Election 2005

Burke Mountain Naturalists Provincial Election Candidates Questionnaire

Paul Geddes is the Libertarian candidate for the riding of Coquitlam-Maillardville. He responds here to a Provincial Election Candidates Questionnaire from the Burke Mountain Naturalists. He attempts here to bring a libertarian perspective to the various environmental issues raised in the questionnaire.

Burke Mountain Naturalists Provincial Election Candidates' Questionnaire

Please return by Friday, May 6. Fax (604-937-3483 between 9 am and 9 pm) or email (egolds@sfu.ca) preferred. Please indicate your yes or no response. Restrict written comments, if any, to the space provided. Thanks!

Name: Paul Geddes
Riding: Coquitlam-Maillardville
Party: Libertarian

Riverview Hospital: The provincial government has announced this hospital will close by 2007. Have you attended TreeFest or participated in tree or building tours at Riverview?

No

Do you support a continuation of provincial mental health care services by Riverview Hospital?

none of my business

Would you support designation of Riverview as a Heritage Site?

none of my business

Would you support increased provincial funds to adequately manage the arboretum?

No..fund should be voluntary

No? Would you support provincial funding to help restore West Lawn and other suitable buildings for alternate, non-hospital uses?

No...funds should be voluntary

Comments:

There is a valuable piece of real estate in the middle of Coquitlam and a small environmental lobby wants to use this land for their own purposes. The real question here, is what is the proper method of determining the best use of the Riverview lands? I object to the method of power in which a lobby group tries to use voting to determine the best use. Voting is very crude. There are either winners or losers and there is little ability to make mutually advantageous tradeoffs. Instead of having politicians (and those who seek favours from them) forcing everyone to go with what they think is best, I would favour giving control back to owners. Give all the citizens of BC a share in the Riverview lands and then let the competing interests try to obtain those shares from owners. If environmental groups can persuade enough citizens to give their shares to a Riverview Heritage Trust then people are showing their true tastes for more nature parks.

Coquitlam River: Do you support requiring a provincial permitting process for gravel mines such as those found along the Coquitlam River to ensure no damage is done to sensitive fish and wildlife habitat?

None of my business

Comments:

People have different tastes. Rather than predetermine what tastes should be allowed, as a libertarian I am more interested in finding methods for peacefully allowing people with different tastes to come up with mutually agreeable solutions. Some people want cheap houses and roads and care little about fish. Others are willing to sacrifice much personal comfort to save fish and wildlife. The problem in BC is that under current law, no one owns the river or rather complicated contradictory shared jurisdictions own the rivers. Libertarians believe in private property rights. Many rivers in Scotland and Northern England are owned by trusts who zealously guard these rivers from any intrusion. Like the Riverview issue, I would favour giving all citizens a share in the river which we would then be free to either sell to gravel interests, or a trust interested in a pristine river or perhaps some intermediary trust who can find a proper balance between river purity and everyday use. Rather than using politics to force us to a predetermined best solution, I would rather create a framework so we can find out what the public really thinks is better when they have something personal at stake (such as a share).

Provincial Parks: Do you support full and respectful public consultation prior to any major construction (e.g., lodges, roads) being undertaken in provincial parks?

None of my business

Will you support restoration of staff and funding levels in provincial parks equivalent to what is currently applied to federal parks?

None of my business

Do you support a priority being given to protection of critical wildlife habitat over construction of roads, tourism facilities, etc?

None of my business

Comments:

Governments do not have a good record at delivering good service at a reasonable price. It is strange that so many people think the government can run a park. Look what they've done to our schools, hospitals and post office. Why think this method of mismanagement can run parks? Libertarians would rather turn control of parks back to owners. Give out shares in these parks to each citizen. Citizens can then turn their shares over to groups such as the Burke Mountain Naturalists if they think such a group can create the type of park they most like. I don't think it should be the politicians job to micromanage particular uses for any park. There are too many competing interests which can only be resolved when an owner's interest is at stake.

Transportation: Do you support twinning the Port Mann Bridge?

None of my business

Do you support improved public transit options for the Fraser Valley and other GVRD communities?

No- funding should be from voluntary users

Comments:

What a mess governments have made of our transportation. They give us very expensive roads and ask citizens to pay indirectly for them (property taxes and gas taxes). We have constant warfare between taxpayers who want to pay less and particular groups of communters who want a favoured road or bus service subsidized. Libertarians would rather have users pay directly for the services they use. Thanks to cheaper metering technology, owners of roads and bridge should be able to charge users directly. Imagine, with the information from your monthly road services bill, you could rationally plan a better commute or a better place to live. Currently we are too dependent on subsidies (someone else picking up the bill) and too many transportaion and living decisions are made blindly.

So libertarians would ensure that all future bridges and highways should be tolled. We would also favour rescinding regulations which prevent private transportation companies from competing with the current government monopoly.

Agricultural Lands: Do you support the preservation of agricultural land in the ALR?

No

What would your party do to strengthen the ability of the ALC to prevent further land loss from the ALR?

The ALR legislation should be repealed. It is a restriction which prevents an owner from finding the use for their land that best pleases others. Thanks to technology, world food prices continue to drop as farmers find better and better ways to grow more and better food for us on less and less land. The ALR is a factor in encouraging sprawl (by preventing the devolopement of nearby Burnaby and Richmond land). It encourages corruption of government when people realize that a stroke of a bureacratic pen can turn worthless farmland into valuable developable land.

If homeowners would rather live next to farmland (instead of other homeowners), the civilized way to accomplish this is by making trust agreements (and payments to) farmers instead of stealing the value of farmer's land by voting restrictions on them.

Species At Risk: Do you support adding the existing candidates for listing to the provincial Species at Risk legal list?

None of my business

Will your party empower provincial fish and wildlife biologists so that they can take effective measures to protect habitat for these species at risk?

None of my business

Comments:

Not everyone has the same tastes. We must find a way for those who are willing to pay and sacrifice to help certain species do this. I would support the establishment of more voluntary trusts who can take ownership of certain species the trusts deem important.

Climate Change: Do you believe human actions are causing global warming?

Perhaps, but very little if any

Will your party take effective measures so that BC can meet its obligations under the Kyoto Accord?

No

Do you support maintaining the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling?

None of my business

What will your party do to reduce the greenhouse gases produced by electrical generation in BC?

I would not favour meeting the obligations of the flawed Kyoto Accord. So far the Accord is little more than a wish to accomplish a goal (which may not be of use) using unknown means. No sane person would sign a contract without knowing costs or obligations. Why would government?

Companies should be allowed to drill offshore provided they legitimately obtain property rights to do so and don't interfere in anyone elses legitimate property rights.

Significant Projects Streamlining Act: Will your party repeal this legislation?

We would also repeal the legislation that made this act necessary

Comments:

Strange isn't it. Governments have passed silly and contradictory legislation and then must find a way around their own laws to accomplish beneficial things. We need some serious de-regulation in BC so silly acts like this one aren't necessary.

Tax Shifting: Does your party support shifting some of the tax burden from regular personal and business income to that derived from environmentally damaging activities?

No

Will your party reduce subsidies to polluting resource industries?

Yes

Comments:

I wouldn't want elected environmentalists to impose their tastes on me. I would be very fearful of who would decide which particular activities are harmful. People have many tastes and libertarians would rather favour the strengthening of property rights so that other people don't impose their private tastes on you and your property. Naturally, libertarians don't want anything subsidized.

Public Participation for a Clean Environment: Will your party commit to give citizens the ability to apply for an investigation of alleged violations of environmental laws similar to what is in place in Ontario? Yes? No?
Comments:

The most important environmental law is the right to private property. We already have the right to seek damages when others place their garbage on our property. Unfortunately, government has made seeking legal justice too expensive but that is a different philosphical discussion.