes any sense at all. It is expected that the Olympics will be good for a relatively small segment of the population (such as construction, hotels, restaurants and the athletes) but what does it really do for the rest of us, who will have to foot the bill if they blow the budget?
[UPDATE 09 02 19]
Five and a half years after winning the 2010 Olympic games for Vancouver/Whistler, the organizers finally come clean with the projected costs of these Olympics, announcing, on the same day that Obama-mania hit Canada, that the security costs, which they had been carrying on the books at $175 million for all that time (in spite of overwhelming evidence that it almost certainly would be significantly higher - see above), are now most likely to be in the order of $900 million, a five-fold ($725 million) increase!!
It's a little like making the big decision to have a house built and being told by the contractor that the costs of the roof will be $12,000 (but subject to revision), only to arrive at the paint, flooring and fixtures stage and then being told that they are now $62,000, a figure that, had you known at the beginning, you may not have taken that decision. So, the benefactors of the Games now tells us that the Olympic games are here and we should just enjoy them. That's pretty hard to do when you feel like you've been played for a sucker using that time-honoured tradition of understating costs in order to get a publicly-funded project approved. Will we never learn, why do we just keep "bending over"?! Once again, we've been "sold a bill of goods" by those paid to look after EVERYONE'S interests!
I, like the vast majority of British Columbians, will likely never ski the 'Super-G' at Whistler Creekside, fly off the Whistler Olympic park ski jump, experience the thrill of the ice track at the Sliding Centre, rent out a room, sell a meal or guide a tour - no, all I will ever get to do is help pay for it all - for how long, who knows?! Unlike the athletes, many of whom are already professionals earning millions of dollars with even the amateurs being provided the opportunity to earn lucrative contracts as a result of the Games - all at no cost to themselves!If we're going to be spending public money, how about doing it on something that will actually have a chance of benefiting the majority of us?!