One week to go before the writ is dropped and the parties start their official dash to government. What positions could the parties take to gain some support at least at the local level?
When Canadians are polled about the issues which matter most, invariably health care, education, environment and social programs rank right up there. In the last federal election, Canadians were also worried about the future of the Canada Pension Plan.
But for the past four years, the governing B.C. Liberals have focused on the economy because when you boil all the issues down to the issue that really matters, to quote an American pundit, "it's the economy, stupid."
The B.C. Liberals know this.
It is why they govern the way they do. It is why they have structured their budgets the way they have. It is why they are running on their economic record and why they will remind us of the "bad old days" under the NDP when the economy failed.
It didn't province-wide. Indeed, if one does the research and looks at economic growth and activity for any of the last four decades, it averages out to pretty much the same regardless of the government of the day - Socred, NDP, B.C. Liberal. Prince George did suffer in the late 1990s with high unemployment but that had more to do with external factors and not the government.
In any case, how well the economy is doing will drive this coming election campaign. Questions about any other concern will ultimately come back to an economic answer.
Education? "Well, now the books are balanced and we are likely to see government surpluses over the next four years, we can start to re-invest in education."
Health-care? Same answer.
Environment? Ditto.
That said, there are issues which should be on the table. For example, the Softwood Lumber Agreement is percolating in the background.
It might blow up before May 9. It certainly has the potential particularly with U.S. President Donald Trump ordering a complete review of trade with Canada, among other nations.
If the Americans maintain their position that Canadian companies are undercutting U.S. firms by dumping subsidized lumber into the American market, the fight will continue.
Forestry is not as dominant as it was 40 years ago in this province but it is still a significant employer. The prospect of mill closures and layoffs in the middle of an election could blow a hole in the B.C. Liberals message of economic progress.
Is the Softwood Lumber Agreement likely to be a wedge issue between the parties? No. I suspect both the B.C. Liberals and the NDP will promise to vigorously defend our forest industry and tell us they will get the best deal for the province.
On the other hand, it is the sort of issue which could be mishandled during the campaign.
Some candidates might dismiss it as a "trivial concern" or only relevant to northern communities or something we are willing to sacrifice for the sake of better relations in the film industry. Those are the sort of "gotcha" comments which can blow up in a party's face. Discussing the agreement won't help either side but it could hurt one or the other.
Site C is in the same boat. Any position on the issue will sway some voters.
The B.C. Liberals seem to be on a full-steam ahead approach. The premier promised to get it past the point of no return before this election. The NDP seem to be waffling on the issue. The environmental damage is significant and there are disputes with First Nations and local landowners, but ultimately the electricity will be needed to grow the economy.
The NDP's solution, so far, appears to be to send it for more review and hope some other level of the bureaucracy will relieve them of the necessity of actually making a decision.
Not necessarily the best strategy in an election.
Climate change and its long term impact on the economy is another issue which needs to be discussed. The B.C. Liberals brought in their carbon tax and are quite proud to be seen as an environmental leader. Except the Fraser Institute recently released a report damning the tax and suggesting it should be removed. It is a drag on the economy and will inhibit prosperity.
But how can the other parties position themselves on this issue?
Carefully is about the best answer because they do not want to look like they are soft on climate change.
It is impacting our forests and agricultural base while undermining our economic well-being.
Perhaps more important is intergenerational equity - we shouldn't be messing up the planet for our children and grandchildren.
All of this and I have failed to mention health care and education, but those are for next week.
