Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

ADAM OLSEN: When more voices are added to the mix the decisions become more complex, and more of the public interest is considered in the debate


I was on a panel at the College of Applied Biology conference last week. Our task was to Define the Public Interest.

The panel included Andrew Gage (Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law), Kevin Kriese (Chair, Forest Practices Board) and Jody Shimkus (VP of Environment and Regulatory Affairs, Kirk Environmental.)

It was an interesting group with a diverse set of experiences and approaches. 


Defining the public interest is an ever-morphing target. It's been a big part of my pursuit as an elected official. I am always seeking the point where the interests of individuals and the interests of the collective meet. I pointed out that even in that conference room, there are 200 individuals who are unique and each have interests, while at the same time there is the collective interests of the group as a whole.

There are approximately 50,000 individuals in my riding. They each have opinions and ideas. In every decision I make, I know my constituents will fall somewhere in the range of agree to disagree and vice versa. Also, there are countless special interests in my communities, represented by collections of individuals. They also need to be factored in the decision.


Getting connected

The dictionary definition of the public interest is the "well-being of the general public; commonwealth.” That means looking out for the common health of our relationships with each other and the ecosystems that sustain us.


Serving the public interest requires a deep connection with the broad / diverse and narrow / focused representations of my constituency. Politicians and political parties like to categorize people and ideas, name them and lump them together into big broad groups.

For decades in our province the public interest has been represented by a binary choice: either this or that. This makes the binary choice (yea or nay) of our decisions in the legislature easier. But easier is not always better. When more voices are added to the mix, the decisions become more complex and more of the public interest is considered in the debate.

At the end of the hour-long panel discussion we got about as far as I have got in this post. 

I'm just scratching the surface. There is so much more to explore in this issue, fodder for future posts.


Adam Olsen ... is a Green Party Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia for Saanich North and the Islands.

Born in Victoria, BC in 1976, Adam has lived, worked and played his entire life on the Saanich Peninsula. He is a member of Tsartlip First Nation (W̱JOȽEȽP), where he and his wife, Emily, are raising their two children, Silas and Ella.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

RCMP gag order comes after BC NDP catch heat for diverted safe supply (Northern Beat)

In the wake of several high-profile police drug seizures of suspected safer supply that put the BC NDP government on the defensive last month, BC RCMP “E” division issued a gag order on detachments, directing them to run all communications on “hot button” public safety issues through headquarters in the lead-up to the provincial election. “It is very clear we are in a pre-election time period and the topic of ‘public safety’ is very much an issue that governments and voters are discussing,” writes a senior RCMP communications official in an email dated Mar. 11 in what appears to have gone out to all BC RCMP detachments . . . . CLICK HERE for the full story

KRUGELL: BC NDP turns its attention from BC United to BC Conservatives

The BC NDP turning its attention, from BC United, to BC Conservatives was reported over the weekend from a variety of sources. It is the result of the surge in the BC Conservative's polling numbers and the subsequent collapse of BC United. The NDP has largely ignored the BC Conservatives, instead they opt to talk about issues directly or attack their old foes BC United. Practical politics says that parties closer to the centre tend to ultimately prevail over the long haul. They do wane but often make comebacks. A good example is the federal Liberals going from third party to government in 2015. Centrism has a lot of appeal on voting day. The NDP shifting its fire from United to Conservative is a reflection of reality. BC United did buy advertising online and radio over the last few months. Did that shift the polls back to them? Nope. The reality is today, the BC Conservatives are the party of the Opposition, and day by day the Conservatives are looking like a party not ready to fig

Baldrey: 2024 meets 1991? How B.C. election history could repeat itself (Times Colonist)

NOTE ... not the original image from Keith Baldrey's op/ed 1991 BC general election -- Wikipedia   A veteran NDP cabinet minister stopped me in the legislature hallway last week and revealed what he thinks is the biggest vulnerability facing his government in the fall provincial election. It’s not housing, health care, affordability or any of the other hot button issues identified by pollsters. "I think we are way too complacent,” he told me. “Too many people on our side think winning elections are easy.” He referenced the 1991 election campaign as something that could repeat itself. What was supposed to be an easy NDP victory then almost turned into an upset win for the fledgling BC Liberal Party. Indeed, the parallels between that campaign and the coming fall contest are striking ... CLICK HERE for the full story

Labels

Show more