Dana Larsen will answer your questions

31 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2011-03-24 16:02

Dana Larsen

Hello to the good folks of Babble,

I used to post here fairly often but it's been a long time since I have been by.

Since I am running for the Leadership of the BC NDP, I thought I'd drop in and see if there's any questions that people here want to ask me about my campaign and my goals in this Leadership bid.

My leadership campaign is based upon four pillars: Democracy, Sustainability, Social Justice and Smart on Crime.

I have a pretty comprehensive set of policies and ideas at my website here: http://www.VoteDana.ca/platform

I'll do my best to check in over the remainder of the campaign and answer any questions anyone might have for me.

Thanks!

Issues Pages:

Politics in Canada

Elections

Thu, 2011-03-24 17:19

Catchfire

Good luck, Dana!

Thu, 2011-03-24 17:21

Unionist

Ditto - and great to see you back in these parts!

Thu, 2011-03-24 17:23

Boom Boom

Good to see your voice here again.

Thu, 2011-03-24 17:36

Catchfire

Dana, as a Vancouver resident, I feel the biggest challenge facing my city is the lack of affordable housing. I don't see this pressing issue in your platform. Given the largesse of 2010 and the Olympic Village debacle, the fact that so many of the city do not even enjoy the fundamental right of knowing where they will sleep tonight is appalling. How would you solve this province-wide crisis?

Thu, 2011-03-24 18:24

Le T

I'm suprised that the "Sustainable BC" policy says nothing about rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Thu, 2011-03-24 18:58

politicalnick

Dana,

First let me say I am impressed to see a politician actually reaching out to the people and inviting question and comment.

I have read through your platform and am also impressed with your stance on many of the issues. I would like you to answer a few questions.

1- You state you would remove corporate and union donations. Would you be willing to also remove corporate and union lobbyists from the system?

2- You state you want to take back the crown corps. Would you also guarantee to operate these in a fiscally responsible manner tying wages and benefits to the equvilant work in the private sector and limiting the amount of retained earnings for each corporation each year? Where would you distribute the excess retained earnings if a cap was imposed?

3- History has proven that lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy have led us to depressions and recessions. The most economic growth in US history was when the top earners and corporations paid over 60% and up to 90% taxes. Would you entertain increasing taxes on these segments to these levels and lowering the tax rates on earnings below the median family income?

4- Would you be willing to tie minimum wage and welfare to the poverty level or living wage and adjust for infaltion on an annual basis?

5- One thing not in your platform is renumeration for elected officials and governmnet employees and their expeses. Would you be willing to tie these wages and salaries to the median family income and limit expenses to only what is absolutely neccessary?

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to the public. I hope you will take the time to answer these questions.

Thu, 2011-03-24 19:11

Jacob Two-Two

Dana, why you so muthahfuckin' fly?

Fri, 2011-03-25 11:31

Snert

Fri, 2011-03-25 18:18

#10

Searosia

Hi Dana,

I've read quite a few of your posts throughout your rablling history, and congrats on getting this far! I really don't have any questions for you (I'm not a BC resident), but I just came from a wildly successful campaign for Nenshi (Calgary municipal election) and I'd like to share with you what I've learned from that campaign.

In hindsight, will private mesage you on this.

Fri, 2011-03-25 20:18

#11

pcml

Sure

Who is your choice for leader.

Outside of you obviously

And what are the cannabis views of each of your competitors for leader

You obviously must know

Can you do this for us?

It very important to us

thank you

Fri, 2011-03-25 21:12

#12

angelabful

Dana, the Ontario provincial gov't is asking the feds to subsidize 2 new nuclear reactors. Harper hasn't ponied up; on the contrary he's trying to dump AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd) - the best thing he's ever done in my estimation. The liberal gov't historically has propped up AECL tens of billiions $$. The NDP and Greens have both said they wouldn't subsidize new nukes for ON. Do you think federal taxpayers should continue to prop up this dying industry?

Sat, 2011-03-26 00:01

#13

Ken Burch

Dana, if you WERE able to restore the Crown Corporations, would you change their management structure, and especially would you be willing to put them under some form of democratic worker management?

Tue, 2011-03-29 00:22

#14

pcml

Seems he is MIA

I am sure its on his list to answer some where around April 18th

Tue, 2011-03-29 00:49

#15

politicalnick

pcml wrote:

Seems he is MIA

I am sure its on his list to answer some where around April 18th

I have tried emailing his campaign directly ond still got no response, He is slated to be part of a leadership forum in my area this week so I will try to corner him there.

Tue, 2011-03-29 01:27

#16

Dana Larsen

Sorry for not answering sooner. As you can imagine, this is a busy time for me, and I wanted to take the time to give thoughtful answers to the questions.

I'm writing this from my blackberry so I apologize in advance for any typos that slip in.

In regards to homelessness and the need for social housing, I agree that this is a key issue. Although it's hard to get a firm number, some estimates put the cost of homelessness in BC at a billion dollars a year, in terms of increased costs for police, healthcare and social services. From this perspective, it makes sound financial sense to seriously invest in socialized housing. Getting the homeless off the streets is not only the morally right thing to do, it's also a fiscally sound decision.

In a broader sense, the issue of homelessness stems from other social issues and government policies. Lack of resources for the mentally ill, an over-reliance on police officers as front-line social workers, treating drug addiction as a crime instead of as a health issue, all of these also contribute to homelessness as well and need to be addressed as part of an overall solution.

That the Liberals prioritized putting a roof over BC Place instead of putting roofs over the families living on the street is disgusting.

Tue, 2011-03-29 01:52

#17

Dana Larsen

politicalnick, here's some answers to your questions.

1) I'm honestly not sure what you mean by removing corporate and union lobbyists from the system. Can you explain?

2) I want BC Hydro, BC Rail and BC Ferries to be owned and operated by the government for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. They shouldn't be making profit. BC Ferries and BC Rail should be providing services to the people of BC at cost, and BC Hydro should be directing any "profit" into either cheaper costs or better service in some way. They shouldn't be aimed at generating income that goes into general revenue.

3) My platform includes rolling back all the Liberal corporate tax cuts since they took office in my first term. I'd also add a new tax bracket for the top 0.6% of earners; income over $250,000 would get an additional 11% tax. I'd use this revenue to balance the budget and immediately invest $500 million into K-12 education.

4) I think the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, and I agree with Nicholas Simons call for $12 by 2012. I'd also support looking into a living wage or guaranteed minimum income as an alternate system to our current "welfare system".

5) I don't think most people run for public office because of the salary, which is good but not extraordinary. I'd have to go look it up to see what an MLA earns in BC. Is there specific expenses that you think are being abused? I think it might be more worthwhile to put something in place that stops an elected official from accepting a seat on a board of directors for a certain amount of time after they have held office.

Tue, 2011-03-29 02:05

#18

Dana Larsen

pcml, you asked "what are the cannabis views of each of your competitors for leader."

Even though in the other thread you are bashing and insulting me, I will still answer your question.

I can only tell you what the other candidates each say when the question has come up at debates. It has been raised twice, once in the context of marijuana laws in general, the second time was about medicinal marijuana access in BC.

I am paraphrasing from memory here, so don't take my quotation marks below as exact quotes.

The first time it came up was when we debated at the New West & District Labour Council.

Adrian Dix said "I support the federal party's position on decriminalization." and said nothing more.

Mike Farnworth said that he thought BC could have a referendum on the issue.

Nicholas Simons was sick and didn't attend that debate.

I gave an impassioned explanation of how BC could take jurisdiction of the medicinal marijuana program and how cannabis is one of BC's largest industries, employing 250,000 people, etc.

John Horgan went after me, and said "Well I can't speak to this issue more eloquently than Dana did," and then he told a story about how in the last election the question had come up at a high school debate, and after he gave what he thought was a nuanced answer he went home to have his son say to him: "Dad, I heard from my friends at the debate that if you get elected it's doobies for everyone!"

The second time the issue came up was at a debate when a woman who uses marijuana for medicinal purposes asked us about the issue of medical access to cannabis.

Adrian said something to the effect that he supported decriminalization of marijuana, but that it was a federal issue, and that we also needed more detox beds and drug treatment options.

Farnworth said again that there could be a referendum in BC.

Nicholas Simons said he thought there should be better access to medicinal marijuana for patients.

I explained how the province could take over jurisdiction of medicinal cannabis access, license and regulate dispensaries, put cannabis under pharmacare, and save everyone a lot of time, money and hassle while helping the health of at least 100,000 patients currently in BC.

John Horgan spoke right after me again, and told the same basic story as I described above.

If you want to find out what the other candidates think about marijuana law, or any other issue, ask them yourself! Go to one of their events, come to a debate or email their campaigns and see what kind of answer you get.

Tue, 2011-03-29 02:11

#19

Dana Larsen

angelabful, you asked "Do you think federal taxpayers should continue to prop up this dying industry?"

Well my answer is not, but that's a federal question, outside of my jurisdiction as Premier of BC.

I don't support nuclear power for BC, for many reasons. The fact that we're a prime earthquake zone is just one of them.

Ken Burch, you asked "Dana, if you WERE able to restore the Crown Corporations, would you change their management structure, and especially would you be willing to put them under some form of democratic worker management?"

That's an interesting question. While I generally support "bottom up" instead of "top down" when it comes to organizational structure, I'm not sure that democratic worker management is the right model for a Crown Corporation. I support a business being owned and operated by its workers, but a Crown Corporation isn't owned by the workers, it is owned by the people of the province through the government. So although I would always support front-line workers being involved in decision making, I don't think "democratic worker management" is the right way to go for a Crown Corp.

Tue, 2011-03-29 02:32

#20

Dana Larsen

Le T, you said "I'm suprised that the "Sustainable BC" policy says nothing about rights of Indigenous Peoples."

Land claims and title are of course very important ongoing issues which are fundamental to the future of our province.

I'm thrilled that the Maa-nulth First Nations have recently signed off on their land-claims treaty. But the process is obviously way, way too slow. We should have resolved most of this years ago, and the cost of dragging it out for many more years is greater than the cost of settling land claims quickly and fairly.

Generally speaking, I support the right of local communities to have greater control over local resources. I typically support local decision-making, within the context of our constitution and other fundamental principles.

Tue, 2011-03-29 04:12

#21

Dana Larsen

politicalnick, your question about lobbying led me to an informative time on this website: http://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/

I'm not sure how we could "remove union and corporate lobbyists" as you suggest. A lobbyist is someone who is paid by an organization to talk to government officials to try to get a policy or legislation enacted.

I don't think we could make it illegal for any group or organization to talk to elected officials or to try to convince them of something. That is the nature of political discourse and it's going to happen no matter what. However, the Lobbyist Registry is a good idea as it helps to keep things transparent and above-board.

Tue, 2011-03-29 12:13

#22

Catchfire

Thanks Dana. babble appreciates the time you take here, during what must be an incredibly busy time. Good luck!

Tue, 2011-03-29 12:53

#23

pcml

Thank you for the comments

No offence but Horgan is already an MLA and I will support him

I will be as I said supporting only you and him

You do not really stand a chance and we have that libel with Gerry Scott from 2006 still in our minds

We mentioned you were given a non contested riding as reward for the cocaine libeling of another candidate

So we can never vote completely for you

Sorry but the issue is much more important than your political asperations

Thank you for standing up and bringing this issue to the table though

Cheers

Tue, 2011-03-29 18:04

#24

politicalnick

First let me say thank-you for taking the time to answer.

Dana Larsen wrote:

politicalnick, here's some answers to your questions.

1) I'm honestly not sure what you mean by removing corporate and union lobbyists from the system. Can you explain?

My position is that government is elected by the people and for people. I think this a generally accepted principle.

A corporation is a fictional legal entity give the standing of a person for the purpose of the law, a corporation cannot cast a ballot. Being that it is really nothing more than a piece of paper whose charter is to do nothing but make profit I do not think any such entity should have any standing in government. When such an entity sends paid representatives to attempt to influence policy for its own benefit it is quite often contrary to the interests of the people (it has no obligation to the people only to profit) and goes against the priciple in my position and the original intent of government.

I as an individual or even a group from my community do not have the funds to send teams of lawyers to Victoria for the entire session or throw lavish parties for politicians so we do not have equal access to governmnet or influence on the policy.

Banning corporate lobbying from government is a step towards putting the governmnet back on track to its original mandate and function to represent the people. Along with this would go the banning of corporate donations to campaigns which are also attempts to influence policy. If the CEO and board of directors want to make personal donations as allowed by law as individuals that is fine but company money should be removed.

Unions are slightly different as they are actually made up of individual people and do deserve access and influence based on this but are still able to access larger purses and thereby gain more influence. I can accept some limited lobby from trade unions so my original question should have been adjusted to 'limited union lobby'.

I hope this clarifies my position and allows you to answer more fully.

Dana Larsen wrote:

3) My platform includes rolling back all the Liberal corporate tax cuts since they took office in my first term. I'd also add a new tax bracket for the top 0.6% of earners; income over $250,000 would get an additional 11% tax. I'd use this revenue to balance the budget and immediately invest $500 million into K-12 education.

I think that the minimum threshold you propose could be a bit lower, say $200k, and possibly another even higher rate for those above $400k. I also think that some of the loopholes that some of these people use to legally avoid taxation should be investigated and closed but you offer a good start.

Dana Larsen wrote:

5) I don't think most people run for public office because of the salary, which is good but not extraordinary. I'd have to go look it up to see what an MLA earns in BC. Is there specific expenses that you think are being abused? I think it might be more worthwhile to put something in place that stops an elected official from accepting a seat on a board of directors for a certain amount of time after they have held office.

I do not think the basic salary is too far out of line though some of the recent increases for cabinet and the premier are unjustified. When it comes to abuse of expenses I do not believe that using a top dollar rental car or staying in 5 star hotels or eating at lavish restaurants are a good use of public funds. Nor is excessive travel for meetings in this technological age of conference calls and video conferences over the web. There is a lot of ways to save money here and I am looking for a commitment to reduce the cost of government operation.

While I agree with your position about accepting lucrative positions in the private sector after terms have expired, especially after helping enact legislation in that specific area, I would also suggest that political appointees should be more tailored to the post. Why would you appoint a lawyer or businessman to a position overseeing a technical body? I think a more tailored design of appointments should also be propped up by added involvement of individual citizens either through volunteers or independant citizen commitees.

I have emailed my original post to your website and would encourage you to contact me directly if you would like to go into more detail. I believe I could support your efforts in a meaningful way should you choose to ask.

Thank you again for taking the time to attend here on babble and answer the questions posed.

Tue, 2011-03-29 19:09

#25

melovesproles

Thanks Dana, that's really interesting hearing your recap of the other candidate's stated position's on your 'smart on crime' pillar. I'm surprised Farnworth offered the most substance although 'could have a referendum' is very politiciany and easy to back out of. Dix's answer is terrible and a total copout, that makes my ranking him a lot easier. Horgan's answer is typically 'folksy' and suggests he gets it without offering anything clear or substantial. I find that very frustratingly typical of his campaign, you get the feeling he might be on your side without him having to commit to saying very much.

I've really been impressed with your campaign and everyone I know plans to rank you first, I hope you do well!

Tue, 2011-03-29 19:49

#26

Ken Burch

pcml wrote:

Thank you for the comments

No offence but Horgan is already an MLA and I will support him

I will be as I said supporting only you and him

You do not really stand a chance and we have that libel with Gerry Scott from 2006 still in our minds

We mentioned you were given a non contested riding as reward for the cocaine libeling of another candidate

So we can never vote completely for you

Sorry but the issue is much more important than your political asperations

Thank you for standing up and bringing this issue to the table though

Cheers

passive-aggressive, hostile and vicious much?

Wed, 2011-04-06 13:22

#27

pcml

I think Dana Larsen has done an incredible job in this contest and deserves to be in this thing

I may have a beef with him personally but I respect the work he has done to getthis far and now say I hope he does very well

I know the effort it would take to do what he is doing and will work to support the work he has done

Good Luck Dana Larsen

Thu, 2011-04-07 15:41

#28

Anonymouse

Hi Dana. Don't know if you will have time to answer this but I would like to know what your views would be on a negative income tax. Thanks.

Sun, 2011-04-10 15:18

#29

Aristotleded24

Dana:

The [url=http://www.newwestpartnershiptrade.ca/]New West Partnership Trade Agreement[/url] (formerly TILMA) between Alberta, British Colombia, and Saskatchewan has gone into effect. Critics have criticized the agreement as [url=http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2007/25/c4849.html]a miniature NAFTA.[/url] I am not from British Colombia, but I am concerned about this issue because pressure will grow for Manitoba, my home province, to sign on. What is your position under this agreement? Do you believe it can be reformed to serve the public interest? Are you prepared to terminate BC's participation in this partnership?

Sun, 2011-04-10 15:56

#30

Dana Larsen

The "negative income tax" is something I've heard of before, and I think it is an interesting proposal, along with the idea of a Guaranteed Minimum Income.

As for the NWPTA/TILMA, I have made it part of my Democracy platform to withdraw from that agreement upon becoming Premier.

From my website at http://www.VoteDana.ca/platform

f) Withdraw from the NWPTA: As Premier, I would immediately announce BC's withdrawal from the New West Partnership Trade Agreement (NWPTA) between BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The NWPTA is the successor to the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA). These are anti-democratic agreements which restrict government programs, force labour and environmental standards to the lowest common denominator and empower corporations to sue provincial governmentsif they don't like public policy.

Sun, 2011-04-10 16:00

#31

Dana Larsen

On a seperate note, I have endorsed John Horgan as my second ballot choice.

I'm still in this race to win and hope to be the #1 choice for a majority of BCNDP members. But if I happen to be eliminated during the balloting proess, I will be putting my support behind John Horgan.

Since advance voting begins tomorrow (Monday) I feel this is the right time to announce my second ballot choice.

You can read my press release about this here: http://www.votedana.ca/johnhorgan